BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning Golden Dawn would be a harmful restriction of liberty

Taken in isolation, 7% of the national vote may seem like a small proportion. The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) has fluctuated between 5-10 % share of the vote over the last many elections and they have never come close to gaining a foothold in government. The economic turmoil Greece finds itself in however has caused a huge political upheaval. The two-party domination of PASOK and New Democracy has ended. Greece finds itself with a coalition government which includes the once dominant PASOK who got 12.28% in the June 2012 election, and the Democratic Left party which got 6.26% (less than Golden Dawn). The situation above means that the alarming rate at which Golden Dawn has grown in popularity is a matter of concern. In the current political context, 12% (indicated by recent opinion polls) would put Golden Dawn in third place behind SYRIZA and New Democracy. Given the reluctance of New Democracy and SYRIZA to cooperate, one of the two may find themselves in a position where it will be difficult to keep ignoring Golden Dawn. The rapid growth of Golden Dawn is itself a reason to ban them, not a reason to allow them to participate in parliament as the opposition claim. The opposition’s claims regarding society being able to reject bad ideas and keep good ones is idealistic and at odds with the reality with the situation at hand. The reality is that society is increasingly accepting Golden Dawn. This is not because people are making conscious educated decisions and believing that Golden Dawn would improve Greek society, but because their desperation has led them to making rash voting decisions they would not under normal circumstances make. If you are a single mother, recently lost your job, receiving negligible support from the state, and are provided food to feed your children by Golden Dawn party members, it is perfectly understandable that you would vote for them. These kinds of voters, however, are causing a real threat to minority groups and democratic values. Golden Dawn must, therefore, be banned!
Banning Golden Dawn will lend credibility to their cause and further radicalise them

Golden Dawn may well portray themselves as victims and martyrs of state oppression, but this is only likely to affect people who are already radical supporters of Golden Dawn. The core party members will of course be enraged and may be prepared to go out on violent demonstrations, however this core group which includes the bands of thugs that attack racial minorities are only a fraction of their voter base. As we have seen, the vast majority of their supporters and voters are normal people who are not necessarily particularly racist but have been driven to desperation by the problems faced by Greece. These people do not believe passionately in the neo-Nazi ideology and struggle of Golden Dawn. It is highly unlikely that such people will head Mihaloliakos’ calls for people to “take the struggle to the streets”. With respect to Greece’s democratic tradition, it seems strange and paradoxical to claim that people who are passionate about democratic rights would join fascist right-wing extremists in rioting. The 1974 struggle against the Regime of the Colonels was a struggle against a totalitarian regime, the kind of which Golden Dawn would bring to Greece were they to succeed! Even if we assume, however, that banning Golden Dawn would cause a significant social backlash and radicalise people, we should still ban them. Violence and riots are certainly regrettable, but they would not be the first time Greece has had to deal with them and the state should not have policy dictated by the fear of unrest by a small minority. After a brief period of conflict with state- riot police, the conflict will die out. Senior Golden Dawn members may even be arrested and brought to justice. In the long run, however, people will forget and move on with their lives, as unpopular policies pushed through by the state have on so many other occasions in Greece in particular and in Western liberal democratic states across the world.
Golden Dawn are a threat to society

