Czech President Petr Pavel on Thursday signed an amendment to the country’s criminal code that criminalises the promotion of communist ideology, placing it on the same footing as Nazi propaganda.
The revised legislation introduces prison sentences of up to five years for anyone who “establishes, supports or promotes Nazi, communist, or other movements which demonstrably aim to suppress human rights and freedoms or incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
The change follows calls from Czech historical institutions, including the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, to correct what they viewed as a legal imbalance.
[…]
class based hatred
Fun fact (I know this is c/europe) about the US: In the US, Nazis literally have more rights than communists. There are specific exemptions written into all US labor and immigration laws that remove any and all protective from anyone deemed to be associated with a Communist Party front. Some examples of this being the right to file claims against discriminatory workplace practices or being able to obtain legal residency.
No such restrictions exist for Nazis or any other far-right ideology.
How it will be implemented: Law enforcement now have to waste their resources previously spent on going after the far-right for their hate crimes on going after “communists”, with “class-based hatred” having a much looser definition compared to others. This will lead to union leaders being prosecuted, while white nationalists will be let going away unpersecuted, because “lack of resources”.
Especially since all the other things were already banned, class-based hatred is the only new thing in the list. So it’s essentially a law just for that.
How it will be implemented: Law enforcement now have to waste their resources previously spent on going after the far-right for their hate crimes on going after the far left.
Yeah always wonder why freedom of speech wasn’t an issue while it was targeted toward a narrow position that you didn’t agree with
How it will be implemented: Law enforcement now have to waste their resources previously spent on going after the far-right for their hate crimes on going after the far left.
Yeah always wonder why freedom of speech wasn’t an issue while it was targeted toward a narrow position that you didn’t agree withThere’s no Ying-Yang situation going on here. Don’t mistakenly equate “ostracising an objectively incorrect thing” with “not agreeing with a narrow position” 😜
Right-wing extremism is an actual problem, left-wing extremism is an imaginary one. Nobody likes to see resources wasted on imaginary problems.Ironical since left wing terrorism is a real issue in Europe that is more prevalent than right wing one ( if u consider Islamic one isn’t right wing which funny enough is supported by leftist and fight by righty)
left wing terrorism is a real issue in Europe
um, no. Maybe in the 1970s/80s. I think what you mean today are Kreml-backed attacks. Nothing left-wing about those.
that is more prevalent than right wing one
um, double no.
Ironical since left wing terrorism is a real issue in Europe that is more prevalent than right wing one ( if u consider Islamic one isn’t right wing which funny enough is supported by leftist and fight by righty)
There is some kind of misunderstanding here at some point, because I cannot follow you.
Here’s a good rule of thumb: If, anwhere, members of minorities can expect to experience day-to-day disadvantages and violence, then there’s a right-wing extremism problem. If, anwhere, members of the dominant socio-economic group can expect to experience day-to-day disadvantages and violence, well, that’s a left-wing extremism problem.
Now… which of these problems exists and which one doesn’t?
I saw your name a few times on the fedi, why do you need to hop instances?💀
Really ? I just migrated from reddit and didn’t have an account before
I can’t imagine why a country that suffered under the USSR would want to put into law, to criminalize, the ideology that once fucked up East-Europe…
The Communist Party of Bohemia
How the fuck do they still even have a literal Communist party!?
When I hear Petr Pavel signs a law banning pro-Soviet crap, I think liberal or not, what a chad.
I’m sorry but class-based hatred is kinda my thing. I think it’s honestly fair to be against the people actively destroying society and the planet.
They almost make it sound like “class” is some sort of immutable thing you’re born into like ethnicity or skin color. When really it just means “rich people”. And if you’re rich beyond a certain threshold, it’s pretty much a given that you decided to walk all over poorer people to get there. Hate justified.
They almost make it sound like “class” is some sort of immutable thing you’re born into
It would be if they got any say in it.
Did someone show him Hexbear and Lemmygrad?
Oh, there’s no need for that, I got my comment removed at worldnews@lemmy.ml (why is this always ml, hmmm) after saying that Taiwan is a good functioning democracy and that they like their freedoms, so maybe China shouldn’t invade 😀
Did someone show him Hexbear and Lemmygrad?
Hah, I’d say there’s a non-zero chance. These places are so violent. I’d love to join in on some conversations over there if they wouldn’t all turn so bloodthirsty that quickly.
