Didn't know all the other German parties had radical elements that are allowed to co exist.
When it comes to governments and political parties, any sort of monitoring should be across the board, there should little to no difference between the rights of parties. Any lawmaker that asks for special monitoring of a political party, should gladly welcome it for their own.
Why does it have to be across the board, when only one big political party in Germany has shown time and again to have radical members within it and could possibly be at risk of being infiltrated by the growing dangerous far right movement across the west?
All parties with ties to terrorism.
So to beat an "extremist" party you employ the device of selective surveillance on people you fear which ironically is what extremist parties do to gain power and de-legitimize their opponents.
Actually our Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution actually only investigates if there are reasons for it. It does not investigate all parties.
It is also not "employed" by another party to take out the other.
The AfD has shot themself in the foot with a report they made, the report, which was supposed to show that they are fine, showed the opposite and this can now warrant the surveillance.
CDU or other parties of course just use it in the political fight.
To beat an extremist party we employ methods that protect our constitution. Seems all good to me.
If the SPD or whatever other party would spout bullshit that can threaten our constitution they would be of risk of the same surveillance and actions.
You would think that investigating a party that literally has connections to supporters of domestic terrorism and bombings would be the most important one to monitor.
Btw. You are are becoming more and more transparent by the day.
This is actual political correctness. We know only one of the associations in question harbors and encourages extremism but you want vital security resources to be spread across everything so it's more fair and equal, even if it means not being as effective a policy.
Die Linke have been known to have some radical elements as well, granted it's not a full on party of them, but still.
I had to spend a while parsing this post, because whilst I can totally see where you're coming from, and there's never an easy answer to questions like this, the AfD are by far the only genuinely dangerous party in Germany, and I think we sometimes have to be pragmatic in how we approach these things.
Putting "extremist" in quotes doesn't make the party any less extremist
The AfD is a party run by self-described fascists. They are the exact definition of "extremist"
Stop talking out of your ass if you have no idea what you are on about, this is just the first step which is surveillance,
the AfD have made open statements that go against the German constitution itself and other groups of citizens, which warrants this.
The actual step of banning their political party is paired with huge requirements
The inoffical precursor, the NPD, which were openly Nazis, just got by without getting banned because the standard of proof is so drastically high.
Germany learned that Nazis and extremism are no joke the hard way and doesn't like to have it repeated. So we have a few measures in place to actually prevent unconstitutional stuff from happening. We also try to do our best to prevent our version of Trump of taking place. However if it happens, I think, it would be a way easier to impeach a "Trump" for us then for the US. Well we had a lot of our Chancellors impeached for much left in the past. That's what the so called "Vertrauensfrage" is for. If such a thing happens there is always a re-election.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
