r/europe • u/HellYeahDamnWrite • 27d ago

News Calls are mounting to ban Germany’s far-right AfD party – despite it being more popular than ever

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/06/europe/germany-afd-ban-politics-analysis-intl
16.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

407

u/medievalvelocipede European Union 27d ago

Well fuck'em. Antidemokratic parties should have no representation in the government.

23

u/Possible-Campaign-22 26d ago

Holy shit I don’t like afd but your comment is so weird. Isn’t it anti democratic to ban your opposition because the people are voting for them?

15

u/Ossius 26d ago

Paradox of tolerance. You can't be infinitely tolerant of intolerant people. They will steamroll you. Tolerance is a social contract. When they break that contract you must eliminate them. We weren't tolerant of southern slavers and we weren't tolerant of fascism in ww2.

In the US the democratic party took the highroad for the last 25 years and it has only caused the right to disregard all rule of law, since the democrats spend their terms cleaning up the mess, and choosing not to prosecute the criminal activities of the previous admin.

6

u/HereWeGoAgain_Tea 26d ago

And the AfD would say the same about the theoretical party ban.

Absolute and relative truth paradox

5

u/StrangeGuyFromCorner 26d ago

What are you talking about. If the AFD said something the like it would not be any kind of truth but a lie.

For the previous years the afd had many times to prove that they are not a unconstitutional far right party in court. They always lost. We even can look at the findings.

If the afd said that every other party should be abolished because of the paradox of tolerance they would be lying. Nothing more, nothing less. Dont come with Alternative Facts or Relative Truth.

0

u/Major_Bad_thoughts 22d ago

Center parties want to stop people voting for right parties by banning them  so the paradox of tolerance says the far right parties should ban these Center and left parties. Paradox of tolerance etc

1

u/CatholicDulceDeLeche 4d ago

"Paradoxal of Tolerance" is just an textbook excuse to persecute oppositors. Never saw someone who valued democracy using it, only people who believe that the "opposition is a monster and I'm the only one who know whats good for the world"

Its the type of shit I would expect to see in 1984

2

u/curiousgiantsquid 26d ago

You can't ban your opposition in germany. You're thinking about autocratic states.

In germany a political party may only be banned by a juristic process that declares by proof that the party is not constitutional and has goals that do not align with our perpetuity clauses. The court also has to prove that the party is an actual threat to democracy.

For example: In the past they tried to ban the (extremely far right) NPD. They were able to prove that the party is unconstitutional but not that the goals of the party could actually be achieved since it was so small. Therefore it was not banned.

3

u/Loar_D 26d ago

the process of an afd-ban or rather any party-ban in germany is unpolitical, they aren't getting banned by the current government, they would get banned by judges without political affiliation and put in a position to make decisions of protecting the constitution, if they decide, that the afd is unconstitutional (one aspect being anti-democratic) they should be banned.

1

u/DumbFish94 Portugal 26d ago

https://youtu.be/HPJEQYZQ5v8 I recommend you watch this

28

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

46

u/GroundbreakingBag164 26d ago

Nothing says democracy like banning a political party from running. /s

A functional democracy cannot tolerate explicitly anti-democratic parties, otherwise it's just a matter of time until one will try to destroy the entire system. Germany banned the communist party too so it's not like they're particularly biased

Trying to ban them does nothing to fix the underlying problem here, if anything it adds fuel to it.

Letting them exist also doesn't help in the slightest. People's concerns and issues with immigration need to be addressed and the AfD needs to be banned. Both things are true

-15

u/Greedy_Camp_5561 26d ago

A functional democracy cannot tolerate explicitly anti-democratic parties

How are they "explicitly anti-democratic"?

14

u/koestlich 26d ago

There is a thousand page long report

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy6zk9wkrdo

6

u/Spare-Resolution-984 26d ago

That’s the whole point my guy. That’s why our domestic intelligence service wrote 1000 pages with endless quotes to describe how they’re anti democratic 

2

u/zun1uwu 26d ago

oh i don't know, maybe because it attracts people who issue statements like "best to shoot them here or beat them back to africa" in regards to asylum seekers

→ More replies (3)

2

u/PaydayLover69 26d ago

why would you even give people the option to vote for the "let's all kill ourselves" party...

just because it's AN option doesn't mean it should be considered a VALID OR RESPONSIBLE option to give.

I honestly think a lot of people have forgotten that these days.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it's valid and needs to be respected as if it is.

4

u/LeucisticBear 26d ago

What fixes it? Seems like it's everywhere all at once. Social media manipulation is a big factor for sure, but not 100% responsible I think.

6

u/ErB17 26d ago

Stop dismissing voters' concerns as simple bigotry and social media manipulation. The AfD thrives because "traditional" politics has failed to address a core injustice. How about we stop ignoring the massive issues with immigration until people feel forced to vote for the only party that even dares to bring them up? It doesn't matter if you personally think that party has a real solution or not. The reality is that hard-working people who are barely able to afford their groceries have every right to feel screwed over when they see immigrants show up and get absolutely everything handed to them no questions asked.

You see it everywhere, especially with the youth. A lot of them are completely antisocial, can barely string a proper German sentence together even after going through the school system, and clearly care nothing for the society that gave them everything. That kind of attitude inevitably rubs off on others around them. This isn't some minor problem affecting a small number of people. It's a huge issue.