Golden Dawn’s heavily racist agenda has led to a huge increase in the amount of violent crimes committed against immigrants and refugees, many of whom from conflict torn areas like Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Gangs of Golden Dawn members, usually clad in Golden Dawn black t-shirts and balaclavas to hide their identity have been widely reported to attack immigrants (many of whom are homeless) at random, causing severe and often life threatening injuries upon their victims. [1] In the six months to September 2012 there have been 500 such attacks.[2] The situation has escalated to the extent that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has expressed explicit concerns about human rights violations committed in Greece. [3] This behaviour is totally unacceptable from any individual or organisation and especially for a political party. Through their hateful messages and Nazi inspired ideology and chants like “Blood, honour, Golden Dawn” [4], Golden Dawn are directly inciting hatred and violence amongst their supporters. Not only this, but their own party members, wearing party uniform and representing Golden Dawn are the ones often causing such violence. The state has an imperative to protect society from such heinous acts. It is unacceptable to have people living in fear of their own lives, whether they are Greek citizens or not and irrespective of whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. All people have a basic human right to be able to live free of fear from racial persecution, and the Greek state is failing to safeguard those rights within its own borders.  Fear of marginalisation and persecution are the worst kind of oppression because it attacks their very identity and prevents them from feeling and living as free members of society. Golden Dawn, their beliefs and their actions must be categorically condemned, and there is no better way to do it than by banning them as a political party. They must be expelled immediately from parliament and elections must be held again (from which Golden Dawn will be banned from entering). [1] 1 Against Racism Campaign: “Testimony of a racist attack in Agios Dimitrios”, 6 September 2012, UNHCR Greece, http://1againstracism.gr/index.php/el/rss/item/740- [2] Shevchenko, Vitaly, and Athanasoulia, Stella, ‘Greece wrestles with rise in hate crime’, BBC News, 18 September 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19606136 [3] Kathimerini: “UN rights chief worried about Greece”, 10 September 2012, e-Kathimerini, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_10/09/2012_460510 [4] Baboulias, Yiannis: “Greece’s Golden Dawn isn’t a political party – it’s more like a criminal gang”, 4 September 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/greece-golden-dawn-not-political-party
Golden Dawn disrespects core democratic values.

In ideological terms, Golden Dawn call for systemic change on a huge scale, claiming the current structure of the Greek political system is riddled with traitors and foreign interests. [1] History, for example right wing regimes all over Europe in the 1930s, has shown us that when right-wing extremists have gained a foothold in government, they have tried their utmost to destroy the very system from within and wipe out democracy. Given Golden Dawn’s claims for the need to purge the country of traitors, it is not at all unthinkable that Greece could go down a similar root should the party see its popularity increase even more. Although it is true that people should be allowed to elect any government they want, a democracy cannot be allowed to self-destruct. This is a choice the electorate cannot be allowed to make for two reasons. Firstly, because a choice to live under a totalitarian regime is an irrevocable choice: there is no mechanism (other than violent revolution) to oust such a regime if things do not turn out as the electorate originally expected. Secondly, even if the voters are content with their decision, they cannot be permitted to make such a decision on behalf of future generations who have not had a chance to vote yet. Future would-be electorates would be unable to oust a totalitarian regime they did not choose for themselves. Peoples’ right to exercise their basic democratic right must be protected, and in order to protect it, we must to an extent limit that very same right and deny them the possibility of voting for Golden Dawn. [1]  Baboulias, Yiannis: “Greece’s Golden Dawn isn’t a political party – it’s more like a criminal gang”, 4 September 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/greece-golden-dawn-not-political-party
Golden Dawn are not a party, they are thugs and criminals

Golden Dawn does not behave as most political parties and their MPs do not behave like politicians. This is because they are not what we would describe as politicians: they are thugs. Emboldened by their MP’s privilege of immunity from prosecution Golden Dawn MP’s have on multiple occasions been involved in public acts of violence. MP Dimitris Koukoutsis is being investigated for an assault in parliament on SYRIZA (leftist) MP Vasiliki Katrivanou [1], while party spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris assaulted two other MP’s on a chat show broadcasted live on TV [2]. Worse still, many of Golden Dawn’s MP’s and members face criminal charges, including Ilias Kasidiaris who is accused of ‘accessory to robbery, bodily harm and illegal gun possession’ [3], although his trial has been postponed on multiple occasions because of his MP’s privileges. Not only does Golden Dawn dislike democratic values, they actively abuse their MP’s privileges and behave unacceptably in a highly public manner towards fellow members of parliament. Party leader and MP Nikos Mihaloliakos has publicly declared that Golden Dawn feel uncomfortable and disgusted in parliament and called upon party members to rally behind them and violently take the struggle out of parliament and onto the streets of Athens. [3] We cannot allow such open criminality and violence to exist in politics and inside the Greek Parliament. They totally lack respect for other politicians and do not participate in an orderly manner expected of Members of Parliament and many of them have committed acts of criminality before even being elected into parliament. These people are not fit to take part in government and provide a horrific example for society. They make a mockery of the political system and disgrace Greek politics and Greece as a whole. They must be banned. [1] Kathimerini: “Panel to probe Parliament attack by Golden Dawn MP”, 29 August 2012, E-Kathimerini, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_29/08/2012_458853 [2] Baboulias, Yiannis: “Greece’s Golden Dawn isn’t a political party – it’s more like a criminal gang”, 4 September 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/greece-golden-dawn-not-political-party [3] ibid
Golden Dawn’s Presence in parliament legitimises their illegitimate cause.

