NationStates Jolt Archive

I often wonder this. Can someone sort of like the Nazi doctrine, but not take it too literally? If so, should we welcome him or her to our society, or should we cast them out on the basis that all Nazis are bad.

Was Patton right, in other words?

We shouldn't cast anyone out of our society based on their political beliefs.

A moderate Nazi...

"Look guys, just because I wear a swastika and shout 'Heil Hitler' doesn't mean I'm not reasonable. And, no, Joe, I don't promote killing the Jews. Just beating them with truncheons until they beg to leave the country."

should we cast them out on the basis that all Nazis are bad.

Sounds like Nazism to me.

We shouldn't cast anyone out of our society based on their political beliefs.

Maybe not for supporting genocide, but we should for inciting it.

We shouldn't cast anyone out of our society based on their political beliefs.Why not?

Maybe not for supporting genocide, but we should for inciting it.

Of course, but having extreme political beliefs and acting on them are two very different things. I mean, how many times has someone said on here that they think that all of Group X should be killed? And I doubt any of them have done any more than just say it, assuming they actually meant it.

A moderate Nazi...

"Look guys, just because I wear a swastika and shout 'Heil Hitler' doesn't mean I'm not reasonable. And, no, Joe, I don't promote killing the Jews. Just beating them with truncheons until they beg to leave the country."

Well, in a more serious vein, someone who promotes expelling inferior races or making them second-class citizens over destroying them might be considered a 'moderate' Nazi. That said, we should still ostracize them.

Of course, but having extreme political beliefs and acting on them are two very different things.The first leads to the second, and given the chance it will. So fighting dumb ideologies and thus minds is the first step to fighting the application of such ideologies.

I often wonder this. Can someone sort of like the Nazi doctrine, but not take it too literally? If so, should we welcome him or her to our society, or should we cast them out on the basis that all Nazis are bad.

Was Patton right, in other words?

Well, that kind of depends. Nazism was eliminated within a matter of years after its creation, so it never had the time to evolve as an ideology - ergo, it never ended up having one generation say "This is True Nazism, but that stuff was just Hitler". The word Nazism, as it is used today, IS Hitlerism, all of it: holocaust, Barbarossa, anti-communism, what have you.

((Of course, one could argue that moderate Nazism would be something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_plan) to solve the *ahem* Jewish problem of Europe *ahem* instead of the holocaust. I don't think I'd vote for 'em - such a bunch of boats would cost quite a lot of money. [/sarcasm]))

However, one could very reasonably be a proponent of the nation-state, combined with quite an amount of nationalism, and state-controlled capitalism, which could be seen as being the "core" of Nazism, before all the stuff about inferior races was introduced. I wouldn't see any reason to exclude people like that from society.

I see no need to expel them from society.

So fighting dumb ideologies and thus minds is the first step to fighting the application of such ideologies.
And who decides which ideologies are superior? Isn't such a thing similar to the Nazis deciding that the Aryan race was superior, and that the Nazi ideology was superior?

The first leads to the second, and given the chance it will. So fighting dumb ideologies and thus minds is the first step to fighting the application of such ideologies.

Yes, but banning those ideologies and punishing those who hold them will simply lead to an underground rebel movement. Let the Nazis spout their drivel from the street corners, and let intelligent people stand beside them and point out how wrong they are.

The first leads to the second, and given the chance it will. So fighting dumb ideologies and thus minds is the first step to fighting the application of such ideologies.

Dumb ideologies like political censorship?

And who decides which ideologies are superior? The same folks who determine that Nazis are an undesirable group and ask whether they should be cast out or not.

Isn't such a thing similar to the Nazis deciding that the Aryan race was superior, and that the Nazi ideology was superior?No.

GODWIN! :D

Yes, but banning those ideologies and punishing those who hold them will simply lead to an underground rebel movement. Let the Nazis spout their drivel from the street corners, and let intelligent people stand beside them and point out how wrong they are.If you don't let them spread their poison you need no-one to point it out. I'd rather have the intelligent folks do something against Nazis before their teachings reach young, impressible people.

Dumb ideologies like political censorship?That's not an ideology, that's pragmatism.

We should not ban such ideologies, no matter how repugnant they are.

However, social ostracism, practiced by individuals, is an appropriate treatment. Nobody I know will be friends with a Nazi, ergo we are ostracizing them.

GODWIN! :DNo, because this thread started already out with the issue.

That's not an ideology, that's pragmatism.

:rolleyes:

Yes, but banning those ideologies and punishing those who hold them will simply lead to an underground rebel movement. Let the Nazis spout their drivel from the street corners, and let intelligent people stand beside them and point out how wrong they are.

Exactly. It is entirely impossible to put restrictions on thoughts and political ideologies. Political censorship is an idiotic idea and is entirely impossible to enforce without eliminating privacy entirely (including the privacy of one's own thoughts), which is also impossible.

I often wonder this. Can someone sort of like the Nazi doctrine, but not take it too literally? If so, should we welcome him or her to our society, or should we cast them out on the basis that all Nazis are bad.

Was Patton right, in other words?

If you think it's possible to be a moderate Nazi, you're crazier than they are. (Nods)

No, because this thread started already out with the issue.

So, the thread got godwinned in the first post. ;)

:rolleyes:No need to roll eyes. If you don't want Nazis in your society, then find a way to remove them.

Maybe not for supporting genocide, but we should for inciting it.

Get bent. I can't think of a better reason.

However, social ostracism, practiced by individuals, is an appropriate treatment. Nobody I know will be friends with a Nazi, ergo we are ostracizing them.

Yah, but I said moderate. Like someone who liked the lifetime employment bit, and the light airy dwellings stuff. Granted they think Nazi germans are a little bit better than everyone else, but the repudiate acting on it, and certainly would never kill anyone over it. Indeed, they would condemn that type of thing.

No need to roll eyes. If you don't want Nazis in your society, then find a way to remove them.

Whatever happened to freedom of thought? I don't want to give the state the power to opress differing opinions.

Get bent.

I miss saying that, I used to say it all the time! You've got me saying it again now, so thanks I guess, but you should get bent too.

Yah, but I said moderate. Like someone who liked the lifetime employment bit, and the light airy dwellings stuff. Granted they think Nazi germans are a little bit better than everyone else, but the repudiate acting on it, and certainly would never kill anyone over it. Indeed, they would condemn that type of thing.

Whether they think they're a 'little bit' better than everyone else or that the rest of the planet is sub-human, they're still Nazis and deserve nothing short of open, hopefully eloquent derision and (no end of) scorn.

Whatever happened to freedom of thought?Oh, as long as a Nazi keeps his thoughts to himself he can hold whatever thoughts he wants. But once he publicly opens his mouth he will influence others. And there is no reason why a society should tolerate such obviously negative influences.

I don't want to give the state the power to opress differing opinions.That would depend on the issue of opinion. E.g. holocaust denial.

Oh, as long as a Nazi keeps his thoughts to himself he can hold whatever thoughts he wants. But once he publicly opens his mouth he will influence others. And there is no reason why a society should tolerate such obviously negative influences.



Exactement.

Can a Nazi be moderate?

Let's break Nazism down (i may be wrong in this, so let me know if I am please):

Economics:

Nazis economically espouse aspects of both free enterprise and socialism. So economically speaking, I suppose you could characterize Nazis as somewhat moderate.


Social:

Nazism is a totalitarian concept -- not moderate at all.

Oh, as long as a Nazi keeps his thoughts to himself he can hold whatever thoughts he wants. But once he publicly opens his mouth he will influence others. And there is no reason why a society should tolerate such obviously negative influences.


Where do you draw the line of what is considered a negative influence though?

