Call for Europe-Wide Swastika Ban

[Guest Lottie]

The Nazis lost their freedom of speech 60 years ago, because of their actions.

You can look at banning their freedom of speech as a suitable equivalent of banning the freedom of travel for criminals, cause that's what there are - criminals.

Hating Nazism isn't the same as being a nazi, u know.

452110[/snapback]

Thank you Erikl.

[Stellar]

Wun, would you give a child molestar the freedom of move? ofcouse not, he should be behind bars.

Thats because he did something wrong.

The Nazis lost their freedom of speech 60 years ago, because of their actions.

So I suppose the muslims lost their freedom of speech also because of 9/11?

And for Stellar - either u are a complete ignorant in WW2 history, or u have no idea what Nazism is.

I am not ignorant of WW2, and I do know what Nazism is.

Hating Nazism isn't the same as being a nazi, u know.

Did I ever say it was?

The Nazis hated Jews and other ppl for their blood, and with no reason whatsoever.

No, they didnt hate them simply for their blood... they thought that the jews were plotting to take over also. They called them evil, and scum, and said they should have no rights.

You could be a strict christian, but because ur grandpa was Jewish, u would have been killed.

You could be a general in the German army, but because you are Jewish, you would have been gassed to death and ur body burned to ashes.

And since when is a nazi defined as someone who kills jews? That would mean that the neo nazis of today that havent committed any murder are not nazis at all.

The Jews were loyal citizens. They were very patriotic in Germany and other countries in Europe. They didn't harm the German ppl - as a matter of fact, they pretty much assimilated into the German society.

Who says that the people who freely call themselves nazis today arent loyal citizens and patriotic to their countries? The ones that havent committed a murder havent harmed the people of the country...

That is the nazi theory. Pure evil, mock to morality, love for brutality, hatred for anything good and enlightened.

Thats the nazi theory-- from a non nazi perspective. The nazis dont think they're evil, nor do they think they mock morality, they think that their morals are right. This "Pure evil, mock to morality, love for brutality, hatred of anything good and elightened" is not what defines a nazi from a nazi's point of view.

Edited January 16, 2005 by Stellar

[Stellar]

They thought the same of the Jews BUT there was NEVER any evidence to suggest such a thing and it was never the case anyway. Hitler was completely paranoid, picking on people because of the race, religion and background they were born into.

And you, right now, are advocating removing the freedom of a certain people because of THEIR beliefs.

There is plenty of firm hard evidence of what these neo-nazi's are doing.

What are these neo-nazis doing? Are they all going out killing jews? Are they gassing them? As I've said, theres neo-nazi equivalents everywhere, but since they dont call themselves nazis, no one pays any attention to them. Theres americans that advocate the complete destructions of muslims, but I dont see the american flag being banned...

[The Caspian Hare]

No, people, I'm afraid you give way too much credit for freedom of speech.

Wun, would you give a child molestar the freedom of move? ofcouse not, he should be behind bars.

But then again, the freedom to travel and move is even more basic and more universall than the freedom of speech.

The Nazis lost their freedom of speech 60 years ago, because of their actions.

You can look at banning their freedom of speech as a suitable equivalent of banning the freedom of travel for criminals, cause that's what there are - criminals.

By definition a child molester has already harmed someone, and he is being imprisoned to protect people, not because of his beliefs. On the other hand, this symbol is being banned simply because what it stands for is extremely offensive to some people.

This is pretty much thought crime.

Nobody here is being punished for what they as an individual did 60 years ago, and nobody is being punished for their association with the Nazi regime. They will be punished for expressing an opinion.

[Guest Lottie]

Thats because he did something wrong.

And so these neo-nazi's aren't doing anything wrong by trying to incite hatred and victimising ethic groups?

The Nazis lost their freedom of speech 60 years ago, because of their actions.

So I suppose the muslims lost their freedom of speech also because of 9/11?

Erikl is talking about a group of people who were Nazi's. Not the general populace.

Hating Nazism isn't the same as being a nazi, u know.

Did I ever say it was?

By insinuating that my thoughts were on the same parr with Hitlers.

No, they didnt hate them simply for their blood... they thought that the jews were plotting to take over also. They called them evil, and scum, and said they should have no rights.

