Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Furthermore, if it's a law, you can at least bring lawsuits

This is operational difference between us - frankly, I don't care if I could bring a legal suit and lose because might makes right. If it's right, it should be so from the beginning.

On Nazis, I'd tend to agree, but who's defining what a Nazi sympathizer is? I still have colleagues refusing to accept that there are sympathizers fighting on Kiev side in Ukraine, despite all the articles about battalion Azov and Right Sector in the Western press. If we cannot agree about such basic things, how could one trust that a particular designation of an "extremist" is legitimate? Short of emigration on ideological basis, I can't really see a solution.

by Sargon on Wed Mar 18th, 2015 at 12:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Germany has been wrestling with the definition of "extremism" since after WWII, and Lustration laws are in vogue in Eastern Europe. One may not like them on liberal political principles, but that's the world we increasingly live in.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 18th, 2015 at 01:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From where I sit, people are pretty cynical about lustration laws - they were mostly used for infighting among different unsavory personages. Fortunately, citizens seem to have lost taste for "he was a commie!!!" shouts. Mainstream media still cares, but that's what they are paid to believe.
by Sargon on Wed Mar 18th, 2015 at 03:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
frankly, I don't care if I could bring a legal suit and lose because might makes right.

The assumption on your part is of a legal system subservient to political power. In the EU, this is undoubtedly the case to some degree in every country; nevertheless, the right of appeal to a European court establishes the legal notion of the rule of law.

Therefore, I will always prefer to be subject to a contestable discrimination rather than an arbitrary one.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Mar 18th, 2015 at 02:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On purely probabilistic grounds you might be (conditionally) right - even with an unfair coin, losing after one toss doesn't mean defeat if you have another attempt. On the other hand, unconditional probability of winning decreases with number of tosses (layers of courts).
by Sargon on Wed Mar 18th, 2015 at 03:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's be clear. If Hungary had a law on excluding certain people from certain jobs because of their politics, and it had been applied to Dodo's acquaintance, he could have gone to the Hungarian courts, lost, appealed to the European court, and won. Hungary's law would have been condemned. (Bear in mind that at 35, he can't have had a political history under the previous regime).

Excellent odds, if you're tenacious enough.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Mar 19th, 2015 at 06:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it's good to have a court well disposed to you. But we do know that being on the right side of (some) authority is always good.
by Sargon on Mon Mar 23rd, 2015 at 12:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series