4 ms·

Yes, for example: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-praeventionsgewahrsam-816570 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw

by layer8 1y ago

Yes, for example: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-praeventionsgewahrsam-816570 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-p... https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-vollverschleierung-542282 https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v... https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
The first one is bad indeed, but what's so "authoritarian" about the rest? >https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-vollverschleierung-542282 https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v... Other European countries like Switzerland, also banned full face veils(burqas) in public. Try entering a bank, city hall, school, etc with a balaclava, ski mask or motorcycle helmet see how that goes. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf Allowing the surveillance of minors if they show signs of radicalization? This to me makes sense under existing child protection laws. If kids are being raised in environments that are harmful to themselves and society, should we just sit by and let them get permanently wrecked till they reach adulthood, over a technicality? The earlier you can catch the issues the better for everyone and the higher the chance you can rescue the child. Existing child protection laws in Germany already allow the state a lot of power to take children away from parents if they're seen as unfit. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? These are common sense viewpoints a lot of Europeans agree with, not authoritarian ones.
- tvier 1y ago
  Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me. The fact that it's currently not acceptable to enter a bank with a covered face would indicate a law banning it in all public locations is not needed. Taking rights away from people labelled as terrorists is a pretty standard way for governments to control viewpoints. It gives them the power to add any group they don't like to a list, and deport/imprison them with minimal judicial process. I don't know enough about surveillance of minors to comment on that one.
  - coderenegade 1y ago
    To play devil's advocate, isn't it illegal wear a swastika in Germany? How is wearing a burqa, a symbol of female oppression any different? Freedom of religion only goes so far, because the culture of the host country takes precedence. To take it to the extreme, if there were a religion where part of standard practice involved assaulting women and children, we would obviously limit those practices.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law, it's just one which is popular enough there that there isn't enough support to repeal it despite it being an unambiguous constraint on speech. Non-consensual violence is prohibited because it directly harms other people. Face coverings don't directly harm anyone and laws that exist only for the government's convenience are authoritarian laws. There are ways to investigate bank robberies even if the robbers are wearing masks and in fact a law against masks is fairly ridiculous because anyone willing to break the law against robbing banks would be willing to break a law against wearing a face covering, so such laws only afflict innocent people.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law, With this type of logic, all laws authoritarian then, like speeding laws, theft laws, and anything else that prevents you from doing what you want to do becomes authoritarian.
        tvier 1y ago
        No, all those things harm other people. The ban on swastikas would be considered authoritarian because it's only purpose is to limit expression. Considering Germany's recent history though, it seems like a reasonable response.
        Hercuros 1y ago
- saubeidl 1y ago
  If you find yourself agreeing with authoritarians, it might be time to reassess your views.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Authoritarian is often used as a pejorative strawman rather than as any particularly coherent concern. For instance Italy's Meloni was framed by the media, and people who still believe it, as being the next Mussolini, if not Hitler. In reality? Her time as leader has been largely inconsequential and relatively popular, especially contrasted against the leadership in places like Germany and France. In general it's not authoritarians that are winning everywhere, but anti-globalists - which is disingenuously framed as authoritarianism. Globalist views were adopted on a wide scale, and they simply didn't lead to positive results, and so it's an ideology which is on the decline, ironically - globally.
    - anonzzzies 1y ago
      Globalist views didn't lead to positive results? Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better. Now it goed a little less and the underbelly starts whining. And of course people do believe misinformation. People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade and now 'only' got inflafion correction whining its the globalist issue because some guy on tiktok explained it so well. Italy (or me personally for that matter) would be have been absolutely screwed without the EU and globalism, but keep listening to propaganda while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better. The stock market, and your housing and investment portfolios going up, didn't mean that everyone was happy, just the asset holders like yourself and those in your bubble but you're not majority of the working population. You need to learn to differentiate between "the stock market" and "the economy". Working class people can easily be getting poorer while the stock market is going up. So of course they're mad. >People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade Huh? Who? Where? When? Maybe in your tech bubble but in the real world a lot of people's salaries haven't kept up with inflation, let alone consistency get raises ABOVE inflation. In France for example the average pension is now higher than the average salary. >while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez. Top 10%er can't understand why those bottom 90% without assets who got screwed by globalism and saw their jobs offshored and salaries and savings obliterated by inflation caused by endless money printing are mad at the globalism that caused this massive wealth transfer from the working class to the upper asset owning classes. You can't make this up. The sheer ignorance of reality of most people and the "fuck you I got mine" attitude is shattering. No wonder young people are flirting with communism.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  > Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists, this is really dangerous. If the government can classify any organisation as terrorists, and then remove citizenship from any members of that organisation, that is horrifying. So yes, I very, very, strongly disagree with this measure, for very good reasons. How could anyone with any common sense support it?
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists If your current laws allow for such oppressive abuse on the population without due process, then these new laws won't make things any worse for the people and you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away form registered ISIS members is the biggest problem.
    - marcus_holmes 1y ago
      I disagree completely. Citizens are protected by laws, such as the First Amendment, that are not applied to non-citizens (see the Julian Assange mess for details). If the government can designate a group of people as terrorists, and remove their citizenships for being terrorists, then they can additionally apply yet more tribulations on those people while not straying out of the legal protections afforded to citizens. You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. For example: > you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away from any organisation that the government disapproves of is the biggest problem. I think you'll agree that this would be a big f**ing problem.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        > You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. Which other organizations who didn't kill or committed acts of violence to people in order to be wrongly considered terrorists by the government in the same vein as ISIS was? >I think you'll agree that this would be a big f*ing problem. It isn't. In most western democracies, if not all, gaining dual citizenship via naturalization is a voluntary privilege, not a right, that can always be revoked for crimes such as being part of a terrorist group. It's part of the contract you sign when you apply for citizenship. As it should be. That's who the law is targeting. Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.
- the_gipsy 1y ago
  > Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? Sounds great on paper, until it starts happening to X, which is your group, now suddenly a terrorist organization, and you happened to have joined in their view.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >until it starts happening to X, which is your group, With that logic we shouldn't ever punish or jail criminals because you too might be a criminal one day.
    - the_gipsy 1y ago
      No, by my logic we shouldn't take citizenship away, period. How can you be so dense?
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        You can't take my citizenship away if it's my only one, you dense piece of concrete. Why would I fear that would happen to "my group"?
        the_gipsy 1y ago
        So what's your point
- avianlyric 1y ago
  > Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? Because governments shouldn’t be allowed to just wash their hands of any responsibility to a citizen, just because they don’t like their views, regardless of how extreme and vile those views maybe. We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems. Those are never healthy behaviours in any democracy. Societies should deal with their own citizens properly, not just strip them of citizenship and declare them someone else’s problem. I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave, except by dying, terrorist organisation would be a good idea. That must ensure all members of terrorist organisations literally have nothing else to live for. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to ensure that all terrorist go out with a bang.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems. What are you on? Taking away someone's naturalized dual citizenship is done by the judicial system via due process according to the draft proposal, not on the spot by police or whatever nonsense you imagine it. If only you would have skimmed the proposal paper before commenting instead of getting your knickers in a twist over stuff you made up in your head, you would have saved us all the wasted time. >I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave They can leave with their other citizenship, genius. This law applies only to dual citizens, since you aren't allowed to make citizens stateless, Einstein. It's even written in the proposal which of course you haven't read but have strong options against it.

