This Friday is the UNESCO “International Day for Tolerance”, an annual “observance” aimed at increasing public awareness of the importance of tolerance in society. Here on Debating Europe, we last looked at the issue of tolerance back in May of this year, when we asked you whether there were limits to freedom of speech. Most of you argued passionately that freedom of speech was sacred, even when it comes to extremist and intolerant ideologies. Some of you, however, put forward the argument that freedom of speech should be considered a qualified right, and should not include the freedom to incite or promote violence.
Yesterday, we spoke with Leonidas Donskis, a Member of the European Parliament for the centre-right Liberal Movement party of Lithuania, and asked him to respond to some of your comments. In 2004, Donskis was named the “Ambassador for Tolerance and Diversity in Lithuania” by the European Commission, so he seemed like a good person to approach on this issue. We began by posing a comment from Maro, who argued that: “It is time for the Greek justice system to declare [Golden Dawn, the far-right anti-immigration Greek political party] illegal.“
How would Mr Donskis respond to Maro’s comment?
I would respond by saying that Europeans have different histories and experiences when it comes to totalitarianism, but that we should all be willing to stand up to movements that attempt to twist or disfigure our democracy. All discourses of hatred – whether from the extreme right or left – if they are preaching intolerance or cracking down on minority groups, should be banned. If we allow them to practice in the same manner as standard political movements, this could lead to fundamental distortions of our public domain.
Many (though not all) of our commenters would disagree with this argument. For example, we had a comment from Thomas that argued: “If Europe is committed to its democratic values it shouldn’t ban any views. In an open democracy these should be debated and confronted without restrictions,” whilst a comment was sent in from Panayotis that said: “Banning them is an easy solution and I believe that it would help these parties.“
How would you respond to these comments?
I would respond by saying that I get the essence and point of these comments. I agree that every ideology, even those based on a toxic lie, should be debated and defeated in public discourse. But if I come to the idea of killing Jews or Africans, how should you respond? Would you respond that these ideas should be debated in the same way as everything else? They cannot be treated in the same way as standard views.
In general, I am against the criminalisation of views, even when I personally find them repugnant, but I draw the line at discourses that include the degradation of humanity and human dignity, and fundamental intolerance towards other members of the human race. There is some sort of limitation to freedom of speech. We have to stop somewhere. How can you have a debate when one side prefers brutality?
We also spoke to MEP Nikos Chrysogelos, a member of the Greek Ecologist Greens party, about the rise of extremist parties in his country. Did he agree that political parties should be banned if they are seen to promote violence or racism? How would he respond?
This crisis is not only a fiscal crisis, but also a political crisis… The people feel angry, and sometimes they support a political force like Golden Dawn because it seems they are against the system. However, this is not the right idea; we need more democracy, more solidarity and more socially-oriented policies if we are to solve the crisis.
The main problem with the extreme-right is not only one of rhetoric, but also the use of violence and also a racist political ideology based on the colour of the skin, so it is not just extremism in words but also violence in daily life. So, it is necessary that the government checks if there is the use of violence. If there is a violation of the rule of law, it is very important that this is prosecuted, because if the message is that everybody can promote violence, then that message will be very wrong for the whole of society.
What do YOU think? Should extremist parties be banned in the EU? Or would this only make them even more popular? Are there limits to freedom of speech, particularly when racism or the threat of violence are involved? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts to respond.
98 comments Post a commentcomment
These parties must be controlled. Otherwise stupid people make stupid things
Ban all the extremist parties. They are a threat to all of Europe. Golden Dawn in Greece is a perfect example. It is a threat to Greece , Greek democracy and all of Europe.
Good…BAN the extremist parties..I suppose you know the way to define “extremism” objectively, right? Is Communism an extreme? Christianity? Judaism? Homosexuality? Blonde posters in European fora? I am sure we can find some who answer yes to -at least- one of the above. So here, let’s ban them all. Let’s ban democracy too, after all, the first democrats in France where murderers and looters. Pretty extreme, even for their times.
Speaking of democracy, Golden Dawn in Greece got 700,000 votes in free, democratic elections and recent polls show it’s got something like 15%. You may don’t like them, but that is democracy, unless we change the standards and we approve only what you like, in which case, you become a threat to democracy and Europe eventually, so then we can ban you (sounds fair, right?)
Sorry my humble self, Golden Dawn just got 425k votes, but I suppose Maro can get the point.
Who is in the position to define extremism? From what points of view? For democracy extremism means communism, fascism and maybe even nationalism and that’s so f***d up. For communism, it means fascism, nazism, nationalism, democracy and capitalism and for fascists the extremists are the communists and the democrats. On what basis do you say that Golden Dawn (witch I know nothing about, I’m from Romania) is extremism? Maybe for them you are an extremist because you sustain an unreal democracy that you belive to be real. History is writen by the winners. If Nazi Germany had won the war, Hitler would have said that nazism is the way and democracy is extremism and you would belive. When my country was under Ceausescu’s dictatorship, the citizens of Romania belived that communism is the right way, because their leader said so. Now the americans and the European Union tell you that democracy is the best and the rest is extremism. BULL***T!
They should be accepted with full rights and obligations as any other party or political organization. We must create a world of acceptance, where all, but all have his or her own place equal in duties and rights as all the ohters. Now, if we decide to abolish them, then we must abolish to the right and to the left, as extremists, regardless their political whereabouts are, intrinsecally, nocive. Simply because their social view does not allow others to exist, in order to fully implement whatever they thnk as being the right thing. So the only way, for democracy to anulates them, is simply being a model, the model, and vanishing entirely the need, curiosity or the will for citizens to look at them ever, as a solution, a way or a society’s model. If I ever think that I can abolish any line of thinking, for any reason, the only thing I am doing is to legitimate it to include in their speach, in their programs, in their vision and in their practices, the right to abolish me.
@Jacques Valente:
I agree with you entirely.
Who is to decide what is extreme? And why they feel whatever they want to ban is considered by them to be extreme?
I find much of EU law extreme, and would truly like to see it banned. Others would tell me that they feel the EU is right to persue polices they tell us is on the side of ‘right’. Who defines right? They are a secular group of people, these who rule us, so they tell us, and religion has no place within their policy making. So, right can be what any one of us determines it to be. There is no status quo for right any more. Can’t be, for, what we are told is right today was very, very wrong yesterday.
Today you will go to jail for saying what you believed and were told yesterday was right. What happens when it all changes again tomorrow, and what we were pushed into having to accept as right today, turns out to be wrong with the passing of time.
We are being ruled by babies who have little wisdom and no sense of what is right or wrong. Be very careful when you callfor aban. For as Jacques so cleverly explains, we could end up banning ourselves.
i dont agree
Guess this is not the matter of choice. No matter how proficient and intensive repression is going to be: the economic and social
( probably also or mostly in spiritual as manifestation of previous two ) backgrounds are ideal for extremism. Guess we still have time to work on seeds and reasons why raising extremism. First there are seeds of the past that are hibernating ( even before 1933 ) and soil that is becoming more and more aproprate for sprouting of these seeds. Guess better idea would be to us people give visions, trust, promote us to develope our personal visions, desires and dreams to be allowed, personal programs , public functions and sevices without complexitiy and obstacles, public funnctions that are positive to individual personal growth. In history there was interesting that extremist movement supported consiousness of community and service for community , raising individual self-respect and feeling to be worth for community. This space is removed from present Europe values and extremist movement will steal and incorporate these values in their mission again.
If the party breaches the constitution through promoting anti-democratic, pro-discrimination and anti-tolerant programmes and mottos, surely, it should be banned by tne court or/and the law.
Banning the extremist parties is just covering the symptoms of underlying disease. As long as a significant portion of the society feels the need to associate them into extremist parties, there is something wrong with the society and forbidding this and that will in no way solve the problem. It will leave it boiling untill it explodes in one way or another.
There is no wisdom of being tolerant to who is not tolerant.
Banned of course. There is no reason to leave them behave in their own way. It is not fair. You can’t say “Hurting people is good if you don’t kill them”.
So, you want to ban parties? Ok. The real threat to Europe are not only the ultra-right extremist parties, but also the ultra-liberal parties and movements, promoting extreme version of political correctness. Would you ban those ? Would you ban the ones which decide that a whole European capital won’t celebrate Christmass so that the muslim minority in the country should not get offended ? Or you think that this is normal? That this is not as dangerous as the extreme rights ?
As long as any political party acts within the law, there can be no justification for banning them from political discourse.
Simply because we disagree or find their views abhorrent is not a reason to ban them. As the ECfHR have previous ruled, “… tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance…”
(Chamber judgment Erbakan v. Turkey, no. 59405/00, § 56, 6.07.2006)
but in the same ruling, it went on to say, ”the Court is also careful to make a distinction in its findings between, on the one hand, genuine and serious incitement to extremism and, on the other hand, the right of individuals (including journalists and politicians) to express their views freely and to “offend, shock or disturb” others.”
