European Court of Human Rights: Is wearing a red star a fundamental human right?

A blind man’s job would be standing there in court trying to weigh legal arguments, because let's be real, the law isn't the same thing as justice.
This whole thing is just a high-level debate, and honestly, it just highlights the moral stupidity—and again, this is subjective, just how the court interprets things—of the double standards applied to the exact same crap, specifically when you look at two different murderous, totalitarian regimes being glorified. Even Vajnai admits he was doing it, and it wasn't some kind of divine star he was following, but rather because he's part of some cosmic cult.
Unless, of course, the court thinks—using its own twisted logic—that using a swastika for political reasons (which is an even bigger, more unjust load of garbage since the swastika is a taboo topic in any capacity whatsoever) in Canada, a place they claim is a stable democracy, somehow caused the entire system to flip into fascism.

I honestly don't get why so many people here still act confused about this—or rather, they *act* like they don't get it just to be difficult—but the fact remains that Hitler and Pavelić were taken down by a combined force of Uncle Sam, Comrade Stalin, and Comrade Marshall. Since Comrade Stalin and Comrade Marshall were never actually defeated by anyone, what kind of official policy should the West or the East even have regarding them, other than what we see today? You can think whatever you want about communism, really, but it wasn't defeated on a battlefield. Society eventually and relatively peacefully moved away from that socio-economic model, and frankly, it’s a good thing we did. Nazism, on the other hand, was crushed in a bloody, horrific war, so in my eyes, banning Nazi symbols is perfectly logical and absolutely right.

cosmicowl732 said:I honestly don't get why so many people here still act confused about this—or rather, they *act* like they don't get it just to be difficult—but the fact remains that Hitler and Pavelić were taken down by a combined force of Uncle Sam, Comrade Stalin, and Comrade Marshall. Since Comrade Stalin and Comrade Marshall were never actually defeated by anyone, what kind of official policy should the West or the East even have regarding them, other than what we see today? You can think whatever you want about communism, really, but it wasn't defeated on a battlefield. Society eventually and relatively peacefully moved away from that socio-economic model, and frankly, it’s a good thing we did. Nazism, on the other hand, was crushed in a bloody, horrific war, so in my eyes, banning Nazi symbols is perfectly logical and absolutely right.

Are you talking about those little "yogurt revolutions"?

And what about the countries where communism was kicked out specifically using military force and heavy weaponry?

Or even the ones where it was kept in power through sheer military might and arms?

Thomas Williams59 said:A blind man’s job would be standing there in court trying to weigh legal arguments, because let's be real, the law isn't the same thing as justice.
This whole thing is just a high-level debate, and honestly, it just highlights the moral stupidity—and again, this is subjective, just how the court interprets things—of the double standards applied to the exact same crap, specifically when you look at two different murderous, totalitarian regimes being glorified. Even Vajnai admits he was doing it, and it wasn't some kind of divine star he was following, but rather because he's part of some cosmic cult.
Unless, of course, the court thinks—using its own twisted logic—that using a swastika for political reasons (which is an even bigger, more unjust load of garbage since the swastika is a taboo topic in any capacity whatsoever) in Canada, a place they claim is a stable democracy, somehow caused the entire system to flip into fascism.

That is precisely my point. If you ban the swastika, then you should also ban the red star (and the hammer and sickle, if that is even possible).

A star can be noble or criminal, but the Nazi swastika is nothing but pure evil

so this ruling is actually fair!

The ruling from the European Court of Human Rights is honestly the least of anyone's worries over in Canada. 😁
Attila Vajnai is nothing more than a marginal, frankly laughable figure, representing a wing of the Labor Party—the party that used to run the show before 1989—which typically scrapes by with a tiny fraction of the vote, maybe around 0.8 to 1.5 percent.

Since Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány doesn't actually hold a majority in Congress, he isn't about to go poking the bear by provoking the right-wingers in the legislature or out on the streets. It’s just not worth the headache of sparking more clashes between football hooligans and the police; besides, extremists are already finding plenty of reasons to fight without his help—you know the usual suspects, the constant bickering over the legacy of Trianon, various minority groups, communists, and all that typical Budapest "folklore" that's been bubbling up since 2006. 😁

Matthew Harris2 said:A star can be noble or criminal, but the Nazi swastika is nothing but pure evil

so this ruling is actually fair!

The Nazi swastika is really just one version of the true swastika, which serves as a symbol of prosperity for all Indo-European peoples. Whether it faces left or right, it remains a swastika, and perhaps one of the oldest and most beautiful symbols ever conceived by man. Unfortunately, its reputation has been tarnished. After a thousand years of positive meaning, it seems a short but brutal period was enough to erase its nobility. I think the same applies to the star. I don't see why there would be double standards here.

Even though I’m pretty much an anti-communist through and through, I think it’s important to stay level-headed and rational here. Both fascism and communism fall under the umbrella of totalitarianism, but there is one crucial nuance to consider.
Specifically, you have democratic communists—groups whose symbol is also a star—and that is exactly what the court is pointing to. These are communists who play by the rules of democracy, working through elections and the legislative process to gain power and establish a communist social order. In other words, they renounce violence, violent revolutions, coups, and dictatorships, opting instead to fight for influence via the ballot box. You can find them all over Europe, and even right here in the US.
On the flip side, fascism is fundamentally built upon racism and chauvinism. Because of that, its symbols are never going to be considered acceptable; it isn't just about the totalitarian aspect, but rather the underlying racism and bigotry they promote. Fascists are inherently unacceptable, even if they try to rise to power through democratic means. Even when a democratically elected government pursues policies rooted in racism and discrimination, that remains UNACCEPTABLE.
Conversely, communists can win an election and subsequently implement a communist system. For that to happen, the democratic process has to allow it.
That is where the distinction lies.

I finally get where those Irishmen are coming from. Look, I'm fine with the EU, but not when they start trying to force their "values" down our throats.

An absolute disgrace 👎 after all those lives lost, seeing them parade around for political gain with that red star and the hammer and sickle 👎

Thank God the Nazis weren't aligned with the West back in the 1940s. If they were, people would be talking about the Holocaust the same way they talk about victims of communism or the USSR—just dismissed as "some random casualties." You’d probably see kids (the rebels) running around in black shirts with pictures of AH and Himmler on them ☕

It’s such a perfect example of how you "normalize" things. Then we act shocked when Germans fell for Nazism seventy years ago, because even today, despite all the media, the history books, and the constant information, stuff like this still happens. It's just gross 👎

People can be sheep, whether they realize it or not ☕

cosmicowl732 said:I honestly don't get why so many people here still act confused about this—or rather, they *act* like they don't get it just to be difficult—but the fact remains that Hitler and Pavelić were taken down by a combined force of Uncle Sam, Comrade Stalin, and Comrade Marshall. Since Comrade Stalin and Comrade Marshall were never actually defeated by anyone, what kind of official policy should the West or the East even have regarding them, other than what we see today? You can think whatever you want about communism, really, but it wasn't defeated on a battlefield. Society eventually and relatively peacefully moved away from that socio-economic model, and frankly, it’s a good thing we did. Nazism, on the other hand, was crushed in a bloody, horrific war, so in my eyes, banning Nazi symbols is perfectly logical and absolutely right.

The real kicker is how much those "ally" relationships cooled off after '45.
In the eyes of the West, those major allies basically turned into "Red Monsters," and they stayed that way for fifty-five years.

If they had stayed on friendly terms, I wouldn't be surprised one bit. ☕