,
32 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
Report is based on 1,069 pages of publically accessible material from local, regional and federal level (party and election programmes, social media channels, websites, transcribed speeches); NO intelligence and parliamentary material. 2/32
Key principles for assessment: (1) Principle of ‘party freedom’ (Art. 21 Basic Law (‘Grundgesetz’, GG)) bound by the ‘militant democracy’ constituted by GG: FDGO does NOT necessarily assert itself through public opinion formation. (B II 1.1) 3/32
(2) Being monitored by the Constitution Protection Service (#BfV) does NOT imply an interference with the existence of the party itself or a sanctioning of its officials, members and supporters; it is meant to clarify a suspicion directed against the party. (B II 1.1) 4/32
(3) A party pursues unconstitutional efforts if it ACTIVELY seeks to abolish or invalidate constitutional principles relating to the 3 non-negotiable elements essential for a free and democratic coexistence: guarantee of human dignity, democratic principle, the rule of law. 5/32
Need to do this through “politically determined, targeted and purposeful conduct.” There doesn’t need to be an IMMEDIATE threat to the existence of the FDGO, but measures (legal or illegal) need to be “potentially suitable” to invalidate elements of it (B II 2/2.1/2.2) 6/32
(4) GG is a “counter-draft to totalitarian National Socialism”, but no stand-alone, anti-National Socialist constitutional principle derives from this - even if the National Socialist ideology rejects all 3 core elements of FDGO. 7/32
(5) Guarantee of human dignity can’t be reconciled with idea that a collective has “primordial + absolute precedence over the individual human being”, nor that an individual’s dignity is dependent not on their humanness, but belongingness to an ethnic/racial/religious group. 9/32
Ascribing A PRIORI “a lower legal status to a group of people and subjecting them to humiliating discriminatory treatment, therefore, violates the FDGO”. (B II 2.1.1) 10/32
(6) Rejecting parliamentarism does not in itself imply a violation of the FDGO IF this is connected to a demand for replacing it with another plebiscitarian system. (B II 2.1.2) 11/32
(7) The rule of law implies that the executive is bound by laws + subject to control by independent courts, and that the state has the monopoly on violence (= individuals have no ‘right to self-help’). (B II 2.1.3) 12/32
Explicitly NOT in violation of the guarantee to human dignity/the FDGO: praising patriotism, the love for one’s own country, language and culture & a feeling of belongingness to a social community; criticizing members of minorities + demanding a limitation 13/32
of their basic rights (e.g. obligation to teach a modern interpretation of the Quran; specification of modern curricula for Islamic religious education at schools and universities); debating actual and alleged criminality of migrants, even in a polemic manner; 14/32
criticizing the actual or alleged lack of adjustment to the ‘way of life’ of the majority population among specific groups; criticizing a specific group’s religion or approach to life in general (but without denigrating its members on a personal level); 15/32
demanding in-kind benefits for asylum seekers, a cap on immigrants and systematic deportations of “illegally residing foreigners” (as long as they are not threatened with torture or other violations of their human dignity in their home country). (B II 2.1.1) 16/32
Based on these principles, the report classifies (A) the #AfD Youth Organisation JA as a “Suspected Case”: there are “sufficiently concrete signs”, both in terms of quality and quantity, that it is an “extremist endeavor”. Will be put under ‘systematic surveillance’. 17/32
(B) The #AfD sub-organisation “The Wing” as a “Suspected Case” due to “sufficiently concrete signs” that it is an “extremist endeavor”. Will be put under ‘systematic surveillance’; (C) The AfD as a “Test Case”: “first concrete signs” that it pursues policies directed 18/32
against the FDGO, but not qualitatively/quantitatively sufficient – statements are (intentionally) vague & there are no concrete plans for what the #AfD would do if in power. Will be “critically monitored”. 19/32
Violations evident to different degrees & expressed more or less explicitly/clearly across the 3 cases, levels, and types of material: a) Violation of human dignity (incl. principle of equality): ethnically homogeneous/’#völkisch’ understanding of the ‘people’ (das ‘Volk’) 20/32
vs. legal definition of the ‘#German people’ as all citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc. – makes value of an individual dependent on their belongingness to a collective, not their humanness; withdrawal of non-ethnic Germans’ citizenship as POTENTIAL consequence. 21/32
Nominal avowal of freedom of religion, but expressive hostility against and denigration of ‘non-Germans’, in particular migrants/refugees and (German) Muslims as a demographic group (rather than legitimate criticism of #Islam) qua their culture/religion. 22/32
Has POTENTIAL consequences for right to self-expression/freedom of religion (e.g., revoking status as religion/total ban; ban on mosques/complete surveillance; demand for radical assimilation to ‘majority population’ vs. preferential treatment for ‘Germans’/Christians). 23/32
b) Violation of democratic principle: nominal avowal, but absolute contempt for parliamentarism & its representatives; #German #democracy denounced as ‘rogue regime’ (and similar) 24/32
without offering an alternative system for institutionalizing a pluralist decision-making process with equal participation for all citizens (parliamentarism or direct #democracy); suggestions to limit the right to political participation for non-ethnic Germans. 25/32
c) Violation of the rule of law (incl. principle of non-arbitrariness): calling for (violent) #vigilantism, rejection of democratically made decisions if they run counter to the #AfD’s interests & execution of decisions not bound by law/based on illegal laws 26/32
(e.g., #asylum not as basic right, but based on mercy without legal certainty/access to courts; deportations without a rejected claim to asylum or to countries with risk of inhumane treatment; denial of asylum to Muslims). 27/32
d) Relativizing of (but hardly any explicit support for) historical National Socialism + right-wing extremist diction (“guilt complex”, “foreign domination”, “population exchange” and “ethnic replacement”, etc., in re to a conspiracy against the ‘#German people’); 28/32
Individual, non-institutionalized connections to/support for/collaboration with ‘New Right’ and right-wing extremist organisations/their members (e.g., #PEGIDA, Identitarian Movement, NPD, citizens’ movements, publishers and publications, bands, fraternities, think tanks). 29/32
(II) Report highlights need for clarity re (il)legitimacy of statements, e.g. ‘statistically higher tendency towards criminality among young, socially less integrated men’ vs. ‘ALL male refugees are naturally aggressive/a public danger’. (C I 2.1.1 c) 31/32
