Why is it illegal to say Sieg Heil in Germany?

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Who is the Fat bloke standing with Lord Rothermere?

 

[Billy the Fish]

Are there any other symbols stuff that we can reclaim from the fascists? I'm sure Pol Pot and general Pinochet must've had some pretty cool stuff.

 

[Les Biehn]

Are there any other symbols stuff that we can reclaim from the fascists? I'm sure Pol Pot and general Pinochet must've had some pretty cool stuff.

I was discusing with my mum and dad who our favourite dictators were. Father Biehn went for Mussolini, Mother Biehn went for Pol Pot. I couldn't make my mind up because they are all so great but I think I would have to go with Stalin. But I also like Idi and Nicky C(eausescu).

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Those fun loving Nazis. Heres some more of Hillbilly's favourite symbols of oppression.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I'll stand by that statement that we British don't like extremist politics. Sure - you'll find individuals who do but none that have had sustained success at the ballot box.

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 throughout of some 50-60 million people - I'd say "we British" (OK, ahem) have only had the extremes kept thankgully on the sidelines by the FPTP voting system - anti-semitism was rife in the UK in the 1930s, say. Replicate the right circumstances, the extremes of poverty and weak political structures of Weimar, say, and I see no reason whatsoever why what happened there couldn't happen anywhere else, the UK included. I can't remember who said it but there's a quote somewhere about the Nazis being in all of us. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

The real tragedy of the current far right in the UK is that in fact, the UK IS, I think, seen throughout the world as a fair and tolerant place, with a truly great tradition of accepting refugees at times of crisis, such as the 1930s for example. They betray that proud legacy.

 

[Buzzer]

Strangely, after the war, men who joined the Legion did not face charges for treason, and by and large slipped quietly back into civillian life

and the most notable traitor to be executed, William Joyce wasn't even British and arguably, could therefore not be a traitor!

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

and the most notable traitor to be executed, William Joyce wasn't even British and arguably, could therefore not be a traitor!

I believe he was executed on the flimsy premise that he had accepted "protection by the crown" by becoming a British citizen, and was therefore a British subject, and therefore a traitor to that protector.

Even today people argue that he should not have been executed for treason, effectively he was hanged for broadcasting propaganda for a government he supported to one he did not.

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

Re: Re: Why is it illegal to say Sieg Heil in Germany?

Because its POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD. No doubt the PC Brigade will all be on here in a minute because you aren't allowed to think racist thoughts in this PC BLair gone mad country anymore if you're in the silent majority

Ironic post right? I remember political correctness getting way out of control long before Blair was anywhere near Number 10.

 

[Buzzer]

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 throughout of some 50-60 million people - I'd say "we British" (OK, ahem) have only had the extremes kept thankgully on the sidelines by the FPTP voting system - anti-semitism was rife in the UK in the 1930s, say. Replicate the right circumstances, the extremes of poverty and weak political structures of Weimar, say, and I see no reason whatsoever why what happened there couldn't happen anywhere else, the UK included. I can't remember who said it but there's a quote somewhere about the Nazis being in all of us. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

The real tragedy of the current far right in the UK is that in fact, the UK IS, I think, seen throughout the world as a fair and tolerant place, with a truly great tradition of accepting refugees at times of crisis, such as the 1930s for example. They betray that proud legacy.

Thanks for this. I hadn't considered that the FPTP system might keep the loonies at bay. I concede that it is dangerous to make sweeping generalisations about a nation/race but there are certain characteristics that just stand out for me.

I do wholeheartedly agree that papers like the Mail betray our heritage as accepting the world's refugees.

Christ, I sound pompous.

 

[itszamora]

The thing with stuff like this is all the issues of free speech and all that. Similar to the example given, denying the Holocaust is also illegal in Germany (and Austria, hence why David Irving's currently in prison there). Now, shouldn't all people have a right to air their views, no matter how repellent they may seem to us? Who are we, or in this case who are the German government, to decide what people can and can't say? By all means slate people for being Nazis, but my view is everyone's entitled to their opinion however unpleasant that may be, and they should also be able to air it without the possibility of being arrested.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Re: Re: Re: Why is it illegal to say Sieg Heil in Germany?

Ironic post right?

I thought the awful spelling and grammar would be an immediate sure-fire giveaway.....

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Thanks for this. I hadn't considered that the FPTP system might keep the loonies at bay. I concede that it is dangerous to make sweeping generalisations about a nation/race but there are certain characteristics that just stand out for me.

I do wholeheartedly agree that papers like the Mail betray our heritage as accepting the world's refugees.

Christ, I sound pompous.

I agree 100% that there are fundamental differences between the mindset of Britons, in the main, that renders us less susceptible to accepting totalitarianism than others, especially in central Europe.

Obviously the political/social climate today is very different to that which existed in central Europe after WW1, which means it is difficult to imagine how an entire people can fall under the spell of an all powerful leader, but I find it difficult to accept that even if our situations were reversed and Britain was treated in the same manner as Weimar Republic Germany that we would have produced a "Hitler" to save us.

There is simply no tradition in Britain of slavish obedience to an all powerful Police State.

I too agree that the Daily Mail represents all that is small minded and bigoted in the British Psyche, but it is Hardly representative of general British opinion.

