Summary
Over 100 German legislators have proposed banning the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, citing its aggressive and combative actions against the constitution.
The proposal, which requires support from the Bundestag, the upper house, or the federal government, aims to demonstrate the AfD’s extreme right-wing activities.
This isn’t entirely true. They are backing the check by our Bundesverfassungsgericht (our supreme court) if the AfD is against the constitution. That’s a significant difference. The article makes it sound like the Bundestag can just ban the party, but that(luckyly) isn’t the case(because if it would any political party could just ban the enemies(as it happened in the 1930s)). Instead the Bundestag, or the Bundesrat(its made of representatives from our states and) , have to order the Bundesverfassungsgericht to check if the AfD is a party hostile to the constitution.
Also worth mentioning, that if this goes through, we won’t see a result in the near future. Such a case takes about 4-6 years to be resolved.
The BVerfG can be surprisingly fast if things are sufficiently clear-cut and/or urgent. For one, the AfD will have to have sufficient discipline to not make death threats over this, siege the court, such things. I’m sure their higher-ups have game-planned this but I would be surprised indeed if fascists manage to not be, well, fascists, when backed into a corner.
The legal question isn’t actually complicated, there’s been enough cases so that the court won’t have to develop law. It’s mostly going to be hearing evidence.
Everyone involved says this will take years to resolve, furthermore it’s questionable if the evidence is even sufficient for successfully banning the AfD. This is in no way a clear cut case.
From the two unsuccessful ban trials of the NPD, I do not have much hope of this one succeeding. Sadly.
That’s reasonable
Israel has banned literal terrorist parties from running. Sometimes its a good idea to ban a party. See Nazi party.
I never said that it isn’t good to ban the AfD. I just mentioned the mistake the article makes and that its good that only the highest court is able to do that.
Yet the kahanists came back and now they’re running the National Security ministry and Netanyahu depends on them.
A sad day for civility. By trying to ban Nazi-adjacent parties, they’re being just as bad as them.
/S
Dats a big S there buddy. U got a loicense for dat?
Oi m8
It does make me remember another time they forbad a political party…
But yes, anti democratic violent hate parties should be dismanteled.
Just a reminder about not tolerating intolerance.
The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.
If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
What about the other 620?
Didn’t bring in the motion. The Bundestag will vote on it and if it passes the Bundestag officially filed a criminal complaint so to speak with the constitutional court.
Other options would be the Bundesrat starting the procedure (vote-majority of states) or the government (cabinet majority, presumably), but the general preference is for the Bundestag to do it because it has a direct, federal, democratic mandate (government is indirect (elected by the Bundestag) and Bundesrat is state governments).
Thanks I’m not familiar with the workings on the German government
Sounds about as simple as a German car.
It only sounds complex and the workings are intricate. But the constitution is relatively straightforward in this regard. Germany uses a codified law system after all and its constitution is relatively new by comparison
Oh snap why didn’t we think of that
deleted by creator