Oh, as long as a Nazi keeps his thoughts to himself he can hold whatever thoughts he wants. But once he publicly opens his mouth he will influence others. And there is no reason why a society should tolerate such negative influences.


So fuck freedom of speech then?


That would depend on the issue of opinion.

Lets just say that one leader gets granted the power of political censorship. Lets assume that deporting nazis is a good thing. What will stop his predecessor from taking that power further, what if another party gets voted in and decides to ban liberals? A power like that is too easy to abuse.

So fuck freedom of speech then?
There's such a thing as a reasonable limitation on freedom of speech, y'know. It varies from place to place, but by no means do people everywhere have to endure the public espousal of Nazi ideology. Nor should they.

There's such a thing as a reasonable limitation on freedom of speech, y'know. It varies from place to place, but by no means do people everywhere have to endure the public espousal of Nazi ideology. Nor should they.

The bold is a very subjective term however open to abuse

So fuck freedom of speech then?Sometimes. E.g. Holocaust denial is punishable in some European countries. Freedom of speech is not limitless, nor should it be.

Lets just say that one leader gets granted the power of political censorship. Lets assume that deporting nazis is a good thing. What will stop his predecessor from taking that power further, what if another party gets voted in and decides to ban liberals? A power like that is too easy to abuse.We are not ruled by single leaders but by our elected representation in the parliaments.

The bold is a very subjective term however open to abuse

I'll take my chances, thanks all the same.

Sometimes. E.g. Holocaust denial is punishable in some European countries. Freedom of speech is not limitless, nor should it be.


But it should grant the right to voice your opinion. Anything that restricts someone voicing their opinion is inherently oppressive.


We are not ruled by single leaders but by our elected representation in the parliaments.

And what if that representation changes?

But it should grant the right to voice your opinion. Anything that restricts someone voicing their opinion is inherently oppressive.So you would want Nazis to teach their shit to your kids?

And what if that representation changes?It changes. And?

So you would want Nazis to teach their shit to your kids?


I don't want it, but I don't want to stop them. Good Education does a much better job at making crazy idealogies more and more insignifcant. No country is really under threat from Nazis is it, so political censorship is pointless.


It changes. And?

It's too risky leaving that power for any party to abuse. Because as has been shown time and time and time again, that power is always abused.

If we oppress and vindicate Nazi's... Aren't we just becoming just like them?

It's like imprisoning someone just because they said they want to kill someone. It's not a crime to wish someone to be dead, is it? Granted, it's nasty, but it doesn't harm anyone does it? Unless a Nazi commits an actual crime in trying to carry out thier ideology, they shouldn't be deported or imprisoned or persecuted or whatever.

Thier nasty bastards, but... Does anyone understand what I'm saying?

If you don't let them spread their poison you need no-one to point it out.
If you want to remove them from society for "spreading their poisons" you'll need people to remove them and keep them removed, i.e. police and prison guards. Which costs money. Letting them speak and letting people speak against them is free.
I'd rather have the intelligent folks do something against Nazis before their teachings reach young, impressible people.

Punishing them for their beliefs will simply make them martyrs. Proving them wrong in the eyes of those impressible people will not.

I raise you...

The Nazi 'Superman' in Spriggan (Bo Brantze), whose take on Aryan supremacy was that said supremacy meant that they were supposed to protect rather than to exterminate weaker races.

Hum. Not quite fitting the bill of 'Moderate', but it's a start.

I don't want it, but I don't want to stop them. Good Education does a much better job at making crazy idealogies more and more insignifcant. No country is really under threat from Nazis is it, so political censorship is pointless.Young individuals are under threat from Nazis. They are in danger of wasting their lives. If you don't have the courage to stop Nazis from teaching shit to your kids, your kids might just end up that way.

It's too risky leaving that power for any party to abuse. Because as has been shown time and time and time again, that power is always abused.Like by the Nazis? Who you would not have stopped before too late.

There's such a thing as a reasonable limitation on freedom of speech, y'know.

