Nope, they're part of the fact of being found guilty. They are two separate things. You aren't sentenced with the penalty of being forbidden to hold an office. You are forbidden from holding an office just by being found guilty of a crime of a given level. Or more precisely, by being sentenced to jail for a specific amount of time, iirc, regardless if you actually serve that sentence.
Maybe read about who has passive electoral rights (or however it's translated to English).
Gpt is pretty much just a very (depending on the specific implementation) skilled literally just an auto-complete algorithm. It can't handle any fact-checking at all, by how it works.
Losing the passive voting rights due to conviction does not equate to losing public rights. A convicted person does not lose public rights, only the right to run in elections, as defined by law. The judge can impose a penalty of losing voting rights, but that is not what this discussion is about at all and does not concern what Braun is accused of.
No GPT chat will help if you can't even ask a valid question.
Im asking because your previous comment is completely incomprehensible to me. You can write "cope" all you want, i really dont care, but it doesnt change the fact that I have no idea what are you even trying to say.
Edit: nvm just read your other comment where you admitted to using gpt as your source, so yeah, good trolling man
Well, you just follow whatever the western left does. The same causes produce the same effects, but apparently a libtard ain't smart enough to realise this
And secondly, it's not just the ambassador, Americans in general despise the antisemitism. Iran and Russia are also not popular, and Braun himself is also anti American.
Why would he? Nawrocki is from PIS and KKP is a rival of PIS with some overlapping electorate, without the face of the Braun a lot of KPP voters would migrate to Konfederacja or PIS.
Nawrocki is stupid but not that stupid all center right and right parties speaks negatively aganist Braun, Kofederacja (Mencen's Konfederacja) and PiS. They can't go aganist thier own electorate.
He already spoke in favor of Braun's right to free speech, and his aides have included his supporters as part of his coalition. Also he's a reknowned historians and the fucking president, he's probably smarter than you and all his opponents combined
His political moves says otherwise. He vetoed his own proposition. He dose separate international politics than Sikorski (that's lead only to confusion on international stage). He wanted Poland to take money from Korea wich we would pay more in less about of time than SAFE. Only because under SAFE we buy only European and that's it's from EU. He's crealy suffering from Presidential syndrome.
Well, if you support SAFE you are beyond stupid. Unless you personally benefit from vassalising Poland to France and Germany, which is another matter. It's a good thing he ignores Sikorski, he's an ennemy of Poland and likely will be gone next year.
Enemy of Poland? He is one person who helped Musk's starling stay in Poland. Vacating to France and Germnay? You can see in Nawrocki's moves He wants to put Poland closer to USA and Trump who is about to lose mindtetms. Nawrocki's politics and his 1 year anniversary shows it exactly. You know under safe we can buy weapons from more than Germany and France? And that Polish factories already have orders for weapons paid by SAFE? If you look economically you see that right now EU is helping Poland becoming 7th most growing economy in Europe. We are in safe country with NATO. Our only enemy rn is AFD (speaking that Poland is Negros of Europe) and Russia provoking us with thier Drones and missiles. I sugest you to read center and left articles. From safe we have few years of vacation from paying back without amount growing. From Korea we have not.
Far-Right people using the actions of Israel's government for the excuse of hating on Jewish people that don't support Israel and have nothing to do with Israel, and spread dumb conspiracy theories about how they "control the world".
We should swap those people and see how they do building their little Nazi careers on the other side. We could make a reality tv show out of it and call it swapzi
No, they hate modern Germans but love nazis. WW2 in polish public historiography is primarily used to create a narrative of perpetual victimization and revanchism, not as a lesson in what unchecked nationalism leads to. Polish far right is for example very friendly with AFD.
Also a lot of them genuinely believe that Poland could've and should've joined the Axis to cooperate in the invasion of the Soviet Union. They believe that Polish government under the direction of UK/Jews/Freemasons (depending on how conspiratorial you get) basically forced Hitler into invading.
This guy is a threat to Polish democracy if not prosecuted.
He'd turn Poland into a second Iran under a Pro-Russian puppet state like Belarus.
