Denmark may strip radical imams of citizenship

[ranzino]

Relying on humans rights is kind of asinine though, since they don't get enforced unless the government somehow benefits from it. Human rights regularly gets shat on without governments intervening.

Germany is also subject to European Court of Human Rights. It may take a while until a case arrives, but in the end german government is responsible and EuCHR's decisions overule even Federal Constitution Court's rulings.

[Deleted]

Germany is also subject to European Court of Human Rights. It may take a while until a case arrives, but in the end german government is responsible and EuCHR's decisions overule even Federal Constitution Court's rulings.

Okay, how many parents have you prosecuted for indoctrinating their children? Letting parents do that is a violation of the human rights. You have like 60%+ of the population where the human rights have been violated for.

Like, have you even read the human rights charter? There's so much conflicting shit in it that it's a joke.

If we were to enforce human rights, religion would become extinct, for one. No possibility to indoctrinate people anymore.

[ranzino]

Freedom of religion and believes is in Basic Law article 4 because they'are human rights and count also as freedom from religion/believe. A fine example of a right vs. a right and you are entitled to your own version of believe/disbelieve at age 14. Article 4 doesnt overrule other articles though and Mohammed caricatures are safe as freedom of speech the same way "Life of Brian" is.

[Deleted]

Freedom of religion and believes is in Basic Law article 4 because they'are human rights and count also as freedom from religion/believe. A fine example of a right vs. a right and you are entitled to your own version of believe/disbelieve at age 14. Article 4 doesnt overrule other articles though and Mohammed caricatures are safe as freedom of speech the same way "Life of Brian" is.

Religion wouldn't even exist if we enforced the human rights, because parents are indoctrinating their children to believe in it. Which isn't exactly allowed under human rights.

[Deleted]

Article 1 of the Basic Law, which establishes this principle that "human dignity is inviolable" and that human rights are directly applicable law, as well as the general principles of the state in Article 20 GG, which guarantees democracy, republicanism, social responsibility, federalism, and the right of resistance should anybody undertake to abolish this order, remain under the guarantee of perpetuity stated in Article 79 Paragraph 3, i.e., those two cannot be changed even if the normal amendment process is followed.

A proviso that is unalterable is undemocratic.

Now what is your problem with that ? Unless you want to install monarchy or change the federal system, basic law is fine here. otherwise article 146 is your way of replacement of basic law...and 146 is very democratic.

146 permits for a new constitution, not alteration of the eternal clauses.

[ranzino]

Religion wouldn't even exist if we enforced the human rights, because parents are indoctrinating their children to believe in it. Which isn't exactly allowed under human rights.

as stated above: you can change your religion at early stage and drop off too. and parents are not entitled to homeschool their children, a nice countermeasure to some degree. we rather strip their guardianship than give parents full control over their children.

....

146 permits for a new constitution, not alteration of the eternal clauses.

new constitution is NOT bound by any stuff from Basic Law. as a decision backed by the whole german population eternal clauses mean nothing then. but unless you want to leave EU and European Council and other organizations, you'll keep some of the first articles as very basic principles of a state.

[Deleted]

What human right would that be?
Indoctrination is just another word for parenting.

Religious freedom? It's not freedom when it's forced upon you before you know better. Yet nothing is done about it.

[ranzino]

Religious freedom? It's not freedom when it's forced upon you before you know better. Yet nothing is done about it.

agree and germany should skip religion as school lessons immediately unless voluntary from the start.

[Deleted]

i dont get why this can even be a debate. if someone isnt a natural citizen of a country and are preaching hate/violence they should be stripped of citizenship and deported.
we already arrest people for hate speach here, and i think foreign criminals should be deported anyway so this makes sense.

[saffi]

We'd almost certainly be a better country for stripping citizenship from and deporting KKK and Westboro Baptist members.

Well, in that case you also risk creating a line in the sand that creeps closer and closer to the middle (politically speaking).

Sure, I am against fundamentalists but stripping them of their citizenship takes away from freedom of speech (hate speech and encouraging people to break the law isn't part of this). Are you sure that you want to live in a country that doesn't allow fundamentalists to exist? Because the only thing stopping that state from becoming a total police state is where you draw the line and call something fundamentalist.

I agree that imams that convey fundamentalist messages, the KKK and the Westboro church are all things we would be better off without. But I don't think that threatening to take away citizenship would work, and here is why:
1) It will push fundamentalism away from the limelight and move it underground. That would be an even bigger problem than if they were exposed for the shitbags they are.
2) You risk giving them the very thing you wanted to avoid: more followers. Look at the terrorists, both home-bred and foreign and notice there is a common denominator. They are all people who feel like outsiders in a society. They have a feeling of injustice and/or revenge. Some are also indoctrinated from a young age. Now if you strip one person of their citizenship, how do you think their followers will react? And I mean the hardcore ones. Surely you can't think that they will just stop and just be normal human beings because one person was stripped of their citizenship?


Don't get me wrong. Enforce the law. Take people to trial if they break it or have appeared to have broken it. But if we are to live in a truly free society, we must accept that terror will be part of it. Unfortunately.

