Ads Top

Undercover among the Greens: How the party plans to ban the rival AfD

November 28, 2024
Read

There has been talk of banning the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany for some time. Many observers consider the country’s second-largest party, which recently won state elections in Thuringia and came second in Saxony and Brandenburg, to be unconstitutional. Marco Wanderwitz, a CDU member of parliament, agrees – which is why he and over 100 MPs from other parties recently initiated a motion to ban the AfD. However, many other MPs are skeptical and do not believe the motion will succeed.

 

Among these skeptics is Green MP Renate Künast, who is working on her own motion to ban the AfD and two weeks ago invited Berlin constitutional law expert Christoph Möllers to a video conference to present his views on a possible AfD ban. German publication FREILICH, which attended the conference undercover, learned exactly what was discussed there and was thus able to ascertain what the participants, including several Green MPs as well as MPs from the SPD and FDP, really think about an AfD ban.

 

The risks of the Wanderwitz motion

 

At the beginning of the conference, an overview was given of the Künast motion, which differs from the Wanderwitz motion primarily in that it has two stages. This means that it provides for a preliminary examination which focuses on the question of whether the application has a prospect of success in the main proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. However, in order to establish a certain prospect of success, the mover of the motion must first provide sufficient evidence. 

 

“If you don’t do that, the motion will be rejected in the preliminary examination, and that’s exactly the big risk in proceedings without a corresponding preliminary examination,” explained Green politician Lukas Benner during the conference. And if that happens, “the AfD will get a letter with the seal with the Karlsruhe eagle on it, saying ‘we are not unconstitutional’ or that there is no longer enough evidence for a main trial on unconstitutionality.”


 

 

There has been talk of banning the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany for some time. Many observers consider the country’s second-largest party, which recently won state elections in Thuringia and came second in Saxony and Brandenburg, to be unconstitutional. Marco Wanderwitz, a CDU member of parliament, agrees – which is why he and over 100 MPs from other parties recently initiated a motion to ban the AfD. However, many other MPs are skeptical and do not believe the motion will succeed.

 

Among these skeptics is Green MP Renate Künast, who is working on her own motion to ban the AfD and two weeks ago invited Berlin constitutional law expert Christoph Möllers to a video conference to present his views on a possible AfD ban. German publication FREILICH, which attended the conference undercover, learned exactly what was discussed there and was thus able to ascertain what the participants, including several Green MPs as well as MPs from the SPD and FDP, really think about an AfD ban.

 

The risks of the Wanderwitz motion

 

At the beginning of the conference, an overview was given of the Künast motion, which differs from the Wanderwitz motion primarily in that it has two stages. This means that it provides for a preliminary examination which focuses on the question of whether the application has a prospect of success in the main proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. However, in order to establish a certain prospect of success, the mover of the motion must first provide sufficient evidence. 

 

“If you don’t do that, the motion will be rejected in the preliminary examination, and that’s exactly the big risk in proceedings without a corresponding preliminary examination,” explained Green politician Lukas Benner during the conference. And if that happens, “the AfD will get a letter with the seal with the Karlsruhe eagle on it, saying ‘we are not unconstitutional’ or that there is no longer enough evidence for a main trial on unconstitutionality.”

 

The lack of evidence

 

However, here lies another “problem” the lack of evidence and data supporting the motion to ban. So far, no one has been able to prove that the AfD is anti-constitutional. In fact, the available information is thin on the ground. Constitutional law expert Möllers explained that the German government simply lacks the evidence it needs to make an informed judgement. 

 

Without comprehensive data, such a procedure is difficult to assess and carries considerable risks. The available material, which according to Möllers consists of speeches, written and oral statements by AfD members, would “probably not be sufficient” for a successful ban against the AfD.

 

Notably, Möllers himself was involved in a ban procedure against another party, the NPD, in the past, which was ultimately unsuccessful.

 

Benner, in turn, pointed to the problems of comparing the NPD ban process to any potential ban on the AfD.

 

“But the point is that the AfD is not so stupid, to put it bluntly, as to write things in its election manifesto that are against the free democratic basic order. So, the NPD simply had things in its election manifesto, I think banning mosques and similar things, which were simply very clear attacks on religious freedom and other basic freedoms. They made it at least materially somewhat easy to say that there are indications for a party ban. It is different with the AfD. Here, of course, we have extremely radical individuals, extremely radical statements by Höcke and others, but the attribution of a statement by an individual to a party must be justified for each individual case, and whether that is possible, whether that is possible, we want to examine that properly and that is the basic approach of our motion.”

 

 

 

Read More Here:  Remix News

Tags :
Powered by Blogger.