EU legalizing the swastika

[lecter]

Let's try to keep this out of the temp forum, shall we?

It seems like the EU wants to legalize the swastika symbol throughout its countries, leaving it up to them to ban it or not.

I feel that just like Nietzche's work, the swastika has simply been used by the nazis for their own purposes. Unfortunately, because of the media hype, anyone that sees one will most likely think of it as a nazi symbol, instead of its other incarnations.


Dressing up as a neo-nazi and walking around the street is enough to warrant a serious ass-kicking by people passing by, no real need to have the police intervene...I just think that an interesting ancient symbol has been unjustly ruled out of any art form because of its nefarious heritage.

[Brian R.]

In my mind, the swastika symbolizes hate and all the other bad things associated with Nazis. I would vote against ever seeing it again (in a political or modern context). If the symbol occured in ancient writings in an ancient context, then that should be taken into account.

[UtwigMU]

Banning symbols is IMO problematic because you'll always find people who are offended with some symbol (IE swastica, hammer and sickle, Mao Zedong T-shirts, red star, cristian cross, crescent...).

So to satisfy everyone you'd have to ban every potentially offending symbol, which would cause myriads of conflicts/complications etc....

My opinion is that it's not symbols that are the problem, but what we project unto them, so this does not require legal regulation.

[Brian Ellis]

1. The EU is not legalising the swastika. It is simply deciding not to ban it.

2. Although it was adopted by the Nazi party in Germany, the swastika is a very ancient symbol found in many cultures throughout the world. In particular, it is used by Buddhists as a felicitous symbol. To ban it would therefore deprive a religious minority of an important part of their faith (if you can call Buddhism a religion, which it isn't, really!). To take this to it's logical conclusion, you would have to also ban the Christian cross, the Jewish Star of David and so on.

[az]

It is banned here, outside of a few cases like for documentation, in historical context, etc. Some chinese restaurants have many little swastikas as part of their ornaments and nobody seems to care (which is OK with me).

Originally posted by lecter
Dressing up as a neo-nazi and walking around the street is enough to warrant a serious ass-kicking by people passing by, no real need to have the police intervene...

Umm, no. People would just try and not anger said person too much. Physical fights are not something very popular amongst the populace, in contrast to neo-nazis, who are very brave if they are in the larger group

I do have problems with banning symbols etc, because I am a fan of free speech and "Freiheit ist immer Freiheit des Andersdenkenden." (Rosa Luxemburg), and because banning swastikas isn't going to make there be less neo-nazis in the world or in my country. But I realize that the banned swastika, Reichskriegsflagge etc. also gives the police and judiciary some opportunities for harassing the right when they can't evidence other crimes they have committed, and I really wouldn't like seeing swastikas in the streets.

I do oppose the ban on Hitler's "Mein Kampf", because, while it may of course be enjoyed by neo-nazis, they have it anyway, and we, the law-abiding majority, can't read this important historical document. To hush up certain parts of history is not going to help preventing it happening again (and I can see tendencies in that direction, though not in this country). "Hushing up" is maybe a little too strong a word, after all, the third reich and second world war are the subject of history classes for many years, and multiple times, and the subject is also very popular in the media. If there is a fourth reich, it will not be from here.

AZ

[KvHagedorn]

I agree. When you start restricting someone's freedoms, they become an opressed minority which has righteous indignation on their side. Neo-Nazis just use other symbols like stylized crosses in place of the swastika. The symbol for the "Umbrella Corporation" in the Resident Evil movies looked a bit like these.

[Jammrock]

The only problem I see in banning the swastika is that it is an ancient symbol that had been around for millenia before the Nazis. It's a shame that's the symbol they chose for their regiem.

Maybe ban the use of it an any Nazi or Neo-Nazi context would be more appropriate?

[az]

This is how it is at the moment here, and I don't see that changing or conflicting with the new EU legislation. I also don't really have a problem with it.

AZ

[Topha]

The symbol is also a holy symbol for hindu, here is an article, german though

[schmosef]

Well, I'm obviously torn on the issue.

My preference is to never see that image again. At the same time, it's not the image I object to, it's the message and the context. I don't care if some Hindu practitioners want to use it in their temples as a symbol of good fortune. (It certainly wasn't very lucky for anyone in Europe, or even the Nazis for that matter.)

But there's been too much human suffering perpetrated under that symbol for me to be comfortable with its acceptance for unfettered use.

The problem is: How to ban what the symbol has grown to represent, without banning the symbol itself?

I say, don't allow it's use in the Nazi context. Do allow it's use in the Hindu context. Make the penalties for improper use very severe and immediate. And finally, for at least one more generation, don't allow its public use.

[Umfriend]

One thing the extreme right have been very good at is monopolising symbols. The swastika is one example (although, AFAIK, it was not known beofre in a white circle within a red square). Another on eis in Belgium where the Vlaams Blok increasingly dominated the the commemeration of WWI in Vlaanderen, which originally was both a Flemish emancipation (vis-a-vis the Walonians) and pacifistic annual manifestation. When the Vlaams Blok budged in with the "Own People First" abuse of the event, it did become suspect for a lot of people and the meaning changed.

There's loads of other examples, but I'm to tired to think of it now. In general though, they excel at appropriating symbols of the past. On reason they can do so so succesfully is their extreme conservatism which lends credibility to them using symbols representing *any* glorious past or wrongdoings "they" suffered.

It's time though, IMO, to take it back. Deprive the fascists of all ancient symbols/ceremonies/whatever they have taken from us. Use the swastika A LOT, preferrably the exact symbol the Nazis used. The Weerstandsbewegig (South Afrika) creating their own symbol looking swastika-like? Paint yer car with it and put a nice slogan with it.

That'll teach 'm bastards.

[schmosef]

Ok well, we're not in the temp forum so I'm going to hold back here... (Just assume that Umf received a rolleyes from me).

I think that for at least one more generation, we should force ourselves to suffer the inconvenience of not using such symbols publicly.

[Umfriend]

I'll not post in this thread anymore. The alternative thread is now in Temp.

[Jon P. Inghram]

For a little bit of info on the "swastika," try this Straight Dope article.

[Nowhere]

Well, at least now for sure nobody will try to rebuild the highschool to which one of my buddies was going (it was built during WWII, guess what shape from the air it has; incomplete, but still )