by layer8 1y ago

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

The first one is bad indeed, but what's so "authoritarian" about the rest? >https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-vollverschleierung-542282 https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v... Other European countries like Switzerland, also banned full face veils(burqas) in public. Try entering a bank, city hall, school, etc with a balaclava, ski mask or motorcycle helmet see how that goes. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf Allowing the surveillance of minors if they show signs of radicalization? This to me makes sense under existing child protection laws. If kids are being raised in environments that are harmful to themselves and society, should we just sit by and let them get permanently wrecked till they reach adulthood, over a technicality? The earlier you can catch the issues the better for everyone and the higher the chance you can rescue the child. Existing child protection laws in Germany already allow the state a lot of power to take children away from parents if they're seen as unfit. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? These are common sense viewpoints a lot of Europeans agree with, not authoritarian ones.

tvier 1y ago
Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me. The fact that it's currently not acceptable to enter a bank with a covered face would indicate a law banning it in all public locations is not needed. Taking rights away from people labelled as terrorists is a pretty standard way for governments to control viewpoints. It gives them the power to add any group they don't like to a list, and deport/imprison them with minimal judicial process. I don't know enough about surveillance of minors to comment on that one.
- coderenegade 1y ago
  To play devil's advocate, isn't it illegal wear a swastika in Germany? How is wearing a burqa, a symbol of female oppression any different? Freedom of religion only goes so far, because the culture of the host country takes precedence. To take it to the extreme, if there were a religion where part of standard practice involved assaulting women and children, we would obviously limit those practices.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law, it's just one which is popular enough there that there isn't enough support to repeal it despite it being an unambiguous constraint on speech. Non-consensual violence is prohibited because it directly harms other people. Face coverings don't directly harm anyone and laws that exist only for the government's convenience are authoritarian laws. There are ways to investigate bank robberies even if the robbers are wearing masks and in fact a law against masks is fairly ridiculous because anyone willing to break the law against robbing banks would be willing to break a law against wearing a face covering, so such laws only afflict innocent people.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >The ban on swastikas in Germany is an authoritarian law, With this type of logic, all laws authoritarian then, like speeding laws, theft laws, and anything else that prevents you from doing what you want to do becomes authoritarian.
      - tvier 1y ago
        No, all those things harm other people. The ban on swastikas would be considered authoritarian because it's only purpose is to limit expression. Considering Germany's recent history though, it seems like a reasonable response.
        Hercuros 1y ago
saubeidl 1y ago
If you find yourself agreeing with authoritarians, it might be time to reassess your views.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Authoritarian is often used as a pejorative strawman rather than as any particularly coherent concern. For instance Italy's Meloni was framed by the media, and people who still believe it, as being the next Mussolini, if not Hitler. In reality? Her time as leader has been largely inconsequential and relatively popular, especially contrasted against the leadership in places like Germany and France. In general it's not authoritarians that are winning everywhere, but anti-globalists - which is disingenuously framed as authoritarianism. Globalist views were adopted on a wide scale, and they simply didn't lead to positive results, and so it's an ideology which is on the decline, ironically - globally.
  - anonzzzies 1y ago
    Globalist views didn't lead to positive results? Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better. Now it goed a little less and the underbelly starts whining. And of course people do believe misinformation. People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade and now 'only' got inflafion correction whining its the globalist issue because some guy on tiktok explained it so well. Italy (or me personally for that matter) would be have been absolutely screwed without the EU and globalism, but keep listening to propaganda while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >Until very recent no one was complaining: everything was going up and everyone got better. The stock market, and your housing and investment portfolios going up, didn't mean that everyone was happy, just the asset holders like yourself and those in your bubble but you're not majority of the working population. You need to learn to differentiate between "the stock market" and "the economy". Working class people can easily be getting poorer while the stock market is going up. So of course they're mad. >People who got a yearly raise over the inflation correction for a decade Huh? Who? Where? When? Maybe in your tech bubble but in the real world a lot of people's salaries haven't kept up with inflation, let alone consistency get raises ABOVE inflation. In France for example the average pension is now higher than the average salary. >while I count my blessings and money globalist stylez. Top 10%er can't understand why those bottom 90% without assets who got screwed by globalism and saw their jobs offshored and salaries and savings obliterated by inflation caused by endless money printing are mad at the globalism that caused this massive wealth transfer from the working class to the upper asset owning classes. You can't make this up. The sheer ignorance of reality of most people and the "fuck you I got mine" attitude is shattering. No wonder young people are flirting with communism.
