Last Wednesday, 13th January, we had a debate about the banning of extremist parties. There were two different opinions: ones were for the ban, the others against it.
There were many arguments (more from one side than the other), defending and refuting the question that triggued the debate.
The ones who defended the banning of these polical parties often appealled to the past, with examples from the Holocaust mainly. It was also said that the Humans Rights are disrespected by this parties, who suport violence and an authoritarian regime, and that is the reason why they should be banned.
On the other hand, the other half of the class strongly stated that extremist parties shouldn't be forbbiden because we live in a democracy, and democratic regimes are based in freedom of will and speach; not allowing these political opinions is disrespectful of Human Rights as well, and it's totally anti-democratic. Besides, a dialogue between all the parties is necessary to a good balance in the Parliament.
Personally, I don't find common points between the two "wings" of our debate; there were two completly oposite opinions, with totally different ideas.
Well, maybe one thing is common: both talked about Human Rights. Wrong or right, both mentioned it.
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário