Outlawing Nazi Symbols in Europe
The Economist argues:
The obvious problem with any such laws is where to draw the line. Do you just ban symbols, or do you also ban such offences as “Holocaust denial”? And although almost everybody may agree that Nazism was a unique evil, a ban on Nazi symbols would undoubtedly lead to a call for other similar bans. Why not a ban on the Soviet hammer-and-sickle? Or one on fascist insignia in Spain or Italy?
While it was grossly insensitive for Prince Harry to wear a Nazi uniform, a similar action by a prominent young German would have been a lot more sinister and disturbing. That is why a ban on Nazi insignia may make sense in Germany, but be an excessive restriction on free speech in Britain and most other countries. Even in the “united Europe” of today, Nazi symbols and the memories of fascism and communism resonate differently in different countries.
There are some very good points being made in the above, but also some points being missed. For one thing, many of the objections can be made in the context of Germany as well. Why not ban the Soviet hammer-and-sickle there, given that eastern Germany lived for so long under Soviet domination? Why not ban other forms of fascist insignia? This is a problem that affects German courts because they no sooner ban one form of a neo-Nazi party or salute and new ones pop up. Bans on symbols and salutes don't eliminate the real, underlying problems.
Second, if Europe does become united, it seems to me that it will be very difficult for one country (like Germany) to go it alone in banning certain symbols, salutes, and political parties. It would be similar to Southern Confederate symbols being banned in Tennessee, but no other American states. Would that make sense? I don't think so.
Read More:


Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment