Lash wrote:I would believe, if I were a Nazi, that my public memberhip in that party would make me suspect, and I'd be watched by the government.
Yes, so it is. ( The Offices for the Protection of the Constitution announces every year, which parties are 'observed'.)
Lash wrote:If I were a Nazi, because of the law, my affiliation, support and sentiments would be secret.
No, not generally at least. Even convicted Nazis act later again openly.
Walter Hinteler wrote: (I think Thomas noted it already: we had some members of different Nazi parties elected in some state's paliaments, there are still in some municipies.)
That was nimh, but he is correct of course. Perhaps we should explain to our American and Canadian readers what it means to be elected in some state parliament. Unlike North America, our parliament seats are filled through proportionate representation, not a majority vote system. Hence, if a Nazi makes it into parliament, this doesn't mean that there is a district in which he won a majority. It only means that the party had a large enough percentage of the vote to be worth one parliament seat. In Germany's federal and state legislatures, that means 5%. In municipal councils, depending on the state they're in, it's either 5% or 100/n %, where n is the total number of seats on the council.
Walter-- If you can police thought and emotion, then you have indeed surpassed my insight into this issue.
Chumly wrote:Lash wrote:They are there. You just can't see them, because they are muzzled. This is not because you are in Germany. I believe this fact would exist in any country with the muzzle law, to a degree.
Even without such laws I find it very difficult to believe one can predict what people will do when push comes to shove.
I agree. I think that the law makes it even MORE difficult to predict.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but just very clearly clarify my opinion.
Lash wrote:Walter-- If you can police thought and emotion, then you have indeed surpassed my insight into this issue.
No, I can't.
And sorry, I din't know about your insights on this issue - why did and do you hide your knowledge?
You seem to take this subject matter very personally.
Nevertheless, laws created to stifle expression--are generally successful, and that success generally affects expression, not the emotion behind it.
It may make the emotion behind it more vicious.
Lash wrote:You seem to take this subject matter very personally.
Yes, I do.
And as said above, I've worked with both sites - the (neo-) Nazis and those who observe them.
Generally, when one is emotionally invested, it makes a logical analysis difficult to impossible.
Lash wrote:Generally, when one is emotionally invested, it makes a logical analysis difficult to impossible.
That's true.
But I didn't actually refer to my - perhaps - emotions about this but to the facts I've learnt personally and about would I wrote (thesis) and taught (university of applied sciences for civil service/police) academically.
The only emotions I've really just now about this are more personal and perhaps private: I'm doing some recherches for a biography/book about an 'Higher SS and Police Officer' just now.
Sounds very interesting. Good luck with it.
There is a ton of neonazis that just tread water more carefully. Authorities get more and more frustrated when they can't do anything to break these organized groups apart and it usually ends in skirmishes between skinheads/neonazis/ultra natioinalists and anarchists/hippies/whatnot. Or foreigners and Roma (gypsies) are attacked, beaten, or killed. I thus view the laws as extremely important to have in place. Naturally they have to be used with prudence, which is not something you can always expect of government.
We have one political party, Pospolitost, that everybody knows is neo Nazi to the core. Its members dress for gatherings into uniforms that resemble those of the Black Arrows - the Slovak version of the SS during WWII. They do have a lawyer working for them - it cannot be proved legally that uniforms are based on this and that the sign they bare is essentially an altered swastika. They are officially a nationalist party and will deny links to neonazism at every occasion. they do, however, give out leaflets "don't buy from a Jew", "white Slovakia", "Hungarians or Gypsies out!" When you browse through their website, your blood curdles. They are known for inciting violent clashes, but there's never enough proof to bust them. This may be very different from Irving's case, but principle is the same: I would love to see them busted and their group dispersed, because when it comes to decision whether to protect innocent civilians or to protect freedom of speech and assembly of dangerous xenophobic idiots, i will not hesitate for one second which side i'm on.
The slovak yout in action:
geeze louise, apologies for the gigantic photo. it wasn't that big on the original site.
don't you love their garden torches? i thought that was a nice touch.
Well, seeing that photo (I nearly missed it
):
such a
troop would be surrounded by the treble number (at least) of policemen in Germany .... and these two groups by - depending where it happens - between some hundred up to thousand(s) of protesters.
there is police, always. and the troupe makes sure they don't engage in violence WHEN in their uniforms. they sure as hell do when they are in civilian clothes - read bombers, steel toed boots, carrying chains and bats...
Thomas wrote:That was nimh, but he is correct of course. Perhaps we should explain to our American and Canadian readers...
oh and British and Fijjian and strange people from Bretagne Minores. Being left out can be quite hurtful you know Thomas.
All we have now are the Minuteman... and they don't even march in uniform.
Walter I would hope you did not take offense to my questions and views as I am not directly emotionally invested and view things from quite a distance both physically and emotionally, despite my ethnic origin as a Jew.
