Germany’s spy agency BfV has labeled the entirety of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as an extremist entity.

The BfV domestic intelligence agency, which is in charge of safeguarding Germany’s constitutional order, said the announcement comes after an “intense and comprehensive” examination.

“The ethnicity-and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with the free democratic order,” the BfV said on Friday.

Hopefully this inspires the other parties to to start the process to see the AfD banned. I know the report might not look like much, because of how obvious the findings are. But previous attempts at banning them have failed because such an official report was missing. So maybe our political system starts getting its shit together.

As we say in Germany: Hope dies last

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    155
    ·
    1 day ago

    True, but then again we have lived through that already and know that dangerous parties can be elected democratically. That is exactly the reason why we have this mechanism in place.

    An anti democratic party has no right to be elected democratically.

    • slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      ·
      1 day ago

      Exactly. Democracy is famously the only system which allows to be dismantled through its own tools. That is why the German system is called “Wehrhafte Demokratie” (defensive democracy) to not end up like the Weimar Republic.

        • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Usually when it tolerates the intolerant. That’s why we’re fucked in the US. I hope Germany came stop it before it’s too late, I speak some, and was gonna try and emigrate if the need arises.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Intolerance is only an issue when it is equated with violence. There’s no real issue or paradox of intolerance if you equate intolerance with asserting boundaries nonviolently - this is the literal basis of unconditional love.

    • jupyter_rain@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I fear, that many if not most people do not understand why AFD is an undemocratic party or why this would even matter for them.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I think that problem is closely related to the issue that people think it can not get much worse for them when in reality there is a long, long way down from even the poorest and least represented people in our German society to the poorest people in the worst societies that actually existed in history or even the worst society imaginable with modern technology combined with the rulers from those worst socities in history.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        It doesn’t matter what people think when they’re wrong or pig-ignorant.

    • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      I understood the post you are replying to as saying “what will AfD voters do when their party is banned?”.

      In the case of the Nazis, we don’t know because their party was never banned. We don’t know what would have happened if the Nazi party had been banned.

      I would be interested to know if we have historical cases of far-right parties that could have won the elections but were banned before they had the chance.

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Well, let’s hope we’re about to see that. My guess is mass protests all over Germany and even more massive counter protests right next to them.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      23 hours ago

      An anti democratic party has no right to be elected democratically.

      True. But who decides what is an anti-democratic party? And by what guidelines?

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        23 hours ago

        “Why is the AfD classified as extremist?”

        First section in the linked article.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            35
            ·
            23 hours ago

            The applicable law is Article 21 GG:

            1. Political parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organisation must conform to democratic principles. They must publicly account for their assets and for the sources and use of their funds.

            2. Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional.

            3. Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, are oriented towards an undermining or abolition of the free democratic basic order or an endangerment of the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be excluded from state financing. If such exclusion is determined, any favourable fiscal treatment of these parties and of payments made to those parties shall cease.

            4. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality within the meaning of paragraph (2) of this Article and on exclusion from state financing within the meaning of paragraph (3).

            5. Details shall be regulated by federal laws.

            Key point here is “seek to undermine or abolish the free and democratic basic order”, quoth the BVerfG:

            The free democratic basic order can be defined as an order which excludes any form of tyranny or arbitrariness and represents a governmental system under a rule of law, based upon self-determination of the people as expressed by the will of the existing majority and upon freedom and equality. The fundamental principles of this order include at least: respect for the human rights given concrete form in the Basic Law, in particular for the right of a person to life and free development; popular sovereignty; separation of powers; responsibility of government; lawfulness of administration; independence of the judiciary; the multi-party principle; and equality of opportunities for all political parties.

            It’s their own definition so push come to shove they’re going to add to it. Overall though the lines aren’t new and haven’t shifted, that’s a quote from a judgement from 1952.

            Paragraph 3 is new, that has been introduced after banning the NPD (now “Die Heimat”) failed not because they would not be opposed to the free and democratic order, but because they were judged to be too impotent to do anything about it. Previously banned parties include the NSDAP, not under this law but by the allies, then the SRP as it was a successor of the NSDAP, and then the KPD not for being communist but for being run by the KGB and laying siege to parliament. Bans of the FAP and NL failed because the BVerfG said they’re not parties so they were banned as associations, instead. Last case is the NPD, the first attempt failed because the state had so many moles inside that the court saw itself unable to distinguish between state and party actions, the second as already said because they’re yes, hateful assclowns, but also pathetic. They’ve been excluded from state funds for six years, the case will have to be judged anew in 2030.

      • Yareckt@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The highest german court does. It’s beholden only to the constitution. The guidelines are are quite strict and very specific:

        “Parties that, in view of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany must be declared unconstitutional (cf. Art. 21(2) first sentence of the Basic Law). According to the Federal Constitutional Court’s case-law, the mere dissemination of anti-constitutional ideas as such is not sufficient. To be declared unconstitutional, a party must also take an actively belligerent, aggressive stance vis-à-vis the free democratic basic order and must seek to abolish it. In addition, specific indications must suggest that it is at least possible that the party will achieve its anti-constitutional aims.” From the website of the court

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        21 hours ago

        The constitutional court.

        The same court that rules if laws are in accordance or in violation of the constitution.