Disclaimer: Just my 2 cents. I am certainly not qualified on this to propose any silver bullets.

[Slant]

yes i am.'

Let me quote you:

You mean the parts that cant be changed, Never mind how undemocratic that is?
The parts that is completely fucking sexist?
The parts that creates an abomination of a voting system?
The bits written by crazy Americans? (that's most of it actually, but I'm talking about the legal insurrection bit)
The bits shitting all over free speech, free assembly, and free organization?
Yeah apart from all of that, its not to bad.

Let's start with #1: You claim parts cannot be changed. Well, that is true, in that human dignity is considered a thing not created by law, but inherent in human beings. So it makes sense to follow that philosophy and cement it as much as you can. It may be undemocratic if you want to suddenly refute some humans to possess that "dignity". But then, you have to understand what "dignity" means in this context. It doesn't mean that you cannot be embarrassed or fooled or suffer indignity. It means that the core of you being human cannot be changed by any law. See the experience with Jews.

About the undemocratic part, I refer you to Article 146, which regulates the abolishment of this constitution. It is possible to get rid of all that is good in the constitution, if you hate it so much. The only condition is that you have to do it by replacing it with another constitution ratified by the German people. That's pure democracy for you, mate.

Let's go ahead with #2... the sexism part: You claim it's "completely fucking sexist."

Well, this one is easy, Article 3 Paragraph 2 states clearly that men and women are equal before the law and that the gouvernment should strive towards furthering that goal where it still isn't. You cannot be much more about equality than that. It's the third article, that's pretty high as far as top ten lists go.

Here comes #3: "an abomination of a voting system". Article 38 says votes are general elections, direct, free, equal and secret. What would you prefer? The communist system? Our voting system certainly beats that of the US by miles, not sure what the hell you're on about.

#4 "crazy Americans writing our constitution". The basic law (that's how we call it) was worked out by a commission entirely comprised of members of the state parliaments. The allied forces were not part of it. Their job was to either approve or disapprove of it after it was worked out and ratified. They did approve with little adjustments as far as I'm aware, feel free to correct me if you have any credible sources. I have no idea what you mean with legal insurrection, so feel free to explain that point to me.

And #5, my favourite... "shitting all over free speech, free assembly and free organisation": Just read Article 5, 8 and 9, which grant exactly those basic rights to everyone. I really have no idea what you're on about. You need to either explain this or tell me exactly what you think is wrong with granting free speech, free assembly or the right to organise yourself into clubs etc.

- - - Updated - - -

A proviso that is unalterable is undemocratic.


146 permits for a new constitution, not alteration of the eternal clauses.

You're being childish now. If you dislike Article 1, you can ratify the same constitution without the article. Are you seriously going to argue semantics when you already displayed such a vast lack of knowledge? I had you in mind as someone with somewhat reasonable arguments, apparently I need to rethink that opinion. You're plainly being a fool right now. This is pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Relying on humans rights is kind of asinine though, since they don't get enforced unless the government somehow benefits from it. Human rights regularly gets shat on without governments intervening.

You're missing the point. As part of public law, the basic law is not meant to be "enforced" by the state. It's the other way around. It's meant to bind the gouvernment, to control the state. The direct consequence of that is that any legislation violating this basic law is attackable by anyone affected by that law. And the constitutional court is doing the enforcement. They will and have revoked laws that violate the basic law. They're the bane of any dictator wanting a repeat of a fascist regime.

- - - Updated - - -

Germany is also subject to European Court of Human Rights. It may take a while until a case arrives, but in the end german government is responsible and EuCHR's decisions overule even Federal Constitution Court's rulings.

Meh, only as long as the federal constitutional court tolerates that. Read up on Solange I and Solange II for more info on that.

[Deleted]

You're missing the point. As part of public law, the basic law is not meant to be "enforced" by the state. It's the other way around. It's meant to bind the gouvernment, to control the state. The direct consequence of that is that any legislation violating this basic law is attackable by anyone affected by that law. And the constitutional court is doing the enforcement. They will and have revoked laws that violate the basic law. They're the bane of any dictator wanting a repeat of a fascist regime.

"Other way around"? No. Go tell Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China and so forth that they're bound by human rights. See how that goes.

[Slant]

Okay, how many parents have you prosecuted for indoctrinating their children? Letting parents do that is a violation of the human rights. You have like 60%+ of the population where the human rights have been violated for.

Like, have you even read the human rights charter? There's so much conflicting shit in it that it's a joke.

If we were to enforce human rights, religion would become extinct, for one. No possibility to indoctrinate people anymore.

You're being hysterical again, dear. Article 6 par. 2 grants particular protection of the family unit by the state. This includes the right and also obligation of care and education of their children. This means that this "indoctrination" (btw, most people would call it upbringing, but hey, how about you shoot your parents for indoctrinating your poor mind when you were little) is absolutely legal and not just permitted, but demanded of parents. If they do not live up to that, par. 3 explains how they can lose the wardship of their children. It's all there, if you care enough to investigate before going all slander-mode on a text you haven't even read yet.