It’s fascinating that in a world where to far right is surging everywhere, having captured the only superpower, with the richest man in the world throwing sieg heils on live primetime television, where we are entering an era of new concentration camps, these kinds of liberals find it useful to do stupid shit like this. Do they not see that if/when the fascists capture their presidency they will use exactly these laws to turn the screws on everyone to the left of the far right?
You can fight any authoritarian ideology at any time. There is no fighting only fascism/nazism or Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism/Juche. The law signed targets specifically Soviet era propaganda and it’s sympathizers and puts it on a level with Nazi propaganda, which is banned in Czechia to the extent it is banned in Germany.
Sure, like right wingers fight pedophilia when they target LGBT people.
But ok, let’s take it at face value. There is no threat of a Soviet style takeover in Europe. They’re beating a dead horse. So as far as dead horses go, why stop at Soviet oppression, start passing law legislating I don’t know, glorifying Roman imperialism and Ottoman expansionism. Ban glorification of hussites and violent Anabaptists. Take your revenge on history. I hope the orgasm is worth it.
But then remember that there is however a rabid far right that calls European institutions “Soviet” and that has no interest in any checks and balances. They love calling social democrats “communists” and they love to talk about the threat of antifa and they love giving police more power to crack protestor skulls. If you can’t see how these laws today are going to be used tomorrow by the fascists, even after what Trump is doing at the US, I don’t know what else to tell you.
Hello? China? China calls itself “communist”. Like all authcoms, it isn’t actually socialism, but usually capitalism with “communist” aesthetics. A state creating an economic monopoly while not allowing workplace democracy is not socialism. Socialism is when the workers control the MOP, not the state. The state just creates unnecessary hierarchies in modes of economy.
Also I am for banning all parties seeking to impose authoritarian anti-democratic rule.
Is China threatening European democratic institutions in any way shape or form?
Yes through hybrid warfare and illegal police. Also our extreme right is oddly pro-China.
And look at the Belt and Road Initiative where they are doing things directly out of the US imperialism playbook where they build stuff and take control of infrastructure when countries cant pay in a timely manner.
https://routesjournal.org/2022/04/07/r2099/
https://brusselsmorning.com/chinese-firms-tiktok-xiaomi-face-eu-privacy-complaints/64765/
Also China used unfair trade tactics such as massive subventions to destroy European competition in the solar panel market in the EU and is now trying to do it with EVs.
Also trying to make the EU dependent on China is also a form of imperialist measure.
I don’t know what Chinese hybrid warfare you are talking about. Any articles I’ve found with these keywords always seem to lump China with Russia, which I find just sensationalist. China is one of our biggest trading partners and I don’t see any reason why Europe cannot find a live and let live modus vivendi with them. I mean if we can stomach the Palestinian genocide at our doorstep without a fucking peep, the Uighurs are far enough…
The illegal police issue is nowhere near an existentially serious problem that affects the viability of European democratic institutions.
And the danger of the far right has nothing to do with China.
China is an authoritarian state, yes, but it’s one that for 3 decades at least has played nice with us. They are far less disruptive and threatening than the Trumpist Americans are. If Europe can find a way to work with Trumpist USA, why not with China too?
I friggin linked you articles. Also are you for real? You are just going to downplay serious stuff as basically “it’s not as bad as what others are doing”? Also just because the US and Russia are problems, doesn’t mean China isn’t. Most of your counterarguments are whataboutisms and deflections so far.
“And the danger of the far right has nothing to do with China.”
Oh really?
Vladimir Putin’s attempts of rebuilding ‘Soviet’ Russia has been widely reported at least since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine when it started in 2014, and Putin won’t stop there if successful. Russia’s threat to Europe goes beyond the battlefields of Ukraine comprising arson attacks, cyber warfare, election meddling, … The number of Russian attacks in Europe nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024, after quadrupling between 2022 and 2023.
Putin hates Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Yes, he lionizes Stalin, but only to the extent that he can cast it as Russian imperialism. The beef is with Russian nationalism, there is zero need to drive a wedge with European left parties eg in the South, there is no reason to distract from the actual danger which is Russian imperialism and authoritarianism and it is in fact extremely dangerous to be building the legal infrastructure that fascists can and will use to crush the left.
Meanwhile China wringing it’s hands: “Yes, distract the Europeans away from our ambitions and tell them that multitasking is impossible.”
Plus Putin not only glorifies Tsar Nicholas II but also Stalin and is outraged when monuments of Russian and Soviet imperialism are taken down in eastern European countries.