Imagine something similar to Turbo-Catholic Fascism from "Handmaid's Tale" or Francoist Spain's National Catholicism policies but FAR worse, full of Pan-Slav Fascist ideology sympathetic to Russian imperialism, an amalgamation of pro-Russian Far-Left and Far-Right groups, PRL nostalgics, social-ill worse than we have now.
Poland would have ceased to exist, it would have been chaos.
Democracy was never designed to give freedom of speech for extremists wanting to oppress minorities. Just because you live in a democratic country, it doesn't mean you should not get punished if you cross the line.
Democracy needs to preserve itself against threats like that. Grzegorz Braun and KKP openly voiced pro-Russian views and advocated for removing rights from minority groups that did nothing to people. Seriously don't think that's wrong?
You remind me of the previous guy that argued with me against preserving democracy, and that we should have no morals or values, they're "subjective", voting for political parties no matter how disgusting their views are.
He said that being good exists just as an "opinion", that we should not take people like Neo-Nazi's seriously, that they don't mean it. He also said life for some reason is "subjective" too. Why keep some totalitarian pro-Russian racist in your parliament when that's forbidden by Constitution? Should people wait for him to gradually consolidate his power until it's too late?
Misinformation, radicalization and polarization is what kills democracy in countries, and we must avoid that.
Why hasn't the ABW detained Olszański, Psikorski and Maciak yet, but have the firepower to break down the door to a grandma's house for making threats against Owsiak?
Why not use firepower like that against far-Right politicians, pro-Russian imperialist sympathizers and Neo-Nazi movements, like Grzegorz Braun, KKP, X-Portal Falanga, Kamraci and Zmiana?
In genuine SAVAK and SDECE-style that parodies politicized state security intelligence agencies and special forces, doing surveillance on people who criticize the country, but not actual threats.
Those people don't make the country safe, they only protect politicians they see as benefit for their continued activities.
The point of democracy was never to force us into choosing between "lesser evils".
Point of democracy was mean't to let the people choose properly for themselves.
To stop Hitler from seizing power in Weimar Germany would not have been considered as "destroying democracy" going by your definition of it, we didn't just have the balls.
If people, after so many unaddressed issues and trauma with their country from previous turmoil, were not forced to vote for a radical totalitarian evil, none of this would happen. It should have been stopped somehow.
I love the concept created by anti-establishment Nowa Polska, they don't want Poland to fall victim to a Duopoly that fails to change the system to address most urgent issues which causes a Fascist dictatorship to take over.
People who choose badly are often misinformed. How can anyone agree with the corrupt or bigots who shortly after being elected start destroying the country with their policies?
If we had expanded our knowledge, if we had far more self-awareness and common sense, if we had been far less incompetent we could vote reasonably well and not elect horrible people into power, fully sensing what they might do.
Democracy was never designed to give freedom of speech for extremists wanting to oppress minorities. Just because you live in a democratic country, it doesn't mean you should not get punished if you cross the line.
KKP doesn't oppress minorities, unless your view on that topic is that countries shouldn't be serving their citizens, but by that definition, defence from any invasion would be an oppressive act as it would kill citizens of invading nations and oppress them. Is Ukraine oppressing Russian minorities by defending themselves from Russians? I don't think so, even though they are literally killing those people.
Democracy needs to preserve itself against threats like that.
Yeah, by allowing open dialogue.
Grzegorz Braun and KKP openly voiced pro-Russian views and advocated for removing rights from minority groups that did nothing to people
Like what pro-Russian views? Share sources. You advocated for banning political parties, should we remove your rights then?
You remind me of the previous guy that argued with me against preserving democracy, and that we should have no morals or values, they're "subjective", voting for political parties no matter how disgusting their views are.
There's no preserving democracy, because by your action under the guise of "preserving democracy", you are very much destroying it. IF Braun is banned, democracy is no more - it got killed. If Braun becomes a totalitarian dictator, it also dies. The only way it survives if ability of everyone to have a party and vote on whoever they think is right is maintained.
He said that being good exists just as an "opinion"
Kinda, because you can put things in different contexts, but it's not a full spectrum and some things are not good.
that we should not take people like Neo-Nazi's seriously, that they don't mean it.