Thus, if an extreme right or left political party merely “offends, shocks or disturbs” but does not make a “genuine and serious incitement to extremism” then it should not be banned.
Ergo as long as they remain within the law and the parameters of the ECfHR ruling above, they should remain a legitimate part of political discourse.
To exclude extreme politics from legitimate discourse drives them in only one direction in order to be seen and heard – from extreme rhetoric to extreme action – and that is not where society will want them to be forced to go.
Far better to include and ignore them than to exclude and suffer the actions rather than rhetoric on the whole – as long as they remain within the law.
Sim estou de acordo que os partidos extremistas seja proibidos dentro do espaço da UE porque não faz sentido que estes sir. extremistas tenham posições racistas e com imagem de odios eles julgan-se inocentes com os seus truques politicos e tem que haver limites para a liberdade de expressão a Europa é moderna e será no futuro
Extremisms as the name implies doesen,t bring development and guddies to a land or community, It only brings critisisms, segrigations,problems, e.t.c. So why must it be allowed to reign.
No.
The definition of extremist parties and movements, brings bad memories of European political platform. Training generational objective moral values and knowledge. Participation in political life and flavor trends of extremism, revolution against the state in the process of development and laying the foundations of a new model of democracy such as the European Union must be lawfully evaded by Liberal governments under strict rules. Any prohibition would get a negative vote, which would be directed in questionable formations and aggressive followers of different social groups ..
Extremist parties or anti-EU parties….while you are at it why not ban saying no to the EU?
This looks very funny when many of the extremist from other parts of the globe took shelter in Europe on the name of asylum. I think its better to first change that policy which is misused so much and than later think about parties.
As far as parties are concerned, it is already gaining support in Europe. Banning them required the accurate definition of extremism. May be what we are thinking as extremism can be the simple case of Nationalism. So a clear definition must be defined first and if required, such action should be banned.
If we ban the far right, then we should ban the far left too… who decides what gets banned or not? In my opinion the only solution would be to stop creating crisis and force people into austerity. Golden Dawn is not a new party in Greece.. They exist for decades now. But before the crisis they were something laughable, and never made it even near to entering the Greek Parliament. After the harshest austerity measures promoted by Europe and the IMF, they made it to be the third largest party in Greece..Who’s fault is it? The Greek and European elites’ for sure! They have made a huge cock-up of our economies and the people vote with their heart, not their brain.. Don’t ban the far right parties, ban the incompetent, greedy, profit mongering, capitalist, European political elite!
If they would comply with our social fabric, norms, governance, rules and regulations, then why not? But then they wouldn’t be classified as extremist parties.
Freedom of speech and freedom of association are both rights under international law so it’s in fact ILLEGAL for the EU to ban people’s right to say what they want and to form associations based on those beliefs.
Liebe FB,Freunde! Heute war ich sehr schockiert ber Nachrichten im TV. Die hatten ber %Zahlen berichtet,wie viele Deutsche dem Nationalsozialismus zu stimmen.Sind die noch zu retten? Wissen die eigentlich,was es bedeutet unter einem Diktator zu leiten? Die sind nicht richtig aufgeklrt.Jeden Tag kommen Schreckensmeldungen aus den Krisengebieten im TV. Das sollte doch schon Grund genug sein,und zu denken geben.Die Deutschen sind einfach zu verwhnt.Wir haben Essen und Trinken,Handys,etc.leben vom Staat ,derjenige der nicht arbeiten will,und schimpfen auf den wenigen %Anteil der Auslnder,die unsere Drecksarbeit machen,z.B.Mllabfuhr.Da ist noch eine Sache! Der Deutsche liebt zu reisen,ich auch,aber wenn ich mir die Reportagen im TV. anschaue wie sich Deutsche im Ausland verhalten,z.B.Mallorca,da kommt mir das Kotzen.Einfach peinlich.Jetzt habe ich mal meinen Frust abgelassen.Seits nett zueinander!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nem betiltani hanem elenrizni kell ket s azt elrni hogy ne juthasanak hatalomra
In a true and absolute democratic society where citizens were actually rational (kind of extreme assumption) such parties would by default evicted by that society. But unfortunately life is not plain theory and we people vote and act irrationally. Maybe we deserve the extremists so as to learn the hard way…
I believe that the media plays a very important role. The non objective analyses and the double moral standards regarding many social and political items are leading finally to extremism, bigotry and racism. If some cultural, religious or political directions, no matter right or left, feel that their opinions are not represented in a neutral way, they tend spontaneously to feel isolated and discriminated and behaves accordingly aggressive and intolerant.