marcus_holmes 1y ago
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists, this is really dangerous. If the government can classify any organisation as terrorists, and then remove citizenship from any members of that organisation, that is horrifying. So yes, I very, very, strongly disagree with this measure, for very good reasons. How could anyone with any common sense support it?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists If your current laws allow for such oppressive abuse on the population without due process, then these new laws won't make things any worse for the people and you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away form registered ISIS members is the biggest problem.
  - marcus_holmes 1y ago
    I disagree completely. Citizens are protected by laws, such as the First Amendment, that are not applied to non-citizens (see the Julian Assange mess for details). If the government can designate a group of people as terrorists, and remove their citizenships for being terrorists, then they can additionally apply yet more tribulations on those people while not straying out of the legal protections afforded to citizens. You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. For example: > you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away from any organisation that the government disapproves of is the biggest problem. I think you'll agree that this would be a big f**ing problem.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      > You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. Which other organizations who didn't kill or committed acts of violence to people in order to be wrongly considered terrorists by the government in the same vein as ISIS was? >I think you'll agree that this would be a big f*ing problem. It isn't. In most western democracies, if not all, gaining dual citizenship via naturalization is a voluntary privilege, not a right, that can always be revoked for crimes such as being part of a terrorist group. It's part of the contract you sign when you apply for citizenship. As it should be. That's who the law is targeting. Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.
the_gipsy 1y ago
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? Sounds great on paper, until it starts happening to X, which is your group, now suddenly a terrorist organization, and you happened to have joined in their view.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >until it starts happening to X, which is your group, With that logic we shouldn't ever punish or jail criminals because you too might be a criminal one day.
  - the_gipsy 1y ago
    No, by my logic we shouldn't take citizenship away, period. How can you be so dense?
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      You can't take my citizenship away if it's my only one, you dense piece of concrete. Why would I fear that would happen to "my group"?
      - the_gipsy 1y ago
        So what's your point
avianlyric 1y ago
> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? Because governments shouldn’t be allowed to just wash their hands of any responsibility to a citizen, just because they don’t like their views, regardless of how extreme and vile those views maybe. We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems. Those are never healthy behaviours in any democracy. Societies should deal with their own citizens properly, not just strip them of citizenship and declare them someone else’s problem. I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave, except by dying, terrorist organisation would be a good idea. That must ensure all members of terrorist organisations literally have nothing else to live for. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to ensure that all terrorist go out with a bang.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >We have judicial systems for a reason. If someone joins a terrorist organisation, you arrest them and allow the justice system to determine the consequences. Allow governments to strip citizenships is effectively a mechanism to allow governments to avoid due process and their own judicial systems. What are you on? Taking away someone's naturalized dual citizenship is done by the judicial system via due process according to the draft proposal, not on the spot by police or whatever nonsense you imagine it. If only you would have skimmed the proposal paper before commenting instead of getting your knickers in a twist over stuff you made up in your head, you would have saved us all the wasted time. >I have no idea why anyone would believe making it effectively impossible to ever leave They can leave with their other citizenship, genius. This law applies only to dual citizens, since you aren't allowed to make citizens stateless, Einstein. It's even written in the proposal which of course you haven't read but have strong options against it.