 

[Man of Harveys]

The thing with stuff like this is all the issues of free speech and all that. Similar to the example given, denying the Holocaust is also illegal in Germany (and Austria, hence why David Irving's currently in prison there). Now, shouldn't all people have a right to air their views, no matter how repellent they may seem to us? Who are we, or in this case who are the German government, to decide what people can and can't say? By all means slate people for being Nazis, but my view is everyone's entitled to their opinion however unpleasant that may be, and they should also be able to air it without the possibility of being arrested.

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 stability - the German Basic Law (the constitution) was written in exactly such a traumatic post-war environment and thankfully, since, there's been no major pressure there since to change it. Bear in mind, the German voting system would make it far easier than the UK's for far right candidates to be elected but it hasn't happened, a few oddball places in the former east aside.

I'd say that, as we go forward and say the number of Holocaust witnesses and survivors dwindle, it's even more important that, exceptionally, there are some absolutes that chancers like David Irving can't chip away at over their graves in the places where it happened and where many of the few survivors and their descendants still live.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The thing with stuff like this is all the issues of free speech and all that. Similar to the example given, denying the Holocaust is also illegal in Germany (and Austria, hence why David Irving's currently in prison there). Now, shouldn't all people have a right to air their views, no matter how repellent they may seem to us? Who are we, or in this case who are the German government, to decide what people can and can't say? By all means slate people for being Nazis, but my view is everyone's entitled to their opinion however unpleasant that may be, and they should also be able to air it without the possibility of being arrested.

And this is different in what way from locking up Muslims for shouting about bringing down the west?


Not saying that you support this, but is an interesting debate.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

A very good article in the Observer on Sunday, about the Anti-Nazi league and the National Front.

Well worth a read...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,2024324,00.html

 

[itszamora]

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 stability - the German Basic Law (the constitution) was written in exactly such a traumatic post-war environment and thankfully, since, there's been no major pressure there since to change it. Bear in mind, the German voting system would make it far easier than the UK's for far right candidates to be elected but it hasn't happened, a few oddball places in the former east aside.

I'd say that, as we go forward and say the number of Holocaust witnesses and survivors dwindle, it's even more important that, exceptionally, there are some absolutes that chancers like David Irving can't chip away at over their graves in the places where it happened and where many of the few survivors and their descendants still live.

That's a very good point you make about the German electoral system, and I guess you can look at when there was more or less free speech there after WWI and the consequences of that (well, that any many other things).

However I still think I feel (and this is probably me being a bit young and ideological here) that governments shouldn't be able to tell people what to say or do - it's one of the things that marks out totalitarian regimes (not again that I am implying that Germany is in any danger of becoming one). If people want to spout far-right filth then my view is that they should be allowed to, the vast majority of people will deride them for it and will vote accordingly. And if they were to vote such a group in, then as a democratic nation if that is what the people want then should they not have it? I admit this is very shaky ground, but I don't see how it's fair for one political system to outlaw another, surely this is for the people to decide and not something a goverment can just decide to do?

Although, on the other hand, if the people support such a matter, that's fine I suppose. I'd be interested to see if they do though, as I've said my own view (as someone FAR removed from the right I can assure you!) is that people should be able to say what they wish, no matter what it be. I don't know how many would agree with me, but I feel quite a few would.

And this is different in what way from locking up Muslims for shouting about bringing down the west?


Not saying that you support this, but is an interesting debate.

I would argue that there are a couple of differences here in terms of national security and the like - as broadly speaking rightist movements are in favour of the state whilst the example you give would be explicitly against it. Of course advocating violence in any sense is wrong and the law should have the capability to deal with this (although I'm not sure holding people without charge is the right way to go about it), but if muslims (or anyone for that matter) wanted to create an islamic (or again, christian, jewish etc etc) state in Britain through peaceful means they should not be stopped from expressing this view.

 

[NMH]

Re: Re: Why is it illegal to say Sieg Heil in Germany?

Because its POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD. No doubt the PC Brigade will all be on here in a minute because you aren't allowed to think racist thoughts in this PC BLair gone mad country anymore if you're in the silent majority

Why not allow the World to forget about recent history and a dreadful war that our fathers won at great loss, by preventing people from reviving it like an open sore?

Was it politically correct that Hitler's Germany killed millions upon millions of innocents? Racist murdering and torturing in the name of politics?

There are some things that transcend freedom of speech, expressing racism rightfully counts as one of those things.
Telling an old war veteran who allowed you freedom and put his life on the line for that, that it doesn't mean shit and may not deserve respect, should be another.
Germany is free - despite trying to deprive the rest of us our freedom. To sacrifice the freedom for Nazi political sloganeering and sensibilities to rise again, is a price I'm happy to see them pay. Note that it is imposed BY Germans, and by German law - WE are not oppressing them into making that law.

 

[Biscuit]

Well, I think people getting arrested for showing Swasticka CROSSED OUT at ANTI fascism demos is a tad harsh... Certainly worth a debate!

 

[Man of Harveys]

Well, I think people getting arrested for showing Swasticka CROSSED OUT at ANTI fascism demos is a tad harsh...

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.

 

[Biscuit]

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.

There is a group of neo-nazi fascists parading the streets. You hold up a sign showing someone throwing a Swastika in a bin, or a sign with a Swastika with a big red cross through it, and you stand liable for arrest and upto 3 years in prision.. I think thats well worth a debate. It should be banned by being used for the wrong things, not banned from being used in a demonstration about all thats wrong.