Yes we know this and for no reason whatsoever. I on the other hand have a good reason to call these people evil and scum.

And since when is a nazi defined as someone who kills jews?

Since the Nazi party in WW2 decided that if a person was not of a certain breed they were then to the gas chambers.

That would mean that the neo nazis of today that havent committed any murder are not nazis at all.

Wrong. The neo-nazi's of today still follow the same philosophy of the Nazi party back then. The reason why they do not murder people is because they can't get away with it anymore.

Who says that the people who freely call themselves nazis today arent loyal citizens and patriotic to their countries? The ones that havent committed a murder havent harmed the people of the country...

Because they cannot do what the Nazi's back in WW2 did freely.

Thats the nazi theory-- from a non nazi perspective. The nazis dont think they're evil, nor do they think they mock morality, they think that their morals are right.  This "Pure evil, mock to morality, love for brutality, hatred of anything good and elightened" is not what defines a nazi from a nazi's point of view.

It might not be how they considered themselves to be but they were pure evil and its unjustifiable. Anyone who would try and justify what they did should be deeply ashamed. ( I am not saying you justify this by the way).

[Stellar]

And so these neo-nazi's aren't doing anything wrong by trying to incite hatred and victimising ethic groups?

Are they doing that? All of them? They're not actually threatening the ethnic groups, are they? They're not saying "Im going to kill you!". The ones that do can be tried under the law. The ones that follow the law, should not be punished for their belief.

Erikl is talking about a group of people who were Nazi's. Not the general populace.

And I'm talking about a group of people who were muslim. Im sorry, but I dont think we should take away freedom of speech or any other freedom from people who did not break any law, but simply are neo-nazis.

By insinuating that my thoughts were on the same parr with Hitlers.

I was pointing out that what you just said was very similar to what Hitler said, and its true.

I on the other hand have a good reason to call these people evil and scum.

And whats that reason that cant be used by a nazi to justify their beliefs? You better think hard.

Since the Nazi party in WW2 decided that if a person was not of a certain breed they were then to the gas chambers.

Then the neo-nazis of today dont exist, because they havent sent anyone to a gas chamber, have they?

Wrong. The neo-nazi's of today still follow the same philosophy of the Nazi party back then. The reason why they do not murder people is because they can't get away with it anymore.

So they are not breaking the law. They may believe that bloodlines should be pure, they may believe that germans should rule the world, they may believe that jews are scum, but they're not breaking any laws. I wasnt aware that a persons beliefs must be censored...

Because they cannot do what the Nazi's back in WW2 did freely.

And catholics of today cant do what catholics of a century ago did freely. I suppose we should supress them also?

It might not be how they considered themselves to be but they were pure evil and its unjustifiable. Anyone who would try and justify what they did should be deeply ashamed. ( I am not saying you justify this by the way).

According to you. According to them, the jews were pure evil. The difference being between you and them: Some of them managed to gain power, and the ones that did acted on their beliefs. The ones alive today, however, havent.

[Guest Lottie]

And so these neo-nazi's aren't doing anything wrong by trying to incite hatred and victimising ethic groups?

Are they doing that? All of them?  They're not actually threatening the ethnic groups, are they? They're not saying "Im going to kill you!". The ones that do can be tried under the law. The ones that follow the law, should not be punished for their belief.

Their philosophy's speak volumes.

Erikl is talking about a group of people who were Nazi's. Not the general populace.

And I'm talking about a group of people who were muslim. Im sorry, but I dont think we should take away freedom of speech or any other freedom from people who did not break any law, but simply are neo-nazis.

Muslim as in the genral populace. Nazi as in a group of people.

I on the other hand have a good reason to call these people evil and scum.

And whats that reason that cant be used by a nazi to justify their beliefs? You better think hard.

Then the neo-nazis of today dont exist, because they havent sent anyone to a gas chamber, have they?

So they are not breaking the law. They may believe that bloodlines should be pure, they may believe that germans should rule the world, they may believe that jews are scum, but they're not breaking any laws. I wasnt aware that a persons beliefs must be censored...