[Cannibalus]

Threatening your life is a crime, you don't need to revise free speech to punish the dude. See, the people creating the law system of your country aren't idiots. Just because you don't have the broad knowledge of applicable laws doesn't mean they don't exist. "I'm going to cut your head off" is not protected, it's a threat. It is punishable in all likelyhood simply for being a threat in itself. Nobody even cares about free speech at that point. On the other hand, if you started to restrict free speech, you'd be at the mercy of whoever does the legislation. Because ultimately, they would decide what is wrong or not. And not you.

Watch at 11:05.



If needed, watch the whole thing. It's the last time i'm going to be coming back to this thread and listen to your stupidity, so please don't quote me. These terrorist are going to turn Europe into a fucking desert, they just need to get their hands on bigger bombs. They learned nothing from the wars in the Middle East, moreover they started them. Even "moderate" muslims, or atleast some of them support the extremists, so fuck it, you can't imprison or kill half the world's population, but amongst the next measures they will take will be more surveillance. And trust me if you ever say something close to Allahu akhbar, you will get on the list. Even if this comes at the cost of my phone being tapped 24/7, i'd rather have that than blowing up in a fucking bus.

[Slant]

"Other way around"? No. Go tell Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, North Korea, China and so forth that they're bound by human rights. See how that goes.

Um, not sure if you're aware, but the German constitution (known as "basic law" here) kinda... you know, only applies to Germany. We can't tell third world countries how to run their countries. That's really not how things go in the real world.

[Deleted]

Um, not sure if you're aware, but the German constitution (known as "basic law" here) kinda... you know, only applies to Germany. We can't tell third world countries how to run their countries. That's really not how things go in the real world.

You are as much "bound" by human rights as they are. And rofl, what? Third world countries?

[Slant]

You are as much "bound" by human rights as they are. And rofl, what? Third world countries?

"Human rights" is a rather fluid concept if you look at it internationally. Not sure humanity as a whole has "one concept" of human rights. Basically, we know it's bad to kill you or hurt you, that's it. That's just about the only human right we all basically agree upon. With exceptiosn even there. So, not sure what your point is. :P

"Bound?" What's that supposed to mean. Who's binding me?

[Deleted]

"Human rights" is a rather fluid concept if you look at it internationally.

Yes, I'm aware. Which makes it useless to use in arguments.

"Bound?" What's that supposed to mean. Who's binding me?

... Don't play stupid.

[Slant]

Yes, I'm aware. Which makes it useless to use in arguments.



... Don't play stupid.

It depends on the context, I was merely pointing out how changing the revocation of citizenship could work in Germany, upon which someone started bashing our constitution. Which is fine, only he did it in an embarassingly stupid way so I had to slap him some facts. Then you join and start talking about human rights and how North Korea doesn't have them. Yes, so what? Who the fuck is talking about North Korea?

We're talking about how to remove someone's citizenship, that is what this thread is on about. If you want to have a philosophical discussion about human rights, do they exist or not, let's do that. I'm game. But probably not in this thread. :P

And when I ask you "bound", I'm quite literally asking what you mean by that. I'm not bound to human rights by anything. They're a human concept, I can choose to ignore all legislation and slaughter the guy next to me while his family watches and I forbid them to say a word. That's not what human rights in general are about.

Human rights in general are meant to protect you against COUNTRIES. Not other people. COUNTRIES then will protect you against other people. That's at least in countries not following case law, because case law is a whole different beast legally speaking.

[Deleted]

It depends on the context, I was merely pointing out how changing the revocation of citizenship could work in Germany, upon which someone started bashing our constitution. Which is fine, only he did it in an embarassingly stupid way so I had to slap him some facts. Then you join and start talking about human rights and how North Korea doesn't have them. Yes, so what? Who the fuck is talking about North Korea?

You're coming off as staunchly conservative when you think the way things are right now, will stay so in the future or want things to remain so for the future. I'm not arrogant enough to think the variant of laws we see today, will be anywhere close to the same in 200 years. Europe in 2050 will have little resemblance to the europe of today even. Reality will come knocking on the door and force a change.

We're talking about how to remove someone's citizenship, that is what this thread is on about. If you want to have a philosophical discussion about human rights, do they exist or not, let's do that. I'm game. But probably not in this thread. :P

Refering to current laws when it's a discussion about what should happen is stupid and useless, and conservative, because you believe they won't change or can't be changed.

And when I ask you "bound", I'm quite literally asking what you mean by that. I'm not bound to human rights by anything. They're a human concept, I can choose to ignore all legislation and slaughter the guy next to me while his family watches and I forbid them to say a word. That's not what human rights in general are about.

Human rights in general are meant to protect you against COUNTRIES. Not other people. COUNTRIES then will protect you against other people. That's at least in countries not following case law, because case law is a whole different beast legally speaking.

Why are you playing stupid? You know perfectly well what I meant by that.

And no, it isn't. Unless you want to say that what ISIS is doing, isn't a violation of human rights.