IMMIGRATION thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Still smacks of 'thought policing' to me. Unless and until he incites harm against another, his hateful opinions are his own problem. Belief in the tropes of Nazism brands you as a bit of an idiot, but stupidity is not criminal.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is where it gets interesting, he was only one of sixty people who had their computers seized.
He is part of a group yes?
The group is closely monitored by the German domestic security service because it has issued death threats against "traitors".

Okay, if there is any perception of credibility from the threats, THAT would justify investigation and possible prosecution. I just hate efforts to make laws about a person's thoughts and the expression thereof. I believe people have a right to idiotic views (as long as they don't represent a threat to the neighbors).

[Husar]

Okay, if there is any perception of credibility from the threats, THAT would justify investigation and possible prosecution. I just hate efforts to make laws about a person's thoughts and the expression thereof. I believe people have a right to idiotic views (as long as they don't represent a threat to the neighbors).

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

[Fragony]

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

The exreme-right is so marginal in Germany that that isn't a 'what if' worth bothering with

[Husar]

The exreme-right is so marginal in Germany that that isn't a 'what if' worth bothering with

It is a question every society has to ask at some point and I asked it in general, not just about Germany.
I fully understand Seamus' point, it's just that a border may have to be drawn somewhere or does the democratic will of a majority of the population who want a dictator trump the supposedly "universal truth" that a democratic government is best for a people?
A better country to compare with than German would be Turkey. If it is the democratic will of the (majority of) people that Erdogan can do what he wants with all the other people, should someone deny them the realization of that idea? Many or even most modern European democracies would say yes. Trump may actually say no. So yes, I think it is a relevant question because the process of political voting is a process of turning ideas into realities.

[Fragony]

It's pretty baffling what's happening in Turkey (and Turkish organisations and communitiesin Europe) but it's another discussion, it's a matter of law and the guy who's house was searched didn't commit any crime, so it comes close to thought-policing, or already is really. You don't have to like him

[Husar]

it's another discussion
[...]
thought-policing

But isn't that exactly the discussion?

[Legs]

It's pretty baffling what's happening in Turkey (and Turkish organisations and communitiesin Europe) but it's another discussion, it's a matter of law and the guy who's house was searched didn't commit any crime, so it comes close to thought-policing, or already is really. You don't have to like him

Good grief, its a matter of law, it is illegal and he admitted doing it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

Potentially. One of the joys of having a written Constitution as we have in the USA is that the government -- even WERE a group of like-minded skinhead-esque yahoos able to work together long enough and well enough to win a plurality in a significant election -- isn't permitted to just toss aside Constitutional constraints and rule by fiat. In the final analysis, THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment, were our government to try to do so then the government would be changed. We pay a price for that safety from tyranny in lives, but it serves as our ultimate constraint on government and, by extension, the skinhead-fascist who would impose her views on us through force.

We thus can afford to let people express themselves -- even those whose expressions are patent nonsense.

In addition, our courts have long maintained the concept of "clear and present danger" as the standard for free speech. You can call for change, advocate racism, deny the mountains of evidence that confirm the Holocaust, even insist that the only true deity is a wheat noodle. When you call for violence, when you encourage violence, when you sanction violence your speech becomes actionable as a clear and present danger to the rights of the larger community.

I don't know quite how Germany sets things up so that the idiot can express herself AND the community is comfortable with that expression because it is a null as a threat -- your history is much different from ours on this. I just don't think that thought police laws are very enforceable or, in terms of human rights, wise.

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

[Viking]

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

The majority of the people who armed themselves could be supporters of the fascist government rather than opponents of it, lessening or removing the need for military intervention.

[Husar]

Potentially. One of the joys of having a written Constitution as we have in the USA is that the government -- even WERE a group of like-minded skinhead-esque yahoos able to work together long enough and well enough to win a plurality in a significant election -- isn't permitted to just toss aside Constitutional constraints and rule by fiat. In the final analysis, THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment, were our government to try to do so then the government would be changed. We pay a price for that safety from tyranny in lives, but it serves as our ultimate constraint on government and, by extension, the skinhead-fascist who would impose her views on us through force.

We thus can afford to let people express themselves -- even those whose expressions are patent nonsense.

In addition, our courts have long maintained the concept of "clear and present danger" as the standard for free speech. You can call for change, advocate racism, deny the mountains of evidence that confirm the Holocaust, even insist that the only true deity is a wheat noodle. When you call for violence, when you encourage violence, when you sanction violence your speech becomes actionable as a clear and present danger to the rights of the larger community.