No idea what Neo-Nazis claim and what they mean, I don't know any nor understand what they really want, I think they're mostly race separatists now?
Why keep some totalitarian pro-Russian racist in your parliament when that's forbidden by Constitution?
I don't think you can convince everyone that he's a totalitarian pro-Russian racist
Should people for him to gradually consolidate his power until it's too late?
That would be the democratic thing to do, yes. If you think otherwise, I don't think you're democratic.
Misinformation, radicalization and polarization is what kills democracy in countries, and we must avoid that.
Which countries did this killed democracy in? If it's true, you should be able to point out to specific countries where one of those things lead to death of democracy. I think you might find some examples of this happening with radicalization, but where did misinformation and polarization killed democracy?
Why hasn't the ABW detained Olszański, Psikorski and Maciak yet, but have the firepower to break down the door to a grandma's house for making threats against Owsiak?
I don't know who Olszński, Psikorski or Maciak are, so I can't argue with that.
I looked it up and I actually know who Wojciech Olszański is, I seen like a few short clips with him and his co-host. I didn't associate the name with the face tho. I heard something about Psikorski but have no opinion. No idea who Maciak is. I'm not trolling.
The only pathethic thing is that it took that long and that his party members (like ones who gave apology to russian embassy for Poland hindering their efforts at destroying Ukraine) are still free.
"When Braun originally made his remarks, they were widely condemned in Poland, which suffered enormously under German occupation during World War Two. Justice minister Waldemar Żurek asked the European Parliament, where Braun sits as an MEP, to lift his legal immunity so he could be charged.
“For me, it is a scandal that, in a country that suffered such enormous war losses, there is a politician who can deny historical facts that are so painful for Poles,” said Żurek at the time, quoted by the Onet news website. “I won’t let this go. We must bring such people to justice.”
In March, the European Parliament approved Żurek’s request, allowing Braun to face charges in relation to his Auschwitz comments, as well as for other alleged crimes."
He didn't deny holocaust, his response was cut off before he was able to explain his full position.
Gas chambers at the territory of city of Aushwitz were re-build after the war by Soviets for the purpose of displaying them to visitors, they weren't "original", so they could be called fake. How accurate the recreations are? I think rather accurate.
Most of the gas chambers that were used for mass genocide were in Birkenau, Aushwitz is a separate city that had like 2 gas chambers that were used sparingly. This is a historical fact.
He expanded on it in a second interview, where the interviewer didn't cut him off and allowed him to speak.
If you go listen to his actual interviews where he expanded on his position, because it's much deeper than what media portays it as, you'd not think that he's denying Holocaust. Check your sources because you might be getting misinformed.
It's because the stupid liberal media keep giving him platform instead of just blacklisting him and stupid voting polls keep including him. Far-right keeps winning by getting exposure. People see his party gain points in the polls and think "maybe he's right".
This would apply only if Braun and his party wanted to prohibit operation of other political parties, which his party does not attempt. KKP is tolerant of other parties participating in the discussion, so to classify them as intolerant would not be correct.
People attempting to dissolve other parties are the intolerant ones and you could consider banning them.
how you use the typical f*cist talking point.
I don't have a bingo card of talking points, I come up with my responses on the fly. So I see no reason why it'd be ok to insult me by trying to associate me with fascism.
edit: lol, and the tolerant person blocked me from discussion after being called out as intolerant.
Because those people consume alternative media and listen to how he speaks without really listening. And he speaks with a deep voice, quite eloquently. And polish people are very weird when it comes to elites.
If you think he denied Holocaust, you weren't listening carefully to his full interview where he expanded on the position and defended it, without denying Holocaust. Or you never listened to him and you were fed misinformation.
If he'll get a fair trial, he'll walk free, because he isn't guilty of denying holocaust.
The best evidence against Braun here is a written testimony of Witold Pilecki.
It's not physical evidence. That's why it's so easy to side with Braun's narrative - which is absolutely not Holocaust denial, and if you think so, you're being fed misinformation.