Any sane human being would understand that the Nazi's philosophy is unjustifiable. Its that simple. Don't even try and start with me Stellar. The neo-nazi nowadays believes in exactly what the Nazi party did back in WW2, the only difference being that they do not have the freedom to perform ethnic cleansings anymore. We are talking about probably the most destructive, dispicable crime against humans by humans in the history of the 20th century. Millions of Jews, Gypsies and any other poor souls who were not deemed 'human' were sent to their deaths, slave labour camps or experimented on in the most disgusting, sickening and barbaric ways imaginable. If a person was lucky straight to the gas chamber. The crimes comitted were absoloutely horrific. These people were EVIL.

Nowadays neo-nazi's who still follow this philosophy and who believe that what happened to these people was justified are sick, sick and twisted and anyone who tries justify their beliefs is an absoloute fool in my opinion.

Edited January 16, 2005 by Lottie

[Athenian]

Oh come on... The Nazis were not that bad...

I bet Hitler would have made a fine country and empire out of Germany/Europe if he appealed to everybody and did not start exterminating the Jews or anybody that opposed Nazi rule...

Nonetheless, Honor your foes!

Edited January 16, 2005 by Athenian

[Novo]

there were lots of jewish nazis, and some jewish sailors in hitlers navy. Hitler was a madman

[Stellar]

Their philosophy's speak volumes.

Their philosophy means nothing. They're not to be punished for their beliefs.

Any sane human being would understand that the Nazi's philosophy is unjustifiable. Its that simple. Don't even try and start with me Stellar. The neo-nazi nowadays believes in exactly what the Nazi party did back in WW2, the only difference being that they do not have the freedom to perform ethnic cleansings anymore. We are talking about probably the most destructive, dispicable crime against humans by humans in the history of the 20th century. Millions of Jews, Gypsies and any other poor souls who were not deemed 'human' were sent to their deaths, slave labour camps or experimented on in the most disgusting, sickening and barbaric ways imaginable. If a person was lucky straight to the gas chamber. The crimes comitted were absoloutely horrific. These people were EVIL.

Nowadays neo-nazi's who still follow this philosophy and who believe that what happened to these people was justified are sick, sick and twisted and anyone who tries justify their beliefs is an absoloute fool in my opinion.

They're not justifiable, IMO. That still doesnt change the fact that the neo-nazis of today shouldnt be punished unless they themselves have committed a crime. Believing they're better than jews, and not wanting to be near jews or have anything to do with them is not a crime. Not even wanting them all dead is a crime. Killing them is a crime.

[Erikl]

Stellar, I'm sorry, but that isn't the Nazi theory.

They blamed German lost and misery because of impure blood. They believed the German ppl, part of what they considered a fictional "Aryan" elite race, lost the world and lost it's greatness because the German ppl mixed with other, "infereor" nations.

The Jews were the most assimilated group in Germany, so obviously they were one of the main targets of this demagogue. And ofcourse communism was considered a Jewish conspiracy to continue it's "pollution" of the German nation, by ideas of equallity, morality, etc.

They mocked Christianity as being a branch of Judaism. They mocked western morality as being of Jewish origin.

They mocked democracy and equallity, called it a Jewish plot to further downgrade the German race.

But the Jews were merely an obstacle, in their theory, for German and "Aryan" domination of the world. Other ppl, "races", were also in their plan - the mental illed and invalids were also considered to "genetically polluting" to the German race.

The gypsies, another minority group in Germany. They too were part of his irradication plan.

And what about the Slavs, which he planned to kill half and make the other half permenant slave "race"?

They mocked morality because they thought it's weak.

They mocked equality because they thought it was dangerous to their "race".

They were evil in the sense they mocked and rejected all morality as being weak, dangerous, and none important.

This is the Nazi theory.

I have a question for you, though.

After WW2, nazi party members and SS members were considered immidiet criminals, only for being members of these organization.

Why are they still considered criminals to this day, even though many of them didn't take part in the killing itself, while new, "fresh" nazis, that identify with the same ideals, same theories, and practically enlist themselves into the ranks of nazi parties and quasi-SA groups, are not considered criminals?

[The Caspian Hare]

Because the "new" Nazis have not committed crimes. Well, some of them do. But they are prosecuted for actual crimes, not for their beliefs. Members of the original Nazi party and SS were part of organizations that committed crimes against humanity, even if as individuals they did not kill anybody.