I think the optimal solution could be only achieved through more discussion in public.
Capitalism is a device and its brain is absent and it had occured a classified communities in every where. Sovereign classifies have to be responsible from the economical crisis firstly. Because money was managed by them. But people do not want to accept the mistakes of themselves and they ruin reality to cheat. Therefore system might start to result the rational consequences or irrational, even if people act rationally. Extremist Politicians are opportunist and fox usually but extremists had cheated usually. The math of situation is that and we should allow to explain the thoughts of them too. Otherwise they will apply violence as natural.
I want to introduce a person who has taken his country out of the crisis we are persuaded to believe we cannot resolve without extreme austerity. They are lying to us all.
Listen to this man. I believe he puts it on the line. Follow those in Iceland and put those who are responsible in jail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4Z3rm4r-4
And the man who saw it through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0_JQW–gc&feature=related
Forgot to add this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3gPQdWWpvk
One of the main concepts of Democracy is freedom of speech. Everybody can freely express himself as long as he does not cause any harm to the rest of the people. If these extremist parties are within legal limits then they should be allowed in the political scene.
As history already teaches us, banning is not the way…… The forbidden fruit is the most wanted, most sweet, most delicious fruit…..
those willing to use brutal force aimed to harm any law-abiding citizen, irrespective of race, age, sex or sexual preference, religion,… need to be identified and watched closely. If they intent to group and act, then they should be locked-in or deterred, and if required their civil rights suspended – whether the acts of hate, denigration or violence they show are sporadic or systematic. Though I must agree in certain cases a proper nonviolent civic manifestation, or occupational action (sit-ins…) is necessary to shake up decisionmakers, it never justifies the use of intentional violence to reach such means.
Banning would of course make them more popular… On the other hand, if you allow them to come to power (within the limits of ‘sanitary cordon’, for example) and to taste realpolitiek personally, they usually tend to lose their ‘rebel’ image and, as a result, their popularity… So, when it comes to such parties, it’s better to stick to the compromise option…
Actauly ban the EFP….they are exrerme.
It is time regretably to call time on the democratic ideal. Although there are laudable objectives and a high moral tone, it has been shown up by the financial crisis as being unable to offer a solution.
The people vote in the politicians who promise the biggest handouts and of course can’t deliver on their lies.
Everything an extremist dreams about is being made ilegal, forced to live in the shadow. Banning political movements will just make them grow, make them stronger and even more agressive.
Long Live Nazism!
In final toate partidele tind sa devina extremiste.e mai bine sa stim cu cine avem de-a face decit sa ne trzim peste noapte cu partide “cripto-extremiste”la putere.
trezim!
Yes, because they focus only on violence and colour of skin which is certainly is a problem if they are imigrants and other types of people with different colur which certainlywould coaus hatred and insults.
I believe that by banning those political parties you create more and more problems in a society. First of all, the extremists are not just a party but also a political movement, they are activists. I mean that they motivate people to be active and against the current political system. We already know that a great part of the society is dissapointed with the situation, especially in European countries like Greece or Spain, so instead of hearing politicians saying that the problems will be solved but nothing happens they prefer follow more radical solutions. Moreover, most of people I personally know don’t know the real political agenda of an extremist party and as a result they decide to follow nazis because they are frustrated. All in all, by banning those parties, it seems that we do not tolerate the differences. Each person has the right to express his/her opinion even if it is stupid for the others. We cannot remove their right, because we create the conditions to remove other rights in the future. Last but not least, those extreme ideas may exist in an illegal way like a movement and we may cannot control them if they are not legal.
They (extreme people and parties) just only want to be heard. Maybe. Dont ban them, everyone is invited under the sun. If they are wise enough they will give wise ideas, not hate and violence.
Banning is not a very democratic word so… Ideally, people should be able to make their decisions based on free will. And these parties, should cease to exist because they just have no followers, rather than being banned (which doesn’t make them really disappear, does it?)…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXdsi9uGvc
?? ???????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ??????.
Anything forbidden is more attractive (basic physicology).
free speech…
Any ban is against personal freedom and human right! But it does not mean to violate others right. However i believe, by banning the ultimate goal might not be achieved. A controlled and systematic policy could be in action to control extremist while banning might lead to encourage others instead of securing peace!
