There is no possibility for democracy without free speech that also allows for criticism of fundamentalist religions. That no longer exists in Europe. This is simply backlash to censorship. And yes, it is frightening.
I am the last person who will deny that we have a free speech problem in Europe - and btw, not in equal measure in all EU Member-States - but you are so massively overstating the problem that it does not help at all. Also, let’s not forget that in the US you might legally have the right to say whatever - for now - but there is ferocious social censure of speech of which there is no equivalent here. And often to impose ideas that really are mind-bogglingly dense.
"A decade ago, this story would have dominated German headlines for a week. Now, it has come to be of minor, fleeting interest. After all, it was but the latest—and, thankfully, one of the least deadly—in a long series of recent terror attacks."
Plainly the results of the election demonstrate that immigrant attacks are anything but of "minor fleeting interest."
More likely the media decided to suppress the story of this latest bloody attack because it came literally on the eve of an election turning in large part on the matter of uncontrolled immigration, no?
Democracy, the term itself composed of the greek words for people and power, must have as a minimum the capability for the people to replace the government with one more attuned to their interests. Shuffling a few chairs, but leaving in place a government that is incapable of pushing through the changes that people want to see, doesn't constitute replacing the government. Just because elections are held, that doesn't mean there is a functioning democracy (Russia and China have elections!).
The firewall put in place by the 'moderate' parties to prevent any possibility of AfD participating in government is the antithesis of democracy. It represents an elitist view that some votes, in this case more than 20% of them, can simply be ignored. The established parties smugly believe that it is better to stitch together ideologically disparate coalitions, incapable of delivering real changes simply as a consequence of their obvious internal divisions, than it is to listen to what the voters are telling them.
The situation in France, with its 'cordon sanitaire' is similar.
This nonsense has to stop. What will happen if AfD in Germany, or RN in France, actually top the polls but with less than 50% of the vote (a highly likely outcome in the not too distant future)? It's not within the remit of political parties to decide whose votes matter, and whose don't. That's not democracy by any definition.
I admire your text in general. It is, for example, the case that many people vote for the far right because of frustration. That is the case even in countries with little or almost no immigration. I think you need to change your usage of Frum because trying to stop a problem at the border does not solve the problem or makes it go away.
It is worth noting that voters in what was East Germany voted in the main for the AfD, while those in the old West across the other parties. As that young Ghanian indicated, there is much fear in many parts of Europe (Reform in UK) of politicians not being in control any longer. We live in increasingly uncertain times which is psychologically unsettling and has political repercussions.
There is no possibility for democracy without free speech that also allows for criticism of fundamentalist religions. That no longer exists in Europe. This is simply backlash to censorship. And yes, it is frightening.
Parties as AfD are in favor of censorship. They are not some freedom fighters.
I am the last person who will deny that we have a free speech problem in Europe - and btw, not in equal measure in all EU Member-States - but you are so massively overstating the problem that it does not help at all. Also, let’s not forget that in the US you might legally have the right to say whatever - for now - but there is ferocious social censure of speech of which there is no equivalent here. And often to impose ideas that really are mind-bogglingly dense.
"A decade ago, this story would have dominated German headlines for a week. Now, it has come to be of minor, fleeting interest. After all, it was but the latest—and, thankfully, one of the least deadly—in a long series of recent terror attacks."
Plainly the results of the election demonstrate that immigrant attacks are anything but of "minor fleeting interest."
More likely the media decided to suppress the story of this latest bloody attack because it came literally on the eve of an election turning in large part on the matter of uncontrolled immigration, no?
Democracy, the term itself composed of the greek words for people and power, must have as a minimum the capability for the people to replace the government with one more attuned to their interests. Shuffling a few chairs, but leaving in place a government that is incapable of pushing through the changes that people want to see, doesn't constitute replacing the government. Just because elections are held, that doesn't mean there is a functioning democracy (Russia and China have elections!).
The firewall put in place by the 'moderate' parties to prevent any possibility of AfD participating in government is the antithesis of democracy. It represents an elitist view that some votes, in this case more than 20% of them, can simply be ignored. The established parties smugly believe that it is better to stitch together ideologically disparate coalitions, incapable of delivering real changes simply as a consequence of their obvious internal divisions, than it is to listen to what the voters are telling them.
The situation in France, with its 'cordon sanitaire' is similar.
This nonsense has to stop. What will happen if AfD in Germany, or RN in France, actually top the polls but with less than 50% of the vote (a highly likely outcome in the not too distant future)? It's not within the remit of political parties to decide whose votes matter, and whose don't. That's not democracy by any definition.
I admire your text in general. It is, for example, the case that many people vote for the far right because of frustration. That is the case even in countries with little or almost no immigration. I think you need to change your usage of Frum because trying to stop a problem at the border does not solve the problem or makes it go away.
What should Germany do about the immigration situation, including immigrant violence?
It is worth noting that voters in what was East Germany voted in the main for the AfD, while those in the old West across the other parties. As that young Ghanian indicated, there is much fear in many parts of Europe (Reform in UK) of politicians not being in control any longer. We live in increasingly uncertain times which is psychologically unsettling and has political repercussions.