Germany's top court rules far-right party ineligible for funding
Germany's top court rules far-right party ineligible for funding
The vice-president of the court said that the party's political concept was incompatible with the German constitution's guarantee of human dignity.
The vice-president of the court said that the party's political concept was incompatible with the German constitution's guarantee of human dignity.
Germany's highest court ruled on Tuesday that a small far-right party will not receive state funding for the next six years because its values and goals are unconstitutional and aimed at destroying the country's democracy.
In its judgment, the Federal Constitutional Court wrote that Die Heimat, formerly known as the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), "continues to disregard the free democratic basic order and, according to its goals and the behaviour of its members and supporters, is aimed at its elimination".
Presiding Judge Doris Koenig, the court's vice-president, explained the unanimous decision by saying that the party's political concept was incompatible with the guarantee of human dignity as defined in Germany's constitution, the Basic Law.
You're viewing a single thread.
I wish we could implement this in the US.
No you don't. As bad as the American Republican party might be, they are not THIS bad.
From the NPD wikipedia page:
The Homeland is a neo-Nazi political party. [...]
The Homeland argues that NATO fails to represent the interests and needs of European people. The party considers the European Union to be little more than a reorganization of a Soviet-style government of Europe along financial lines. [...] The Homeland is strongly anti-Zionist, frequently criticizing the policies and activities of Israel.
The Homeland's platform asserts that Germany is larger than the present-day Federal Republic, and calls for a return of German territory lost after World War II, a foreign policy position abandoned by the German government in 1990.
Sounds exactly like the GOP. They want to pull the US out of NATO and want a return to the confederacy.
That's because they are funded by the same people.
Can you elaborate on the "the GOP wants to return to the confederacy" thing? As you can probably tell I am not American, don't really follow your politics that much. Referencing anything in particular? I don't think I've ever heard of it.
Anyway, I feel like you have kinda overlooked my last point, where NPD is openly claiming areas in the borders of their neighbours. That's a pretty big deal, coming from a neo nazi party in the country that started WW2. And I don't recall reading about the GOP having similar policies.
They were referencing the US far-right's desire to recreate the failed slave state known as the Confederate States of America (CSA, aka The Confederacy). The CSA was formed in Feb 8, 1861 by seven Southern US states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas; South Carolina declared secession in Dec 1860; Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia joined by mid-1861, making the number eleven) when their goverments declared secession from the US, an action not recogized as legal under US law.
The principal reasons given by the states that found it important enough to document were the preservation and expansion of chattle slavery of those of African descent and enforcing white supremacy (this is the "states' right" that US conservatives refer to). The white supremacists were concerned about the potential abolition of slavery, the ban of slavery in new provinces, and freestates' refusal to enforce runaway slave laws aft civil war when Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, a US Army fort off the coast of South Carolina.
The CSA was marred not just by a particularly brutal form of slavery but also great wealth disparity and a severe lack of industrial capacity, due to its agrarian, plantation-slavery economy, run by its slaveowner aristocracy. Their military thus lacked domestic arms manufacturing capacity. This resulted in having to rely upon imported arms that quickly saw problems due to naval blockades, and suffered from a lack of professional soldiers and officers.
On March 18th, 1865, the CSA's government adjourned for the last time, dissolving officially by its president on May 5th of that year, 5 days before his capture while attempting to in womens' clothing (actually a thing - TIL). The span of its existence (4.25 years) is shorter than the airing of the creepy American child beauty pageant reality TV show "Toddlers & Tiaras" (4.8 years).
tl;dr - "The Confederacy" is referring to the failed slave state that fucked around and found out.
Hi, thanks for the lenghty explanation. Sorry, I should have been clearer in my reply, I am aware of what the confederacy was, historically. My concern was more about what they meant when saying that the GOP might have wanted to return to that. I do know a thing or two about American politics, but I just don't recall ever hearing about them having similar stances.
Make no mistake, I am not defending the Republicans here. From my point of view they are definitely the worst of the two parties and some of their policies are downright evil (including but not limited to: privatizations, opposing welfare, opposing national healthcare, opposing public transport...).
My entire point in this was just saying: I don't think they are as bad, evil, dangerous or even criminal as the neo nazi parties currently running in Germany, in particular the topic of discussion, NPD.
Except for the anti-zionist thing (the American GOP is seemingly Zionist and antisemitic at the same time) and the German-specific stuff, this sounds a lot like Republicans.
the American GOP is seemingly Zionist and antisemitic at the same time
They're Evangelic pro-Rapture Zionists, not pro-Jewish security Zionists.
Really? You want the Supreme Court to determine which political organizations are ineligible for participation in the democracy?
Did you read the article? Because that's not what I'm agreeing with.
Seems like this is just for state funding, not dissolving the party.
So, it doesn’t really apply at all to the US?
What point are you even trying to make?
Top level comment is dumb.
Well, you can't even formulate why it's dumb.
Is it because you feel stupid that it wasn't the gotcha you thought it was, or is it because you're stupid and didn't read the article correctly?