Hacker News Reader

Comment by delichon | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.

Belgium can revoke citizenship of dual nationals on certain ground. What off it?

What are the certain grounds?

Democracy, as long as everyone votes for what you want, right?

This appears to be blatant misinformation. They want to expel various noncitizens and remove or restrict various pathways to citizenship. It's important not to misrepresent others even when you vehemently disagree with them.

There are other (voices in other) parties that want to expel/restrict foreigners. There is a spectrum, and the AfD holds a rather large portion of the people tentatively agreeing with what you call misrepresentation.

How many people of their party must make such statements while being welcome in the party, for it to not be misinformation/misrepresentation.

I mean, yeah. They push some things that would help - to sell its ideas to peole, but in the end if they got to power they would tripple down and do horrible things.

If the german government and its parties actually listened to people, the AFD would have like 5% and would be non issue. Same with all extremist parties tht try to latch on some idea to get voted in.

> Political groups are factions of the Parliament, while parties are alliances of national parties at EU level, funded through the EU budget. Neither the group in the Parliament nor the lawmakers will face any consequence if ESN loses its status as a European party.

It’s important to note the lawmakers stay in office even if the European party is banned.

Europe is also not the US and from my knowledge it seems that this is the only party suspected of not complying with values. There are many many more parties that they are not trying to ban.

Unless they are doing something criminal their values are their and their voters business, regardless of how reprehensible they might be.

I don't know how the procedure for banning a europarty looks but in Germany the bar is very high. It must be against the core constitutional values (human dignity, freedom, democracy) and pose a threat to that (infamously NPD was not banned as it was found to small to pose a threat).

The procedure here seems to be similar to Germany that the parliament can only request a review from an independent body (in Germany the constitutional court) if this is the case, the actual decision comes from that body after a lengthy process.

Behind the europarty is (among others) the AfD for which the public has been debating for years now on wether to attempt to ban them because of their danger, so it doesn't seem very far fetched for their EU party really.

In Germany it is illegal to have Nazi-like values, such as wanting to expel all non-German people.

Is it illegal too to expel non-citizens? IIRC the issue is primarily wanting to expel certain citizens.

AFD is reactonary party, russian trojan horse, that just feeds on the Germanys government total failure to listen to its peoples needs. Russia has of course a stake in using E2E, to communicate with their paid actors. But that does not diminish peoples right for privacy. We have a lot of info about russias mingeling but we still do nothing about it. No private chat needed.

Saying that AfD "is an opponent of chat control" is like saying its more-or-less direct predecessor advocated for vegetarianism.

This party is far-right neofascists that are openly hostile to the democratic order and wants to deport German citizens to Africa if they're not Aryan enough.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/01/11/l...

> It would be hard to imagine a US party that didn't believe the other party is out of compliance with US values

This is a limitation of the American two-party system that incentives polarization instead of cooperation.

We have a working multi-party democracy and a majority across parties and ideologies voted for this.

To say this has anything to do with Chat Control betrays either a deep lack of understanding of European politics or a conscious attempt to mislead in order to garner support for extremists.

This is a bit skewed. AfD stands for a lot more than "merely" an opponent of chat control, including worshipping the 1930s era.

As another example, one of their members (Noah Krieger) fights on behalf of Russia, conquering lands and killing civilians (article from today only in german, sorry: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/videos-mit-schutzweste-u...). And many other problems I could list about AfD. So t he "they want to ban those opposing chat control" - sorry, that is a huge simplification.

> It would be hard to imagine a US party that didn't believe the other party is out of compliance with US values.

Ah? And why are there only two corrupt parties in the USA to begin with? I mean that's no real choice. Both are corrupt, and one now entered cult-status with the mad orange king. His cronies get rich. Everyone sees this. So, sorry, but your attempt to promote the USA while praising the AfD, is simply flat out rubbish nonsense. We only have bad actors here, no good ones.

The party they want to ban are neo-Nazis.

I think the groups pushing for these laws are largely right neoliberals. Historically, while being nominally in competition with both far-right and left, they have found it much easier to compromise with the right or mobilize against the left.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com