Honest question: how did you deduce that “kinds of liberals” did this? What sort of party does the Czech president belong to?
He was elected by a coalition of center-right classical liberal parties.
He was widely lauded as a pro-western anti-populist liberal when he was elected. His political positions as re generally aligned with liberal parties across Europe.
As an European - which liberal parties? Did you mean libertarian?
I mean liberal. Pavel was supported by parties like ODS, TOP09, KDU, which are economically liberal parties. More generally, European liberalism is represented by groupings such as ALDE, or Renew. But European technocratic liberalism is strong in both the centre left and centre right parties all over Europe.
Thanks for clarifying, have a pointless internet point.
up to five years for anyone who “establishes, supports or promotes Nazi, communist, or other movements which demonstrably aim to suppress human rights and freedoms or incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
I’m uncomfortable with this. Wouldn’t
up to five years for anyone who “establishes, supports or promotes movements which demonstrably aim to suppress human rights and freedoms or incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
have been better?
While all that undoubtedly holds true for fascism, it does not do so for communism per se - just the authoritarian version of it which was developed in Russia in the past 100 years.
I know little about the political landscape in CZ, but isn’t the regime currently rightwing-populist? And maybe the communist party is Kreml-backed?
Unfortunately neither that nor the “legal imbalance” is explained in the article.
I have a feeling that this institute is one of those ulltraconservatives, which thinks the nazis were bad, because they based their racism “not on facts and statistics, but on evil”, and this is just one of the base building blocks of an Orbán/Trump/Putin style “illiberal democracy”.
I feel like this too, but considering their past i think i can understand.
Considering their past I’d have hoped they know enough about this to phrase it better.
Frankly, even “Russians” (which was the contemptuous go-to term for their oppressors in most East-European countries) would’ve been better than “communists”.
CZ is having trouble with several not-so-good extremes of populism and might even go the way of Hungary or Slovakia in the near future. That’s probably the true reason for this misguided law.
While all that undoubtedly holds true for fascism, it does not do so for communism per se
Why does it always hold true for fascism? If communism can be done without the bad stuff, so should fascism.
Are you serious right now?
Yes. E.g. with the minimal definition of a corporate state, fascism can respect human rights and doesn’t have to “incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”
If communism can be done without the bad stuff, so should fascism.
“The bad stuff” is the very definition of fascism:
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe. Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
“racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred” is pretty much built-in. No, it doesn’t actually say “hatred” in that text but if you don’t see the implication I can’t help you.
Why is hatred implied? It’s one of the easiest means to control people but not necessary.
But even with hatred, the central identity doesn’t have to be built on racial, ethnic, national, religious or class based values. Fans of sport teams are united without those values.
You’re basically arguing “if you remove all the things that define fascism, then fascism isn’t so bad”.
I think you somewhat confuse totalitarianism with fascism. As I said in another comment, while dictatorship is pretty much always part of fascism, the opposite does not necessarily hold true.
I can equally say that if you add bad things to the definition of fascism then it is inevitably bad.
Totalitarianism also has to work for communist dictatorships. Why is fascism not the name for rightwing Totalitarianism that used to use hatred but at least in theory could do without?
Hypothetical:
What about a fascist state that has a dictatorial leader and centralized autocracy that has the sole aim to move its people (and anybody else) to a ecological sustainable state. Perhaps the hypothetical fascist leader in this scenario has seen that the necessary steps to avoid climate based collapse (and so the end of modern society) can never be applied in a democracy and uses his (or her) dictatorial powers to form the world in this way? Militarism, furcible suppression of opposition and so on would be very handy in such a hypothetical “ecofascist” society.
Still bad? Even if it “saves humanity”?
I see what you’re getting at, but not every dictatorship is necessarily fascistic. If it wants to save all of humanity it cannot be purely fascistic because Othering is a substantial part of fascism. And that’s where your hypothetical falls apart. Also the militarism, which - together with othering - leads to expansionism by war, which cannot be good for our ecosphere.
I have played with the thought of global totalitarianism to save the planet from climate catastrophe myself. It might be our only chance, but it is extremely unlikely to happen before the climax of the catastrophe, and afterwards as well tbh.
If that’s what you’re going for, just call it something else. You won’t be doing your ideas any favors by calling them fascistic.
You won’t be doing your ideas any favors by calling them fascistic
The opposition will. Would it be easier to argue that the organisation is not fascist or that fascism isn’t inherently bad?