By allowing Golden Dawn into parliament, Golden Dawn gain legitimacy in two ways. Firstly their very presence in parliament lends an air of legitimacy to their cause. We have established that Golden Dawn’s message is harmful both to democracy and to minority group rights. They have managed to use their newfound media exposure and greater state funding for their public relations department, to great effect. [1] However, even though there has been a social and media response against Golden Dawn and racist acts of violence, increased publicity (both positive and negative) is having the effect of normalising society’s view of the party. As the political presence of Golden Dawn settles into society’s conscience, members and MP’s are often portrayed as normal people and the acts of violence committed under their name are ignored [2]. The normalisation of Golden Dawn’s presence in democratic political discourse increases the likelihood that people will see their claims and methods as legitimate. As the electorate despairs and becomes increasingly disillusioned with the mainstream parties of PASOK and New Democracy, the danger is that Golden Dawn’s increasingly normalised presence will soak up many votes from people who are not necessarily racist or strongly right-wing. Their provision of food-aid to unemployed and desperate Greeks hit hard by the economic crisis has gained them further publicity and popularity in a similar way to extremist parties in the middle east – even if it is very small they are seen to be doing something so rewarded for it. An end must be put to Golden Dawn’s surge in popularity. Golden Dawn must be seen for who they are and the only way to achieve this is by banning them. Once removed from the public eye and the media ceases to portray them as a legitimate party, Golden Dawn will no longer be able to attract support in the ways we have seen.   [1] Baboulias, Yiannis: “Greece’s Golden Dawn isn’t a political party – it’s more like a criminal gang”, 4 September 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/greece-golden-dawn-not-political-party [2] Marchetos, Spyros: “Golden Dawn and the rise of fascism”, 19 June 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/19/golden-dawn-fascism-greece
Banning Golden Dawn would be a harmful restriction of liberty

Banning Golden Dawn would cause outrage among the electorate in Greece and for good reason. It is a massive double standard to allow parties like Golden Dawn and other far-right parties to participate in elections and exist as legitimate political parties, but then ban them from participating as soon as they gain popularity and enter parliament. Banning Golden Dawn would instantly brand the over 400,000 voters who voted for the party as holding illegitimate political views. This would be a monumental infringement upon freedom of political participation, freedom of opinion and freedom of speech. Despite the recent increase in popularity, Golden Dawn still remains a small party with only 18 out of 300 seats in parliament. Moreover, Greece’s voter base has a sufficient leftist, anti-fascist contingent that it is unlikely Golden Dawn will ever be part of a government. Thus the harms from their presence in parliament are relatively limited in scope. Banning Golden Dawn causes harms in terms of restricted civil liberties that far outweigh such possible harms. Preventing people from voting for Golden Dawn prevents them from voicing potential legitimate concerns about the huge rise in criminality and illegal immigration throughout Greece and particularly central Athens; or it may prevent people from expressing their political discontent at mainstream parties by voting for Golden Dawn. Fundamentally however, even if we accept that Golden Dawn’s messages and ideology are harmful, we should not silence them and prevent them from participating in elections. A liberal society where the public is made aware of all viewpoints allows people to make the best and most educated decisions possible. When freedom of speech and political participation are maximised and freedom of information and press are also high, society will act as a filter for good and bad ideas. Bad and harmful ideas and notions will be debated in the public eye, and given fair and equal information; bad ideas will be rejected while good ones will be kept. With Golden Dawn, for example, most people in Greece do see them for what they are and choose not to vote for them. After a period of political participation and debate, Golden Dawn and most of what they believe will most likely fade from the radar and be rejected by society. This process can only take place however, under a liberal society. Banning Golden Dawn would reduce society’s capacity to make educated decisions. It is notable that historically most far right (or left) parties fail at the ballot box with only a brief peak of popularity and have to resort to means outside the democratic process to obtain power; banning the party would simply force this turn away from the ballot box.
Banning Golden Dawn will lend credibility to their cause and further radicalise them

Extremist political groups like Golden Dawn thrive off being persecuted. They use it to their advantage by proclaiming to being victims against forces of oppression and treachery. Recent examples include Golden Dawn's reaction to riot police monitoring their headquarters as an 'obvious Constitutional violation. [1] It is not hard to imagine the kind of reaction a ban on the party would cause. What’s more, the nature of such claims is such that they are serve to re-affirm Golden Dawn’s claims of state treachery. Claims to martyrdom, victimhood and exclusion only serve to radicalise party members and supporters even more. Party leader Nikos Mihaloliakos who proclaimed how excluded the party feels in parliament has already threatened to abandon parliament and turn to violence. [2] It is not at all inconceivable that this might turn to reality were Golden Dawn to be banned from parliament.  Greece has a tradition of struggle against state oppression and the protection of democratic rights dating in part from the struggle against the Regime of the Colonels from 1967 to 1974. The incident of the police shooting of a boy caused widespread riots across Athens in 2008, while more recent frustration against the Greek state is also likely to cause riots to escalate and many to join Golden Dawn’s cause irrespective of if they believe in their policies or not. This would be disastrous for Greece, particularly in light of the existing huge economic problems. Increased radicalisation of Golden Dawn thugs is also very likely to cause vast increases in racist violent crimes. By allowing Golden Dawn to participate in parliament, any harm they can cause can be curtailed. [1] Η Χρυσή Αυγή έστειλε εξώδικο στον αρχηγό της ΕΛ.ΑΣ. news247, 10 September 2012, http://news247.gr/eidiseis/politiki/h_xrysh_aygh_esteile_ekswdiko_ston_arxhgo_ths_astynomias.1923362.html   [2] Baboulias, Yiannis: “Greece’s Golden Dawn isn’t a political party – it’s more like a criminal gang”, 4 September 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/greece-golden-dawn-not-political-party
Danger of dogma

Having a fixed set of fundamental human rights makes it harder to adapt to changing circumstances. As we have already seen conceptions of human rights vary by culture and time, and should be properly seen as a product of those specific factors, not as universal fundamentals. What was seen as a 'fundamental right' in the 18th Century may not be appropriate for the 21st, and what is seen as a right in the 21st Century may be actively harmful to recognise as a right in the 24th. For example it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms was more useful in the America of the 18th Century, when there was no police force and hunting for food was more important, than in the 21st Century, where it could be argued that gun ownership results in higher gun crime rates for America than for other industrialized nations.[1]  Enshrining rights as 'fundamental' makes it much harder to remove or modify them as circumstances change and they become less useful. [1] Gumbel, Andrew “The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?”,The Independent, Wednesday, 4 October 2006.
Universal individual desires

There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure.
Universal benefits of human rights

The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain  is far from clear-cut.[1] [1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.
Relative perceptions of human rights

Fundamental human rights were 'new' to all cultures once, but this does not mean that they have not always been an underlying fact.  Arguments surrounding different cultural perceptions of rights and 'cultural relativism' are almost universally used by the powerful interests in certain cultures to justify their abuse of the human rights of those with less power in their cultures, for example leaders of authoritarian regimes who protect their own power at the expense of the freedom of their people and justify it on the basis of 'Asian values'. The recognition of fundamental human rights will always require change in a culture or locality that did not previously recognise them, but this does not mean that they are not universal on the basis of needs and desires that do exist in all cultures.
Universal human nature

Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.
Universal individual desires

Certain desires, such as the desire for happiness, are universal to all human beings. Even if they actively deny them to others, every individual works towards the fulfilment of these desires for himself, and recognise that the denial of this fulfilment is harmful to himself. For example historically slave-owners still desired freedom of movement and labour for themselves, even if they denied it to their slaves on the basis of selfish interests. Therefore, because all humans desire happiness for themselves, and also desire the means to this end such as freedom of speech and the freedom to make their own choices, there exists a universal basis of desire for human rights in every individual. The enshrinement of 'fundamental human rights' simply universalizes what every individual acknowledges for himself: that the denial of certain rights is always harmful. This already even has a basis in the 'Golden Rule', to not do what is harmful to yourself to others, which can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition.[1] [1] Blackburn, Simon. “Ethics: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. p.101