[Boff]

I think banning it is rather stupid. The more we try and burry and forget this stuff, the sooner it will happen again imo.

[<bleeding_heart>]

Fine then the rest of the world can ban britannia and the Union Flag, has the confederate flag been banned yet?

Ban that symbol and they'll just use another maybe a pic of "unpures" being shot or gassed.

This isnt about what the symbol means it about certain groups wanting to delete a dark part of their history. Once it happens they can start on the history book lets just pretend WWII was an urban legend. I see a real problem with that.

Also remove the symbol, it makes it a lot harder to ID these people.

If they want to stop these people ban them completley, freeze any funding, arrest anyone connected, put them away for a long time. This is nothing more than a pointless gesture "oh look we've taken away their symbol, they are no harm to anybody anymore".

[Erikl]

And so, redneck, this law doesn't put those scums in jail, it simply cut their freedom of speech. You could look at it as the banning of freedom of speech for the original Nazis, cause they were the ones to use that symbol in that way for the first time.

IMO, the fact that the swastika was banned only in Germany and Austria is a shame itself. It pretends as though only the Germans were nazis, ignoring all the collaborators and pro-nazi states created in Europe. So, IMHO, this law is only something that should have been done long ago. The EU was created after WW2, after the defeat of the nazi beast. It is only fitting that this organization should have banned nazi symbols from the beginning, and not only in Germany and Austria.

As for immigrants who happen to use the swastika in it's pre-WW2 usage, they should understand the damage that has been caused to Europe under this symbol, respect the society they are immigrating into.

Also, I'm all for giving ppl like buddhists and sikhs the right to use it as part of their religion. They'll only have to get special pass for that, which would be very easy for them to get (I doubt neo-nazis will disguise as buddhists so ppl will let them use the swastika ).

[+joc]

See what happens when you guys want your government to protect you from criminals with guns? They pass a law banning guns. See what happens when you want your government to protect you from cigarette smoke? They ban cigarettes. See what happens when you want your government to protect you from speech you don't like?

They ban speech. Do we see a pattern here?

If this continues eventually United Europe will be just another version of the USSR and you won't have anyone to blame but yourselves.

[Stellar]

Stellar, I'm sorry, but that isn't the Nazi theory.

Really? I didnt present any nazi theory...

They blamed German lost and misery because of impure blood. They believed the German ppl, part of what they considered a fictional "Aryan" elite race, lost the world and lost it's greatness because the German ppl mixed with other, "infereor" nations.

The Jews were the most assimilated group in Germany, so obviously they were one of the main targets of this demagogue. And ofcourse communism was considered a Jewish conspiracy to continue it's "pollution" of the German nation, by ideas of equallity, morality, etc.

They mocked Christianity as being a branch of Judaism. They mocked western morality as being of Jewish origin.

They mocked democracy and equallity, called it a Jewish plot to further downgrade the German race.

But the Jews were merely an obstacle, in their theory, for German and "Aryan" domination of the world. Other ppl, "races", were also in their plan - the mental illed and invalids were also considered to "genetically polluting" to the German race.

The gypsies, another minority group in Germany. They too were part of his irradication plan.

And what about the Slavs, which he planned to kill half and make the other half permenant slave "race"?

Just a note: A nazi doesnt necessairly have to have an irradication plan to be a nazi...

They mocked morality because they thought it's weak.

They mocked equality because they thought it was dangerous to their "race".

They were evil in the sense they mocked and rejected all morality as being weak, dangerous, and none important.

They mocked *impure* morality. They were evil according to us, but to them, they thought they were the only ones brave enough to fight for good.

After WW2, nazi party members and SS members were considered immidiet criminals, only for being members of these organization.

Why are they still considered criminals to this day, even though many of them didn't take part in the killing itself, while new, "fresh" nazis, that identify with the same ideals, same theories, and practically enlist themselves into the ranks of nazi parties and quasi-SA groups, are not considered criminals?

Was the average nazi germany citizen considered illegal, or the ones that participated in the regime that caused the deaths of so many countless innocent livse? Last I saw, it was members of the regime that were being tried.

[<bleeding_heart>]

See what happens when you guys want your government to protect you from criminals with guns? They pass a law banning guns.

Looks like its working though and it was wanted by the majority. But its not the case throughout Europe.

See what happens when you want your government to protect you from cigarette smoke? They ban cigarettes.

They havent, they've banned smoking in certain places the same as in NY. I dont agree with it but majority rule I suppose but if you knock someone out for smoking in a restaurant near food your the badguy.

See what happens when you want your government to protect you from speech you don't like? They ban speech.

Just a german political party for now It'd be a dark day for free speech if it came to pass throughout europe. Whats the quote "I despise what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." or similar.

Do we see a pattern here?

Well id like to say yes its that the governments are following the will of the people but then I just start to laugh at that idea.

If this continues eventually United Europe will be just another version of the USSR and you won't have anyone to blame but yourselves.

Well theres no United Europe just an old boys club who cant get there act together. I would have thought us asking the government for what we want and getting it would have been vrey different from the USSR. Although if its imposed upon us along with a few other things.....

[Monkyburd]

I'm too sure about this (I can't find the link to it) but there was a case in California where a NeoNazi group placed a large plywood swastika ontop of one of their buildings, and had to take it down because of complaints.

They claimed if churches can have crosses on their rooves, why not us and our symbol too?

Its a very touchy subject... I'll just say that.

[Stellar]

They claimed if churches can have crosses on their rooves, why not us and our symbol too?

They do have a point too.

[Boff]

I agree.

[Dancing_Dumplings]

In India, both clockwise and counterclockwise swastikas were used, with different meanings. Since the swastika is a simple symbol, it has been used, perhaps independently, by many human societies. One of the oldest known swastikas was painted on a Paleolithic cave at least 10,000 years ago. The swastika still continues today to be an extensively used sign in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. In Jainism, it delineates their seventh saint, and the four arms are also used to remind the worshiper of the four possible places of rebirth; the animal or plant world, in Hell, on Earth, or in the spirit world. To Hindus, the swastika with the arms bent to the left is called the sathio or sauvastika, which symbolizes night, magic, purity, and the destructive goddess Kali. In both Hinduism and Jainism, the swastika or sathio is used to mark the opening pages or their account books, thresholds, doors, and offerings.

In China, about 2000 years ago, when Buddhism was brought to China from India, the Chinese also borrowed the swastika and its sense of auspiciousness. In China, the swastika is considered to be a Chinese character with the reading of WAN (in Mandarin). It is also thought to be equivalent to another Chinese character with the same pronunciation, which means 'ten thousand; a large number; all'.

In the Americas, the swastika was used by Native Americans in North, Central, and South America. The swastika was also widely used in Mayan and Aztec art. In North America, the swastika was a symbol used by the Navajos, Tennessee and Ohio Indian burial mounds (Hopewell Mound).

source, with pictures too

my uncles girlfriend has a blanket hanging from the wall. i glanced over at it for a second, and did a double take. there were swastikas all over it. things didnt match up in my head, since my uncles girlfriend just happens to be Jewish.

so naturally i asked her what it was, and if those really were swastikas. she told me that someone gave it to her as a gift. apprently it was a native american blanket, and swastika are common with certian tribes

the swastika has been twisted around since the nazis when someone says "swastika" your mind automaticly thinks "Nazi" which is sad really, since it means peace in many diffrent cultures

[SilverCougar]

I would rather the origonal meaning restored, then have it banned.

[+joc]

They claimed if churches can have crosses on their rooves, why not us and our symbol too?

They do have a point too.

I believe the Nazi party as well as the Communist party has the right to exist as an institution. I believe they have the right to express their views in the political spectrum. I also believe they have the right to display a flag inside and outside their headquarters.

It is better to have them around than to get rid of them by squashing the freedoms of the populace. But if they step outside of the law one micron...slam 'em up against the legal wall!

That being said...should the KKK be allowed to have Headquarters in Harlem and display the KKK flag? Or would that be considered to be 'inciting a riot'. There is a line which one crosses with their speech that cannot be overlooked. It is a fine line as well.

[Wings of Selkhet]

Ugh. This is all so complicated. Too many shades of gray, I think.