A central question for the next EU elections.
no liberty should be absolute, neither the freedom of speech.
then remember what history teaches us: the extremist parties enjoy large popularity only in times of economic downturn because they play the emotional card. However, they do not give a constructive solutions to economic problems…
Family relations should digitilized
ban the eu…we do NOT need an extreme federal corrupt USSR clone polluting Europe.
Banning a partie is giving strengt to something that per si, has no strenght. That is what happens with all the other things in life. You think you can eradicate something, but instead, you are giving it the power it needed to go on…Every one of us, has to have the power to choose, and learn from the errors from the past. Men are evil by nature, don’t think that by eradicating someting, evil will end…Rousseau was a naive!
Any a human is not the evil or the good and/or the true and/or beatiful as natural. She/He is only a tabula rasa and affects from everything until seven ages. After there are only rules and occasions.
the conditions which makes all kind of extremists existing, should be banned in the EU…
heil hitler zds ustase
ban the eu criminals……….its criminal organisation
i would rather be a nazi.than a member of some criminal organisation like the eu
And what are the extremist parties ? So you should alow the conservative and liberal parties, the rest are forbiden !!!! Do you know what the democracy is ? I am comunist and as european parlament opted for an oficial idiology the so called “freeden”, responsable for the poverty, jobless, support war, I never will vote again for Europe. I don’t indentify anymore with such project. Beside the israel Nazis (zionist) are controled Europe too.
Extremism flourishes in extreme situations as mentioned in the comment above. Such situations should be banned!
Mouffe vs Habermas
Where is the liberty of thoughts and ideas if we ban them? Every european citizen should be allowed to follow their ideals, whether we agree with them or not. They shouldn’t be allowed to abuse their power though.
? ??????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? lifestyle ???????. ? ?????????? ?? ???? ??????. ???????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? : ????? .. ?.?. ???????? : ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???????????. ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????? ? ???????????? ??? ? ?????????????. ??????????. ????? ??? ?? ??????.
“ERAD?CATE” word is a extrem explanation but the most of people uses far too that word for everything unfortunately.
The best way to protect minorities is to have a very limited government that is too weak to trample on the rights of its citizens. If the government is too big it only takes the wrong kind of people rising to power for human rights to be violated. Keep the government out of our lives and everything will be fine. The more the government regulates and mandates, the worse life becomes for everyone.
Facciamo qualcosa di piccolo per creare qualcosa di grande portiamo avanti questa pagina mettete mi piace!!!! http://www.facebook.com/www.occupybruxelles.it
Define “extremist”. And if we ban those groups, does that mean only “moderate” groups will be allowed? – what a very grey place Europe would become!
the challenge would be to raise citizens who could understand the necessity of co existence , co operation and mutual respect. nothing too extreme could survive then. or not?
All we need is implementation of laws. Nobody can forbid a way of thinking to anyone and nobody can change other peoples’ beliefs. Everyone must have the right to believe whatever they want and belong to whatever party they want, no matter how extremist is that. Also, nobody must cause damage of any nature to other people.
If EU starts banning, then it will not be a liberal and democratic place to be.
Maro Kouris, Greece does not suffer from Golden Dawn. Greece suffers from the reasons that make Golden Dawn a strong party.
Banning extremist parties means that there is something missing in the society, something like education, means there are insecurities not about nature/aliens/divinity but about …us. As a mentality we are still in the dark ages. I mentioned education and I can give an example. If one considers (as many consider) an extremist party to be a virus you may well think of this: a virus can only survive if it has the conditions. The same with extremist parties, there will always be an idea that sparks a movement if the right conditions are met. It is sad because looks like we as a society have no clear purpose but to whack each other’s head. I see smart people everywhere but for a real change we need wise people.
No. Ban hate speech that incites people to violence and let the police arrest the culprits. Banning organisations is counter productive, it drives them underground making them harder to keep track of. Also if you ban one organisation another will quickly spring up.
No..
Banning a political party is an extremist action by itself. Therefore this would consist approval of their own beliefs.
The reason such extremist parties exist, is because moderate and mainstream parties have failed to stay relevant with the concerns of a portion of the population; also because by the apathy, caused by the peoples’ disapointment regarding corruption, nepotism and unfair treatment, causing deterioation to standards of living. Therefore, if Europe and those parties want to fight extreme parties, they should become better, less corrupted, more transparent and more relevant to the peoples’ needs. If they don’t do it, then the extemist parties will attempt to take advantage and cover that void. Banning those parties (without implying violence and hate-speech should be tollerated) without firstly improving the level of democracy of the existing mainstream parties will not help fight the ailments associated with exteme political movements. It is simple.