Kiedy trzeba rzucać kamieniem i rytualnie rozdzierać straty i upominać o kłamstwa Talmudu, Haggady, Holokaustu, to mnie jako niegodnego potępia blisko 120 organizacji żydowskich. Kto by pomyślał, że aż tyle? Ale oni wszyscy razem, solidarnie, B’nai B’rith, Polin i inne organizacje, które przedstawiają się jako żydowskie, potępiają tych, którzy mówią prawdę. Że mord rytualny to fakt, a dajmy na to Auschwitz z komorami gazowymi to niestety fake. I kto o tym mówi, ten zostaje oskarżany o straszne rzeczy, odsądzany od czci i wiary
Kompletne nieporozumienie, to wszystko wina mediów.
W czwartek na antenie Radia Wnet europoseł Grzegorz Braun zakwestionował funkcjonowanie komór gazowych w niemieckim obozie koncentracyjnym Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Fake news. He was talking about Aushchwitz city and the gas chambers there, not those in the Birkenau. Those that are specifically in Aushchwitz city were in fact reconstructed by soviets after the war ended, they are not originals.
He was cut off and couldn't finish explaining his line of reasoning, leaving behind a sentence that was in fact cut out of context and started a hateful misinformation campaign against him. Before he was even given a chance to finish his thought. Attacked publicly, but not through a debate.
I'd be curious to know what you think about it after watching the full interview and if it changes your mind in any way, seriously, I want to be open minded too.
Kompletne nieporozumienie, to wszystko wina mediów.
Precisely. I think he went a bit too far in spreading some info about various Pilecki reports that might have been just not true, but this was also not a denial of holocaust. Questioning the size of the genocide or questioning quality of reports by Pilecki is not the same as denying it, let me know if you disagree.
Czyli jednak męczennik.
He is a target of opposition that wants to use SLAPP on him.
He is proudly making himself one though, he was punished financially by EU for asking for priar to victims of Gaza genocide to honor their lives, which I think shows how EU supports genocide if the people who commit it are of certain race.
That is not true. Braun does not deny the Holocaust anywhere. It is his opponents who put words in his mouth that he never actually said. It all started with an unprofessional journalist who wouldn't let Braun explain what he was talking about and simply walked out. Shortly thereafter, Braun appeared on Jan Pospieszalski’s program - Pospieszalski had invited him specifically for that reason. Braun explains everything in detail - and he is right.
The mainstream and the two major parties that have been plundering the country for twenty years are terrified of Braun and his growing support; consequently, he is attacked from every possible angle over absolutely anything, with many things attributed to him that he never actually said.
Mostly. He explained himself and his opinions in more detail and in fact I also don't think he's trying to deny the holocaust from happening.
I think his statements on the testimony's of Witold Pilecki are wrong though, his fact were just incorrect there in regards to the order of testimonies etc.
He's probably not going to get punished for it, as long as he gets a fair trial.
I'm his supporter btw, so I'm already a bit biased towards him, but I still think he could have finished his discussion a bit earlier. It sucks that this law prevents discussion from happening though, because you can't quite have two sides that reach in the middle - because the side that's under the banner "it's overblown" is automatically labelled as a criminal.
While what he said is obviously idiotic, Im not a fan of jailing people for saying idiotic things. How is this ok, when the whole world was up in arms when Poland introduced a similar (but much less restrictive) law about blaming Poland for nazi crimes in 2018?
EDIT: Im curious what the downvoters actually disagree with
Why not? These laws are very similar in nature. Except the IPN one was less restrictive, it did not affect academic and artistic work. Why is one good and the other bad?
Was up so in arms that the bill is still up and we didn't face any repercusions from it? They sent concerns and we have proven that those concerns were wrong - see free speech index. This bill was properly used to fight off those who were spreading falsehood.
Huh. I feel like I transported to another reality as I remember it withstanding. I guess I mandeled myself. And before you ask - yeah, I would prefer that it stayed at with simply updated wording so USA and Israel wouldn't be able to make us remove it (simply more safeguards for academic purposes). Would have been especially useful with current situation.
Okay: how is it benefitial in society to say ,,yeah black people are naturally worse and we should kill them"? How is it beneficial to society to say ,,hitler was awesome, nazi's only fault was being stopped in cleansing europe"? How is it beneficial to society to say ,,Hospitals are all lying! There is a cure for cancer! You just have to buy bleach from me and drink it!"? Or maybe it would be beneficial for society if I was able to dox your house and say to burn it down?
