Dan Bilefsky
NY Times:
PRAGUE — A Czech court has banned the far-right Workers’ Party, the first time a political party has been outlawed since the Czech Republic was founded in 1993.
In its 120-page ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Administrative Court said the Workers’ Party, established in 2003, was a threat to Czech democracy. The court described the party as xenophobic, anti-Semitic and homophobic and said it shared the ideology of Hitler’s Nazi party and maintained links to openly white-supremacist and racist groups.
“This ruling needs to be understood as a preventive one, to maintain the constitutional and democratic order in the future,” Judge Vojtech Simicek said in issuing the ruling. Noting that the party held up an uncomfortable mirror to Czech society, he added: “Society must realize that the causes for the Workers’ Party lie deeply within itself. The Workers’ Party is not an external enemy to society, but one of its faces.”
The party’s chairman, Tomas Vandas, said he would appeal. He insisted that the ruling would not stop him or other members from running in elections this May through a party that is closely connected to the dissolved group.
“The Workers’ Party is dead, long live the Workers’ Party,” he shouted into a megaphone to dozens of his followers outside the courtroom. “We are only being banned because we are voicing uncomfortable opinions. But if anybody thinks that this decision is wiping us off the political map, they are wrong.”
The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated.
U.S. Code, Title 50, Chapter 23, Sub-Chapter IV, Section 842
Is Jerry related to Jason? XD
To The Last Conservative – in the late 1940s & early 1950s there were proposals to ban the Communist Party, but they never passed. Instead the House Un-American Activities Committee publicized the subversive activities of the Communists and their allies and front groups.
The Vorhees Act did prohibit American groups from affiliating with international communist organizations. The author was Jerry Vorhees, later defeated by Richard Nixon in Tricky Dick’s first campaign.
This is the same policy that Germany uses to suppress neo-Nazi groups. They simply morph into a new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss organization. Even if banning were successful, radical philosophies tend to prosper as underground movements, where they would atrophy in the light of public scrutiny. Worked for Hitler and the Chinese Communists.
This gets this party alot of attention… doesn’t the government realized they just gave this radical party a rallying point?
This is not a good move for the Czechs. Despite how awful this groups views might be they should have the right to participate in the electoral process. Rarely do extremist parties succeed in elections but too often they succeed in revolutions.
“The court described the party as xenophobic, anti-Semitic and homophobic and said it shared the ideology of Hitler’s Nazi party and maintained links to openly white-supremacist and racist groups.”
Sounds a lot like the GOP.
TPR, I think the CPUSA (communist) was virtually banned at one point.
The targeting isn’t specific towards a given party, but I’d argue that ballot access, debate access, plurality voting, gerrymandering, and single-member districts have more or less ‘banned’ all but two parties.
Has a political party ever been banned in the US, or is it unconstitutional to do so? Personally I would say unconstitutional since it would violate the terms of freedom of peaceful assembly.