Yes there is. NONE. There is no limitation on free speech that is reasonable, because any limitation is oppressive. As is any limitation on what you can believe and political policies you can support.

What if Nazis gained a majority and got elected, or took power by force, and decided to ban your political ideology, or limited free speech on things you wanted to hold rallies to support? How is this any different than you saying that their political views are wrong and they may not talk publicly about Nazism?

Young individuals are under threat from Nazis. They are in danger of wasting their lives. If you don't have the courage to stop Nazis from teaching shit to your kids, your kids might just end up that way.


Whats better, having an extremely tiny amount of Nazi kids, or a larger amount of broken homes?


Like by the Nazis? Who you would not have stopped before too late.

The Nazi's would probably gain more power if you opressed them, because they would have a persecution complex to influence more people into joining them.

Poll added.

I am enjoying the responses. Please vote. TIA.

Yes there is. NONE. There is no limitation on free speech that is reasonable, because any limitation is oppressive. As is any limitation on what you can believe and political policies you can support.

What if Nazis gained a majority and got elected

Can't happen if you can't legally communicate hate speech, and Nazi ideology qualifies as such. No chance to communicate = no majority = no elected Nazi Party.

And like I already said, I'll take my chances with the big, bad freedom from having to endure idiocy for the sake of having to endure idiocy.

Whats better, having an extremely tiny amount of Nazi kids, or a larger amount of broken homes?In the end? When the tiny amount has become the majority? Hmmm...

The Nazi's would probably gain more power if you opressed them, because they would have a persecution complex to influence more people into joining them.Not if they have been removed.

Can't happen if you can't legally communicate hate speech

Yes it can, and it has happened many times. Look at Russia for instance.

Whats better, having an extremely tiny amount of Nazi kids, or a larger amount of broken homes?

The "extremely tiny amount of Nazi kids", of course.

The Nazi's would probably gain more power if you opressed them, because they would have a persecution complex to influence more people into joining them.

You're funny. People don't gravitate en masse towards those who whinge. Anyway, why not give it a try before discarding it like some candy wrapper?

In the end? When the tiny amount has become the majority? Hmmm...


Even though the complete opposite is happening, except from maybe Russia (which has pretty much reached it's peak now).


Not if they have been removed.

Not all groups are easy to remove. Not all Nazi's can be tracked down. In situations like this (as has happened many times), powerful underground groups emerge which are very difficult for the government to track.

Yes it can, and it has happened many times. Look at Russia for instance.

Okay, let's look at Russia.

http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/russia.gif

There it is. Right where I left it.

What are we supposed to be looking for, again? Nazis?

You're funny. People don't gravitate en masse towards those who whinge.

Then what the fuck is the point in censoring them in the first place?


Anyway, why not give it a try before discarding it like some candy wrapper?

Already has, and it didn't work.

Then what the fuck is the point in censoring them in the first place?

Everything about them, that's what.

Already has, and it didn't work.

Links, please.

Okay, let's look at Russia.

http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/russia.gif

There it is. Right where I left it.

What are we supposed to be looking for, again? Nazis?

I meant Russia's history obviously. The Tsar tried to exile the Bolsheviks and mensheviks, this just made them more powerful.

Can't happen if you can't legally communicate hate speech, and Nazi ideology qualifies as such. No chance to communicate = no majority = no elected Nazi Party.

And like I already said, I'll take my chances with the big, bad freedom from having to endure idiocy for the sake of having to endure idiocy.

Okay, so if you ban Nazis, they can't get elected, but what if it was turned around on you? What if your ideology was banned by the government, and you were oppressed because of your views? I'd support private citizens and businesses deliberately discriminating against Nazis, as that is their right (provided they cause no physical harm). But state-sponsored oppression is just wrong.

Isn't everyone supposed to equal under the law? If everyone is equal under the law, there can be no law saying one group's ideology is okay, and another is not. That is not equality, but mandated inequality.

Everything about them, that's what.


So it has nothing at all to do with pragmaticism, thought not.


Links, please.

How about you provide a link where political censorship worked out well. And don't say it hasn't been done.

I meant Russia's history obviously. The Tsar tried to exile the Bolsheviks and mensheviks, this just made them more powerful.

But it's also true that the situation in Russia at the time was a lot different than it is in Germany today. The reason why they became more popular is because the czarist government was so incompetent and corrupt, and people were suffering because of it.

Okay, so if you ban Nazis, they can't get elected,

If? Are. This is not America.

but what if it was turned around on you? What if your ideology was banned by the government, and you were oppressed because of your views?

Gee, what if? What a fun game to play. But it's utterly beside the point, as I live in a democracy. And anyway, that argument doesn't persuade me to not want Nazis openly & publicly derided whenever possible.

I'd support private citizens and businesses deliberately discriminating against Nazis, as that is their right (provided they cause no physical harm). But state-sponsored oppression is just wrong.

That's your opinion and of course, you're welcome to it. But where I live, you are on the wrong side of the law if you openly espouse hate-speech, and I don't have a problem with that.

Isn't everyone supposed to equal under the law? If everyone is equal under the law, there can be no law saying one group's ideology is okay, and another is not. That is not equality, but mandated inequality.

We are all equally entitled to live our lives free from hate speech.

I agree. The Tsarist government and the Weimar Republic were susceptible to overthrow because they were so feeble (especially the Weimar Republic, who had to deal with France and Britain's ridiculous "treaty"). I don't see the modern day government of Germany being that weak.

But it's also true that the situation in Russia at the time was a lot different than it is in Germany today. The reason why they became more popular is because the czarist government was so incompetent and corrupt, and people were suffering because of it.

Yeah, and one of the reasons they were so unpopular was because of political censorship. Had they not opressed the previously un popular bolsheviks, they would never have gained their "edge" and support from the SRs.

How about you provide a link where political censorship worked out well. And don't say it hasn't been done.

Sure thing. Jim Keegstra. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra) And now shall I expect the same of you, or... ?

What does U.S.W. stand for?

Sure thing. Jim Keegstra. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra) And now shall I expect the same of you, or... ?

How totally irellavent to political censorship. You shouldn't be allowed to teach any extreme political opinion in class, this has nothing to do with deporting Nazis (which is what you seem to support).

How about giving some links of actual political censorship.

There is no such thing as a moderate nazi.

That's like being moderately pregnant. You either are - or you're not.

That said - I really hate nazis with a passion.

What does U.S.W. stand for?

I though it stood for "und so weiter".

How totally irellavent to political censorship. You shouldn't be allowed to teach any extreme political opinion in class, this has nothing to do with deporting Nazis (which is what you seem to support).

How about giving some links of actual political censorship.

It is entirely relevant to political censorship. Jim Keegstra claimed he was entitled to espouse his anti-semitic views to his students, in his classroom, because of freedom of expression. And it was determined that he was wrong. He was not so entitled under the Constitution.

The Court found that the violation of freedom of expression was justified under section 1 as the law had a rational connection to its objective, it was not overly limiting, and the seriousness of the violation was not severe as the content of the hateful expression has little value to protect.

So Keegstra was not allowed to promulgate anti-semitism amongst students, in school. How is this not 'actual political censorship'? And in what way was the outcome not positive?

It is entirely relevant to political censorship. Jim Keegstra claimed he was entitled to espouse his anti-semitic views to his students, in his classroom, because of freedom of expression. And it was determined that he was wrong. He was not so entitled under the Constitution.



So Keegstra was not allowed to promulgate anti-semitism amongst students, in school. How is this not 'actual political censorship'? And in what way was the outcome not positive?

Well you know that this is not the kind of political censorship we are talking about. I assume, like UB, that you support deportiong Nazi's for voicing their opinion, in a classroom or not right?

I'll wait for your links now, Hydesland. Fair is fair, after all...

What does U.S.W. stand for?

Und so weite.

It's liek German for &c.

Well you know that this is not the kind of political censorship we are talking about. I assume, like UB, that you support deportiong Nazi's for voicing their opinion, in a classroom or not right?

I support enforcement of our nation's Laws while upholding our Constitution. What kind of 'political censorship' are you talking about, if the case of Mr. Keegstra doesn't fit your definition of 'political censorship'? Again, I would ask that you provide links - in this case, to properly illustrate your definition - and perhaps now, also to demonstrate just how the example I provided does not qualify (in your opinion).

I support enforcement of our nation's Laws while upholding our Constitution. What kind of 'political censorship' are you talking about, if the case of Mr. Keegstra doesn't fit your definition of 'political censorship'? Again, I would ask that you provide links - in this case, to properly illustrate your definition - and perhaps now, also to demonstrate just how the example I provided does not qualify (in your opinion).

I'm talking about, as I said, deporting Nazi's for voicing their opinion kind of censorship. Not classroom censorship. I don't see how a link would make it any more clear what kind of censorship i'm talking about.

I'm talking about, as I said, deporting Nazi's for voicing their opinion kind of censorship. Not classroom censorship. I don't see how a link would make it any more clear what kind of censorship i'm talking about.

So the onus is now on you to provide a link to an example of a Nazi being punished for promoting hate speech to the detriment of society-at-large. Jim Keegstra couldn't be deported; he is a Canadian citizen. But really, now - I've kept up my end of the bargain, Hydesland - and I think it's rather inconsiderate of you to not so much as even try to put forward an example for consideration.

So the onus is now on you to provide a link to an example of a Nazi being punished for promoting hate speech to the detriment of society-at-large.

No it isn't. I don't think Nazi's do get severely punished for voicing their opinion. You originally asked for a link explaining how deporting or impisoning certain political groups is not a good idea. I then asked for a link of where it is a good idea, it has yet not been shown.

No it isn't. I don't think Nazi's do get severely punished for voicing their opinion. You originally asked for a link explaining how deporting or impisoning certain political groups is not a good idea. I then asked for a link of where it is a good idea, it has yet not been shown.

It hasn't been shown in your opinion. Keegstra was punished for his crimes - he served time in prison. There is no Nazi Party in Canada to punish (which harkens back to what I'd said earlier, about laws forbidding the promulgation of hate speech effectively eliminating Nazism from societies wherein limitations on freedom of speech are a reality). Shall I make up a fictional Nazi Party instead?

I think you're just trying to awkwardly wriggle out from having to demonstrate through a linkable example just how a Nazi being punished for promoting hate speech could be in any way a detriment to society-at-large.

It hasn't been shown in your opinion. Keegstra was punished for his crimes - he served time in prison. There is no Nazi Party in Canada to punish (which harkens back to what I'd said earlier, about laws forbidding the promulgation of hate speech effectively eliminating Nazism from societies wherein limitations on freedom of speech are a reality). Shall I make up a fictional Nazi Party instead?

I think you're just trying to awkwardly wriggle out from having to demonstrate how a Nazi being punished for promoting hate speech is in any way a detriment to society-at-large.

He was punished for promoting hate speech in a class room, that is very different. As far as I know, Canada does not prosecute Nazis for voicing their opinion outside of a classroom in public right? If you support this we have nothing to discuss.

We are all equally entitled to live our lives free from hate speech.

Yeah, by ignoring it. If you don't like Nazi hate speech, don't attend Nazi rallies. In fact, if you want, attend protests that malign the Nazis. If they are not allowed to say Jews are evil, or express even the most messed-up views, how are we free to say that they are evil?

Nazis are evil. That is the way it is. Their racist views are wrong and highly oppressive to Jews. Why can I express my view point in this way, and they cannot express their view?

