this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
204 points (95.5% liked)

World News

55855 readers
1715 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ would be criminalised under proposed state law

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kaligalis@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

That's just what total democracy looks like. Completely normal. In Germany, some political parties (left and right) are also banned to make sure they can't ever be elected.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Germany is not a total democracy, whatever that's supposed to mean.

And so far there have only been three parties that have been been banned since 1945 and those are

  • NSDAP by the Allies in 1945 for obvious reasons

  • SRP in 1952 because they were a successor party of the NSDAP

  • KPD in 1956 because they wanted to abolish democracy in favour of a soviet system

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Given that Germany's democratic state supports genocide and bans anti-genocide speech, I think the KPD were probably right.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'd rather have a damaged democracy than a totalitarian regime.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What you mean is "I would prefer to have a high degree of personal freedom for myself while my government supports genocide of others, rather than have less personal freedom while my government doesn't support genocide."

Apropos of nothing, Nazi Germany wasn't a bad place to live if you weren't one of the targeted groups and if you stayed in line and didn't espouse the wrong politics. Until the war came home and the bombs started falling, anyway.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're either willfully ignorant or plain stupid. Either way I'm not wasting any more time with you.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

You wouldn't have been a fanatical Nazi if you were around 85 years ago, but you would have tacitly supported them.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago

I wonder what the legal basis for this is? Is there a constitutional provision that allows banning of parties that seek to end democracy?

If so, I wonder how that would work for someone that wanted to end electoral democracy, but not for any malevolent purpose? For example, instead advocated for a different or non-electoral democratic system, but still with noble intentions? For instance, under the German system, could a party lawfully argue to a system based on sortition?

In sortition, public offices are assigned by lottery, as we handle jury selection today. It doesn't guarantee the most competent leader will be elected, but elections also clearly don't select for the most competent leader. The main advantage of sortition is that, unlike elections, it doesn't select for the most power-hungry and psychopathic members of society. It's long been said that no one who actually wants power should be given it, and sortition is a way of solving that problem.

Could someone in Germany advocate for moving to sortition, or would that violate some constitutional provision meant to protect electoral democracy?