Just because something is legally defined, doesn't mean the law will be equally applied and it's not a conspiracy theory to point out the German government's long history of unequal application of draconian laws that are used to target specific demographic groups.
The groups they choose to target may change as time moves on, but the tactic remains.
I don't speak German, so this is just Google Translate:
Anyone who establishes an organization (§ 129 paragraph 2) whose purpose or activity is aimed at
murder (§ 211) or manslaughter (§ 212) or genocide (§ 6 of the International Criminal Code) or crimes against humanity (§ 7 of the International Criminal Code) or war crimes (§§ 8, 9, 10, 11 or § 12 of the International Criminal Code) or
crimes against personal freedom in the cases of § 239a or § 239b
or anyone who participates in such an organization as a member shall be punished with imprisonment from one year to ten years.
So like, just wondering a hypothetical here, let's say that in the future the ICJ sides with South Africa against Israel regarding the Gaza genocide case, would Germany actually start persecuting pro-kahanist bootlickers for terrorism? Or does the German "raison d'etat" cover criminals if they're Jewish Israelis?
So how does that work with equal treatment under the law?
Does this not just mean some get punished harder than others?
That said, I can imagine that people that do not have a passport to your country can be kindly requested to fuck off and never return again. And I think that is a good thing. From a countries perspective: my passport... my problem, not my passport... GTFO.
German government ministers on Wednesday agreed on draft legislation to simplify the deportation process for individuals who express support for terrorism, Germany's Interior Ministry said.
The move comes in reaction to online hate posts that celebrated the Hamas attack on Israel and other terrorist incidents.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz had announced plans to change the law after a deadly knife attack on an anti-Islam rally in Mannheim, in which a policeman died.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser put forward the changes, arguing that Berlin was "taking tough action against Islamist and anti-Semitic hate crime online."
"It is very clear to us that Islamist agitators who are mentally living in the Stone Age have no place in our country," Faeser told the Funke media group before Wednesday's cabinet meeting.
However, critics say the draft excessively clamps down on freedom of speech and said the measures were similar to tactics used by authoritarian regimes.
The original article contains 216 words, the summary contains 149 words. Saved 31%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
As @leetnewb says, nothing out of the extraordinary here. I think the issue is that it's Boeing. It seems quite fashionable to find fault with them lately. Sometimes justifiably so. Maybe not in this case though unless we see multiple instances of the same model and fault.
Yes they do. Did you know, in healthcare, they can do this with all the nurses in more than half the states? It’s about whether or not your state has rules against it. The ones who have restricted it recognize how dangerous it is for patient safety. Kids have died because of errors made in these scenarios. And that’s just the publicized court case stuff. I’m sure grandma, with a no CPR choice logged in her chart, gets swept under the rug or not noticed as an aberration.
Hospital administration is cheap so they’ll use it as a standard staffing strategy rather than call an outside, more expensive agency, to fill in, when the state lets them.
These are usually the same states that do not have lunch break laws.
So you can get a nurse: post-surgical, ICU, ER, or elsewhere who hasn’t slept in 24hrs. Hasn’t eaten anything in 15hrs. Maybe longer, because these people have kids and go to class. There’s no sleeping between call lights, they have to be attentive for the duration.
They’re tapped on the shoulder about an hour or two before shift end and told they’re staying. On penalty of abandonment on their license.
Idk about you, but I can’t read words at about 18hrs. Working tired is like working drunk. This is scary.
That’s what I want when I’ve been in a bad car accident and need to be hospitalized. My safety in the hands of one person who is in their 21st hour awake and hasn’t eaten for 10-12hrs because nothing that sells food is open at night, including the hospital cafeteria. Even the food prep crowd is screwed on this one.
Another fun fact. At night, hospitals run with a skeleton crew of docs. Normally, this is fine. You have competent help, read: nurses, who can see and predict the patient having problems and can then call the doc, or page an emergency overhead and get even more people for the patient. Enter mandatory overtime nurse. How well is he going to do on this while essentially working drunk?
But hey, if it saves corporate a buck then it’s worth playing this game of Russian roulette, amiright?
It began years ago. That's why things are so bad in Greece, most of the people able to leave have done already in search of a better life and leaving behind a shortage of skilled labour and labour in general. Meanwhile non economically active people, mostly children and retired still need to be supported somehow and unsurprisingly the public finances are in a poor state.
How's that any different that salary workers in the US that are exempt from OT protections and are required to work extra hours for free or else be subject to discipline, up to and including losing their job?
A lot of modern western countries do the same stuff and just hide it better or target groups that won't speak out.
Clowns have it backwards. Instead of empowering workers to make better things, to receive better education and actually become a force in this modern world, they are empowering employers so they can exploit them more. It’s like their government has a collective IQ of 6 (+/- 3). You just can’t make up this level of stupid.
The productivity of the country is going somewhere. If it's not coming back to help the people then that tells you everything you need to know about the motives of their leadership.
Fuck them employers. Supply more money if you want your job to be in higher demand. Cut the bums off, and I'm taking about the middle management/CEO trash.
Or how about, and hear me out now, because I know it sounds crazy...
How about you stop shunning people because you perceive them as "far" right or "far" left?
How about voting for politicians that seek compromise?
How about you stop contributing to polarization and start treating those with opposing views with respect and work to find a common ground upon which you can build mutual trust and cooperation?
What do I know? I'm just a middle class dude who loves hearing everyone's perspectives when they can treat me with respect, hear mine, and then discuss the reasons why we see the world differently.
I'm also married to a woman who disagrees with me constantly on political matters, and we love each other even more because we can challenge each other to see the world differently.
While understand that these people have experienced trauma, division is not the answer. Division is the foundation upon which hate is built.
Edit: seeing a downvote trend without further comments. To be totally honest if you disagree I would absolutely love to hear your thoughts. I can't grow or learn from others' perspectives without being challenged.
I have not seen that, but I don't think I agree with it. But maybe I'm misinterpreting the image because I'm admittedly feeling a bit defensive?
So that I can better understand, I ask a completely innocent question. Do you perceive my comment as encouraging people to tolerate intolerance?
For some clarification, I put "far" in parenthesis because I feel the term "far", in this age of "outrage culture" is relative and influenced largely by propaganda, social media, and rhetoric. Additionally, the term "shun" means to keep away from or take pains to avoid.
These people should not be shunned. You can and absolutely should have a conversation with someone you perceive as intolerant. Because I feel the term "far" is relative these days, I believe we are often quick to label people based on their emotional expressions, short sighted social media posts, or impulsive comments. So if you find yourself suspecting that someone is intolerant, I would encourage you to have a conversation. If your conversation further confirms that someone is expressing intolerant beliefs, you owe it to yourself and the other party to respectfully challenge them and express your interpretation of their perspective.
My personal experience is that if you are fortunate enough to find yourself engaging with someone open to debate, you should stand fast on your perspective. If you can respect each other, the words you speak are more likely to resonate. If you disrespect the opposing party, then you will almost certainly be dismissed, no matter how morally right you are, or perceive yourself to be. The other person will almost certainly see your disrespect as some sort of confirmation of their own perspective.
Seeking common ground puts you in a position to build trust and credibility, so that you can offer an alternate perspective as an ally and without being dismissed as an opponent. Don't avoid. Engage and change. If you ignore a weed, it continues to grow and pollinate. It must be effectively uprooted.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Edit: I am observing a trend of down voting this without further engagement. That's unfortunate. I would love to hear other's opinions. I'm honestly not a hater or troll, and do love to hear opposing opinions! Use your voice to share your thoughts!
I haven't downvoted you, and sucks that it's happening, but usually the "both sides" crowd don't understand that there isn't much nuance to their argument. For example, Nazis want to kill all non-aryans. Others, want to live. The compromise there is only kill some non-aryans. Is that something you're okay with?
If not, why do you think talking to Others would change the rhetoric on the Nazi side? There clearly one extremely bad side here, but that's an easy example. Real life is littered with less-extreme versions. For example, I saw an article the other day of someone who wouldn't sell their house to a woman of color after they finally met her. What a bunch of knobs.
I agree that culture and togetherness is the best way to cure these people. In general, I've started to see racism as a mental deficiency; it's something that could be treated. But what you're saying is tone deaf. "Go get yelled at by the far right, maybe you'll find common ground" is not an experience you've likely had to deal with i.e. your advice sounds like it comes from someone that hasn't dealt with virulent intolerance before. Sure, with someone you like, talk to them...get them mentally efficient again. But fuck off if you expect me to do that to strangers who have, for decades, bullied people like my friends to the point of depression and suicide. Understand that it takes a lot of time to deprogram someone, and you're not the one doing it. In fact, you want victims to do it.
Finally you said something that bothers me. "Don't shun the far right". You're right that we shouldn't ignore them. They should be monitored, closely, because they're dangerous. But stop giving fuckheads a platform. It's ridiculous that as a race, we've had to listen to all the town idiots berate and spew their hatred. Emotionally-immature people get caught up in their rhetoric before they've had the chance to grow into a decent human being, and by the time they're 35, it's too late; they're now the racist uncle at Thanksgiving. Americans have a laugh around the holidays, but deep down it's truly vile. And even if that uncle turns it around at 36, the damage has been done to countless people he's interacted with. "Oh but he's better now" just isn't good enough for his victims.
My kids aren't listening to all right-wing fuckheads, because I know they're not there yet, emotionally, to critically think about what the belligerents are on about. If you think your kids are special, great - good for you. But remember that every interview about a christofascist mass killing has their friends, family, and neighbors going on about how "he was a nice boy". The people selling this bile are much better at selling than others are critical thinking.
AfD is far right. They are ethno-nationalists that believe only ethnic-Germans belong in Germany. A leader has defended the Nazi SS. They have discussed re-migrating German citizens out of Germany. How do you compromise with people who would like to carry out an ethnic cleansing? Only forcibly relocate Muslims for now, and wait until next year to expel the Jewry?
Most far-right politicians do not debate or operate politically in good-faith. IDK about the people who vote for them. I think it usually takes years of slow progress for people to move away from extremist positions, and it takes a change in their environment to start the process (new social circle, life experiences, media consumption habits, etc).
I hate to sound cynical but when I read the replies here, I see more close mindedness that won't do anything to affect change. You can't change a culture if you're so hateful or resentful that you refuse to engage.
My opinion is that if you're not picking up the hammer and building the bridge, then you're part of the problem.
That's my experience as a once hyper conservative whose perspective only changed because someone approached me with respect and engaged me to change my perspective.
But it's clear that many here don't want to be true agents for change, but prefer to inflame division. You will never change a culture through hatred. You'll only cause them to "dig in".
But y'all keep doing you and post your hate so you can your upvotes.
Your definition of "far" seems to be "people who want to kill you for what you are". But others' definition of "far" is "people who disagree with you and vote against your cause". Those are not the same. And conflating the two only exacerbates the division.
dw.com
Active