I don't know quite how Germany sets things up so that the idiot can express herself AND the community is comfortable with that expression because it is a null as a threat -- your history is much different from ours on this. I just don't think that thought police laws are very enforceable or, in terms of human rights, wise.

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

The majority of the people who armed themselves could be supporters of the fascist government rather than opponents of it, lessening or removing the need for military intervention.

What Viking said is my answer to your first part, Seamus. See Turkey, where the population took to the streets in support of the ever-more dictatorial Erdogan when the military of all things wanted to "save democracy", whatever one may think about that.

Nazi Germany, the GDR/DDR, North Korea and China may also beg to differ on the part where controlling a population is impossible. It doesn't work for the US elsewhere because the US are not willing / cannot afford to create an atmosphere of fear and repression. Even the ragtag ISIS "government" seems to have large areas under control using such fear tactics and public executions. You might even want to say this sort of system worked during the entire Middle Ages all over the world. Fear of death is a strong motivator, just see how muslims are often removed from planes because someone else fears them or how we spent billions on body scanners and other airport security. Both the Nazis and the DDR used that fear through the establishment of secret spy networks within the population. You do not need to control the thoughts, but if people don't dare talk about their thoughts to anyone, you basically prevent the formation of a sizeable resistance in most cases because people either don't dare to organize or get caught and ruthlessly executed before the movement is big and strong enough.

I'd say you need at the very least 20%, better 30% or more of the population in support of such a regime, but with the right incentives you can find such percentages in many countries.

If you assume for a minute that Trump would establish a similar system when elected and have around 50% of the voting population backing him up, where would the armed rebellion come from? The democratic gun control supporters? If those Trump supporters then supported the right of store owners to reject muslim customers for example, and then after two years, Trump and congress would pass a law banning muslims from entering shopping malls because it's just too dangerous to have them there and so on...perhaps they'd have to wear an armband with a crescent on it, too...
You think that could never happen? I would surely hope so, but I'm not so sure.

I mean I see your point and I like it, it's just once a sizeable majority uses the freedom to think what they want to think and express that others should be barred from those same freedoms that I think the freedom sort of defeats itself...

[Fragony]

Just a thought the Hus, isn't it kinda ironic that you are the one who thinks up doomsday scenarios

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
I mean I see your point and I like it, it's just once a sizeable majority uses the freedom to think what they want to think and express that others should be barred from those same freedoms that I think the freedom sort of defeats itself...

I cannot argue that what you say is impossible. I can assert that USA culture, from inception to present, does NOT lend itself to such. A tyranny of the majority would have to be profound majority to re-cast things in a fascist mold given our system. And yes, it is the cultural difference above all that spells the difference.

Different places, with different traditions and cultural views HAVE taken the "boot on the neck" approach and used it successfully for decades at a stretch. That is why I expressed myself as I did -- I am not going to claim that I am so knowledgeable of your culture that I could judge the rightness of such laws in that context. I only expressed reservations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
If you assume for a minute that Trump would establish a similar system when elected and have around 50% of the voting population backing him up, where would the armed rebellion come from? The democratic gun control supporters? If those Trump supporters then supported the right of store owners to reject muslim customers for example, and then after two years, Trump and congress would pass a law banning muslims from entering shopping malls because it's just too dangerous to have them there and so on...perhaps they'd have to wear an armband with a crescent on it, too...
You think that could never happen? I would surely hope so, but I'm not so sure....

You might be surprised....

Link

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The majority of the people who armed themselves could be supporters of the fascist government rather than opponents of it, lessening or removing the need for military intervention.

Mathematically possible, but would hinge on a cultural "sea-change" that seems exceedingly improbable.

[Fragony]

Sympathising with nazi's is not a crime, I don't understand why someone sympethises with nazi's but if someone does so what really. I'm not going to buy him a beer but sympathise with nazi's all you want as long as you don't harm anyone

[Legs]

Sympathising with nazi's is not a crime,

That depends on the different legislation different countries have. It also depends on how the "sympathy" is expressed.
Does Germany have such laws?
Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.


Looks like they do.

[Legs]

What about the "Are you incredibly stupid?"

Well neo nazi marches have been widely coverered on the tv news and in print media.
It would be pretty difficult to not know what flags they like to carry on their protests, unless you knew virtually nothing about the subject you were talking about.
So if a person wanted to make a claim that the flag has no connection with neo nazis in germany it isn't something that is hard to check before they went ahead and made the claim.

So does "ignorant" or "wilfully ignorant" describe it better than "incredibly stupid"? Because the only possible deductions are;
A
a person doesn't know what they are talkling about but is still making claims on the subject.
B
a person does know what they are talking about but is making a claim that is clearly false.

Either one of which can only lead to questions about the level of intelligence being applied by the person.