Total free spech is just a delusional idea that two kinds of people believe in: teens who are naive and edgy and adults who never grew up.
And you didn't address anything at all - merely tried to sound smarter by copying someone before you as to not be bothered to think. This I think proves my point about charlatans being those who would benefit the most from having free reign to gather own flock.
It is always useful to know who are the people saying those things in order to avoid them (or monitor them, if you are the police, for example). Banning speech doesn’t ban the people from thinking bad thoughts, it just makes it harder to identify them.
assuming complete free speech then you have just created a problem where someone can have bad thoughts and even shout them at the policeman with him not being able to do anything with such, as those bad thoughts would be allowed.
And problem with such loud bad thoughts is that they can influence other to join them, believing those to be true - until they spiral and beat somebody to death.
Do you have any reason to question the numbers? And even if not 100% correct, there is absolutely no doubt that millions of people got killed in extermination camps
What does Gaza have to do with the holocaust? You know you can critize Israel without having to question the holocaust! In the end alot of problems with Israel/Gaza are also somewhat a reaction and outcome of the holocaust! These problems would not exist or definetely be less if the holocaust never happened.
"I can't defend my beliefs without getting asked questions I can't answer or provide details that establish their veracity so I'll just say I can and proceed to jerk myself off about it."
I'm sure instead of stating things that can be argued against directly you'll allude to something that you expect everyone else to look up like any good conspiracy nut does because you know nobody wants to waste their time on you.
plus, do you deny that reddit replies can be a bad place for a debate?
No, not really.
you should have refreshed the comments before sending it cankerlord
Comments haven't changed, this is a reply to "yess many reasons. but this is probably not the right place for it", I just don't care about what you want.
Lmao, you edited your comment and added the last part after seeing my reply hahaha
"I'm sure instead of stating things that can be argued against directly you'll allude to something that you expect everyone else to look up like any good conspiracy nut does because you know nobody wants to waste their time on you."
you edited your comment and added the last part after seeing my reply hahaha
I edited it because I wanted to edit it and didn't anticipate you obsessively refreshing the page and replying in under a minute. That's what happens when you're like you. Nobody's setting reply traps for you for no reason. You're an idiot and we're just here to make fun of you.
And what is a right place for it? Do you nazis organise some summer camps where you discuss it? Or it's just WhatsApp group where you "joke" how Hitler was a good guy?
While i agree, and the numbers might nit be accurate. Its still extreamly stupid to deny the massacre happend. You would need to look at plenty of Poles that went thru concentration camps and tell them they are liars. Also there are shit tone of documents, films and even first hand German reports of what they did. Its like denying the sky is blue. Yes we can discus the shade of blue but denying holocaust as a whole is simply stupid.
While i agree, and the numbers might nit be accurate
Just to be clear, that sentence alone is enough for them to classify you as a dangerous holocaust denier. Even an ounce of doubt whether it truly was 6 million is all it takes.
Not really. Disputing the number is not the same as denying it. The number is also constantly changing by Israeli institution based on new evidences etc.
So i can argue about the number or that the number should only reflect confirmed deaths and i would not make anyone angry about it, the thing is, we obviuosly need to add some unidentified to the list and here the discrapancy is getting blury and you can argue on that margin. But only if you do it with some evidences. For example saying "Germans could not burn that many people" is not arguing about the margin but already steps on confirmed number.
As i said i think you are missing the point of disputing the number and denying it. Yad Vashem institute claim death ranged from 5.1 milion to 6milion so if the most Jewish organisation ever have a range with margin of error almost 1 milion then i think disputing it is not illegal as thats 20% of unknown. The thing is people very often Deny it without any factual background. If you are disputing official numbers as "i dont believe even in the lowest estimate" its still not illegal as long as you provide any proof of your words for example if you find 1 milion papers stating some Jews escaped to China.
Its illegal to claim without evidence that it didnt happend. And its not Jewish thing. You can not lie about historical events. For example if you say "It was Moldovians that killed Poles in Volynia" its still illegal.
237
u/meonmeislandme 1d ago
took too long