RE: Neo-Nazis Fly Under Radar
October 15, 2012 at 3:50 pm
(This post was last modified: October 15, 2012 at 3:53 pm by Something completely different.)
i`m not, in any kind of way, trying to not give a clarification, and thereby pushing you out of this dialog because of arrogant reasons.
what i meant by this question was; that it doesn`t seem right\justifiable\reasonable to me, to give people rights, thereby meaning liberties, wich those people, if they had power would take away from you.
I think that in a Republic, the goverment has a monopoly power on goverment, law and executive action.
We had cases in this country in wich for example muslim comunities refused to cooperate with the authorities after a member of it`s comunitie was beaten up, and they would rather resolve this through a illegal "sharia" court.
I do not think that organisations, wich officialy undermine the Republic they live in should imediatly be forbidden.
What I do believe and what is the law in my country is; when a organisation officialy wants to abolish the republic, replace it with a tyranic system and claims violence to be a justifiable way of doing this, it should be banned.
Thereby the "violence" part doesnt nececerily have to be a public statement, it is enought if that organisation talks violence inofficialy to have it banned.
My nation lived through 2 dictatorships in the past 60 years, we (probably out of these historic reasons) have developed a set of cultural political values wich is set on protecting the democracy eaven if it means to abolish undemocratic organisations.
It is true that this will drive a undemocratic organisation into a potentaly more violent underground. But most democracys are overthrown not by a militant underground organisation, but by totalitarion organisation wich pose as democratic and get elected.
what i meant by this question was; that it doesn`t seem right\justifiable\reasonable to me, to give people rights, thereby meaning liberties, wich those people, if they had power would take away from you.
I think that in a Republic, the goverment has a monopoly power on goverment, law and executive action.
We had cases in this country in wich for example muslim comunities refused to cooperate with the authorities after a member of it`s comunitie was beaten up, and they would rather resolve this through a illegal "sharia" court.
I do not think that organisations, wich officialy undermine the Republic they live in should imediatly be forbidden.
What I do believe and what is the law in my country is; when a organisation officialy wants to abolish the republic, replace it with a tyranic system and claims violence to be a justifiable way of doing this, it should be banned.
Thereby the "violence" part doesnt nececerily have to be a public statement, it is enought if that organisation talks violence inofficialy to have it banned.
My nation lived through 2 dictatorships in the past 60 years, we (probably out of these historic reasons) have developed a set of cultural political values wich is set on protecting the democracy eaven if it means to abolish undemocratic organisations.
It is true that this will drive a undemocratic organisation into a potentaly more violent underground. But most democracys are overthrown not by a militant underground organisation, but by totalitarion organisation wich pose as democratic and get elected.
