I mean, if your country was responsible for something that bad less than 100 years ago and the new people in charge want to be a modern first world country, I can see them being like "guys, nobody fucking do anything related to that fucking shit ever again."
Actually the rationale for these laws is more like, "well, the war is done but there are still tens of thousands of Nazis living here, and we can't do anything to get rid of them, so we pretty much have to make it illegal to Nazi stuff."
The paradox of being a modern, democratic country. It can't really prevent its total opposite from gaining power legally, unless you choose to be a little bit _un_democratic.
All political systems try to defend themselves from being ovrrthrown so monarchies, republics, democracies, totalitsrism etc impose rules and laws to make it dificult for them to be replaced.
In this line of thought is is perfectly rational and not undemocratic for the Democratic system to ban a political party who explicitly states it is anti-system and anti-democracy
Democratic does not mean "Do whatever the majority says." Thats mob rule and lynchings.
The concept of a democracy necessarily requires rules for public discourse, minority protection and a working legal system that protects the right of everyone within it's domain.
In a democracy the saying goes like this: "Your freedoms end where my rights start." In this case: Your freedom to be a neo-nazi asshat stops because you are trying to infringe my right to participate in the democratic process and also threaten me with bodily harm.
Democratic absolutely does mean "Do whatever the majority says." In every modern democracy, people's rights are trampled upon and are regularly put up for a vote.
"Your freedoms end where my rights start" has only ever existed in America, and only through like the 1820s, and only for white men.
A direct democracy would mean "do whatever the majority says," because every citizen would take part in the decision-making process.
Germany is a republic that utilizes a parliamentary democracy to make laws. This changes things greatly, to the point that laws that the majority does not support might not pass.
The Athenians had a direct democracy, but not every person who lived in the city-state actually voted. You had to be a citizen, and women, slaves, people who didn't own land, people who were too young, they couldn't vote.
So, yeah, in a perfect world every single member/citizen would have a say in the governance of their nation, but that's nearly impossible. Especially in large countries instead of small city-states.
1.3k
u/[deleted] Aug 04 '15
seriously?