L’Europa gi governata da estremisti! Tutto deciso senza aver avuto il consenso del popolo….. Guarda quanto accaduto in Italia!
The best way is the prevention, and to prevent something like this you need better EDUCATION!!!!
Democracy leans a majority principle in every land. The majority is not a hypothetical situation, in contrast it is a physical reality like gravitation.Therefore you can not prevent the majority with a minority for ever. The best way is freedom but it have to stand in Law.
Extremist parties are the kids of bad administrations, disfunction of democracy, unemployment, recession and bad education. Thus the best way to bann extremist parties is to improve our standarts, both economical and cultural.
? think the extremists are caution
?f after the first World War Versailles Agreement had not have signed and not charged a lot if pecuniaries of the War to Germany, Hitler would not have elected. Either the future of Germany was hopeless inside of a war or inside of a peace after the agreement. Moreover once upon a time Germany was the best intellectual nation of Europe. Hitler was elected unavoidably as objective. Besides if Mrs. Le Pen and Front National had not have improved, Mr. Hollande would not have elected as a President to France. While we need to drive a car the caution labels too, in contrast an accident is unavoidably.
Any party that is approved by their own country should be acceptable to the EU. The EU stance on extremism must be tackled in another way than by exclusion.
Europe for Freedom and Democracy! That`s what I support!
YOU STUPID LOT !!!! GOOGLE HITLERS WINNINGS WW2 THEN MERKELS FOR THIS YEAR THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS NORWAY , THE THIRD RIECH LIVES , LETS HAVE COUNTRIES WITH THEIR OWN MONEY AND CUSTOMS INSTEAD OF DEUTCHLAND UBER ALLES
@Maro Kouris: SYRIZIA is also an EXTREMIST party. It’s not only the Golden dawn! SYRIZIA got MORE VOTES than Golden dawn.
they should not be banned because you cannot ban people from thinking in a particular way!
14th July 1933 – All political parties are banned. Only the Nazi party is allowed to exist.
History forever repeats the cycle.
Yes, absolutely! Think what could have happened if Europe had banned nazism in the early 20th century. Not acting cost over 60 million people their lives, not to mention the physically and mentally wounded, the hardships that had to endured. Its time for the EU;s parliament to act, Europewide. Political parties go beyond thinking. A party is a means to enact a certain idea, so I see no problem in banning and prosecuting the extremists.
No nazy and no communism, both are equally evil and both should be banned. Sadly, there will always be some weak minds who will be easilly corrupted and these two will always have supporters. Banned them all the way !
Amazing.
Leonidas Donskis’ comments are a perfect example of intolerance and orwellian speak one can ever hope to showcase yet you serve it up as reasonable and democratic. What a bizarro world you live in.
Yes, of course, they are already banned by constitucional law in some member states, like Portugal or Germany, for example, being punished by law.
So, obviously, the EU consitution should “expel” or forbid these parties, not only beacuse they represent nocive threats to democracy, but also because it was due to them, that there were so many dictatorships in Europe and because of these dictatorships, two wars happened.
Oh, and these parties are totally anti-democratic, so to protect democracy they nedd to go away.
So yes, extremist parties should be banished for good from the EU, specially because of the historical bloody events that took place here in Europe. I also think, that this should be international law, to ban these “viruses” all around the world, this would stop and prevent many wars,a ctually happening around the globe, just because of “extremist” thinking.
i think that their are two sides to every argument and if we let extremist political parties to evolve we are endangering the people in the EU and if two parties have a heated dispute they will eventually end up starting and uproar in society eventhough people should have freedom of speech this is not the way to go forth…TO BE CONTIUED
no they should not be banned in the EU or any were els. i say this because if we do banned it, they who are in these parties are going to be angry they might cause rites in countries. if we do this we not give them freedom for speech.
What is extremist? Who decides that a party is extreme? Banning any political party first and foremost stifles free speech, with no outlet in a supposed free and democratic society to air their views is likely to force them into violent revolution. Ban one political party, then the next, then the next, and were does it stop, it stops with a totalitarian regime ruling the people.
Когато едно формирование е структурирано според правилата и е на сцената в политическия спектър законно, то други трябва да бъдът ограниченията . Сега , след и преди това. Определенията не може да са ясни и достатъчни , защото биха били актуални и към другите партийни играчи.
Поддрави!!
Поздрави!