Search results

I do - why change it? Other than a few Looneys, the Germans don't want to. I'd suggest having a quick read of this, especially the introduction. http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/parliament/function/legal/germanbasiclaw.pdf The Basic Law is a fantastic piece of history that the Allies and the...

Yes I do. By banning it and continuing to do so. Free speech for everyone really is not always the most important thing. Of course, the people who set these things up were the Allies, as well as de-Nazified German politicians back then. I'd say the Basic Law of 1949 is a crucially-important...

No it's not. They're banned for the best reasons in the world - sorry to make this sound like the deja vue thread - and if they're banned for one group with one particular set of motives, you can't unban them and put the the police of speculating as to what the person carrying it might be...

No it's not. It's banned for about the best reasons in the world, plus I'd be amazed if the protester didn't know that.

Quite simply, no. All constitutions are by their nature political. As such, there are times when free speech on every single matter (as generally clamoured for by the extreme right, say - I'm far from implying that you are, of course) is a far less important concept than that of political...

You're clearly a very decent and clever bloke so, for once if I say "with respect", I actually mean it - but with respect I do just think this is a dangerously complacent point of view which also rankles with my sense of disbelief that one easily can summarise the ongoing points of view...

What a jolly splendid load of rather smug and complacent tosh and poppycock what what old bean - for starters, the Daily Mail doted on Hitler throughout the 1930s and actively supported him right up to the point where war broke out, campaiging for Nazi Germany to have its pre-1918 colonies...

Are you f***ing mad? "Reclaiming" "sieg heil"? :nono: :nono: WTF?