I think you're just trying to awkwardly wriggle out from having to demonstrate through a linkable example just how a Nazi being punished for promoting hate speech could be in any way a detriment to society-at-large.

I'll tell you how its a detriment. It infringes on their right to free speech. We can express our point of view that they are evil and be free from punishment. They cannot express their viewpoint without being sent to jail as a political prisoner. I would say that this inequality making one group (non-Nazis) superior to another (Nazis) is a detriment to society-at-large, and is similar to what Nazis did to the Jews, albeit in a far more insignificant way.

I suppose there is moderate forms of Nazism, as Nazism means National Socialism. It would probably mean just being culturally conservative and supporting economic intervention as a tool for the nation (like Buchanan later on.)

Fuck Nietzsche. Let's fight those Nazi monsters by becoming monsters. That'll learn 'em.

He was punished for promoting hate speech in a class room, that is very different. As far as I know, Canada does not prosecute Nazis for voicing their opinion outside of a classroom in public right? If you support this we have nothing to discuss.

I beg to differ. Ernst Zundel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel) Now, Ernst wasn't born here, so he did get deported. There are others (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/montreal/story.html?id=31dc3f9f-7b3f-48f7-870a-d4def776316f) who've been charged with and convicted of promoting hate speech in public places and over the internet, as well.

And now I suppose with that last comment of yours you're hoping to have successfully wriggled out from demonstrating via links a case wherein a Nazi, prosecuted for willfully promoting hate speech, could be construed as being anything other than good for society.

I'll tell you how its a detriment. It infringes on their right to free speech.

So? Let their freedom be infringed. They bring it upon themselves if they violate the Criminal Code and infringe upon the freedom of others to live free from hate.

We can express our point of view that they are evil and be free from punishment.

You can express whatever point of view you might wish. But they'll still do time if they insist on breaking the law. Tough-o.

They cannot express their viewpoint without being sent to jail as a political prisoner.

That's rather melodramatic. And anyway, they're fucking Nazis. Who gives a shit? You?

I would say that this inequality making one group (non-Nazis) superior to another (Nazis) is a detriment to society-at-large, and is similar to what Nazis did to the Jews, albeit in a far more insignificant way.

And I would say you're grasping at straws. Go ahead, cry me a river for the poor oppressed Nazis. They can either learn to remain on the right side of the Law, or they can go rot. I don't see the comparison, frankly.

So? Let their freedom be infringed. They bring it upon themselves if they violate the Criminal Code and infringe upon the freedom of others to live free from hate.


So it's less a right to free speech and more of a priviledge to free speech?

Yeah, by ignoring it. If you don't like Nazi hate speech, don't attend Nazi rallies.
No, I don't have to. Not here. Here, the law-abiding citizens are the ones who enjoy the protection of Law - not the criminals.

I beg to differ. Ernst Zundel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel) Now, Ernst wasn't born here, so he did get deported. There are others (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/montreal/story.html?id=31dc3f9f-7b3f-48f7-870a-d4def776316f) who've been charged with and convicted of promoting hate speech in public places and over the internet, as well.


Thats more then hate speech, thats inciting hatred. Theres a difference.

Thats more then hate speech, thats inciting hatred. Theres a difference.

Not from where I sit. But I see now we're entering into the realm of the split hair, and you've still yet to provide a concrete example showing how punishing Nazis is bad for socifety.

I suppose there are more moderate and more extreme Nazis. For practical purposes though, all nativist and authoritarian RWA personalities are potential Nazis.

I often wonder this. Can someone sort of like the Nazi doctrine, but not take it too literally? If so, should we welcome him or her to our society, or should we cast them out on the basis that all Nazis are bad.

Was Patton right, in other words?
The only reason Patton didn't want to get rid of all the Nazis is because retaining some of the old officials on a temporary basis was necessary for maintaining order and ensuring that vital utilities continued to function. Sort of like what we didn't do in Iraq.