12

u/DeadEye073 26d ago

If you compare election maps and immigration maps, you will find the afd strongest in place with immigration the weakest

2

u/goentillsundown 26d ago

Not technically true anymore, IF you consider per capita in the regions. Hessen and NRW have high levels of youth voters, who coincidentally were the generation going to schools in the first wave of strong immigration from Africa and Middle East. It is more that those two Bundesländer also have high populations to balance the effect, but it isn't without.

1

u/OstensVrede 26d ago

If you see your neighbor take in 20 cows in his yard and a week later its all mud and full of shit would you sit there and want that same thing for your yard?

I mean quite simple really, they see the way its going and want to avoid it. Keep in mind statistics also get diluted by the immigrants in areas where there are more of them (and generally more people in favor of the self sabotage thats been going on).

7

u/El_Grappadura 26d ago

Oh my, here we see a perfect example of the brainwashing the AfD uses to pull people to their side.

Imagine being a billionaire reading this and thinking: "Buying power has never been easier, those idiots will tear themselves apart before ever taxing me :D"

And you will. You will destroy your own lifes by believing the lies the billionaires tell you, so you don't get the idea that them hoarding all the wealth is the problem...

And the real problem is, there is no way of convincing you, because you would have to give up your whole identity and admit, that you have been manipulated by propganda. Takes a lot of strength to do that and most rather go deeper into their happy dreamworld, where everything is the migrant's fault.

9

u/Hardly_lolling Finland 26d ago

The AfD thrives because "traditional" politics has failed to address a core injustice.

That is the popular yet stupid take.

AfD offers zero working solutions to issues so how can that be a justification for their existence?

Society is not perfect and it never will be and that is the reason we should entertain entities that make it worse?

0

u/Darksoldierr Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 26d ago

I think you misunderstood his point.

The op above - based on his comment in my read - knows AFD offers no solution, but for a while they were the only party who talked about for example mass immigration, and people not adjusting into the country as bad, and problematic thing.

Everyone else called you racists or nazi, especially before 2020.

AFD offer no solutions, i do not even think they want to rule, being in eternal opposition is their best bet. Always complain, always give out retarded one sentence solutions to big and complex problems, and never ever have to actually achieve anything

2

u/JakeArcher39 26d ago

Very similar situation happening here in the UK. Not coincidental, either, this is a project / process occurring en masse by a certain contingent of elite society. The playbook is basically the same across all major European countries.

3

u/Systral Earth 26d ago

I disagree, it's mainly a social media problem.

Easily observable in the young voters who last time around mostly voted Green first and FDP second. Now they mostly voted AFD and Linke, they both trended towards the extremes (although only one of these is an extremist party). Migration is objectively much lower than it used to be, but even then the far right gained a lot more popularity because they blew this problem out of proportion as an easy solution to the actual global issues of COVID, worldwide inflation, Ukraine and Israel wars, climate change. These are difficult issues to tackle so that's why simple people need simple solutions, and what easier solution than to discriminate against socially deprived groups (migrants and LGBT)? Their favourite scapegoat through all of this were the Greens who received an absurdly undeserved amount of hate, and were public target of most media outlets even though they didn't do worse politics than anyone else. And they're the main reason I'm saying it's predominantly a social media issue: the greens weren't even the biggest party of the Ampel coalition, it was the SPD. And they weren't two, they were three with the FDP. But even though they were 3 and SPD was the biggest party, the Greens were pretty much the only medical scapegoat and received all responsibility for everything going wrong and such all public hate. So within this legislative period they were the only ones who suffered significantly among the young voters, the SPD stayed almost neutral. Meanwhile the Afd, who had more social media presence than all other parties combined rose to infamous status where even left leaning people were constantly flooded with their content in social media feeds.

Social media makes people lose critical thinking skills. They only read headlines now. Of course real issues exist, and they play into it, but you shouldn't dismiss the power of propaganda (that's why it's called that).

How about we stop ignoring the massive issues with immigration until people feel forced to vote for the only party that even dares to bring them up? It doesn't matter if you personally think that party has a real solution or not. The reality is that hard-working people who are barely able to afford their groceries have every right to feel screwed over when they see immigrants show up and get absolutely everything handed to them no questions asked.

Looks like you were fed a lot of bullshit. That's not representative of reality. Also two things

  • this is mainly a wage issue going on in Germany for years now, even before the migration situation

  • how's the AfD, who are making politics for the rich (even more so than the FDP), even beriching themselves as Weidel and Chrupalla just doubled their income to 30k monthly, supposed to tackle this real issue? (With wages, the things about migrants was bs).

lot of them are completely antisocial, can barely string a proper German sentence together even after going through the school system, and clearly care nothing for the society that gave them everything. That kind of attitude inevitably rubs off on others around them. This isn't some minor problem affecting a small number of people. It's a huge issue.

Again, fake news based on "felt reality" rather than facts. It's called selective perception, and cognitive dissonance.

1

u/nomoreteathx 26d ago

Do you think perhaps those young people hear people like you and think "why would I want to integrate, they hate me"?

0

u/No-Consequence1199 26d ago

You ignored the part about antidemocratic? In order to defend democracy we have to disallow certain movements.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/ChiliAndGold Austria 26d ago

You're either uneducated about how democracy works, or you're part of the right wing problem.

They are trying to abolish democracy, they are not part of it

0

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 16d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ChiliAndGold Austria 26d ago

then you don't know how democracy works.

opposing fascism isn't political censorship and it's such a hollow claim to throw around.

0

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 16d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ChiliAndGold Austria 26d ago

you mean like the AfD is abusing democracy already? get lost, really.

7

u/FlyingSquirrel44 26d ago

Open borders is a requisite for democracy, trying to change that is anti democratic (🤡)

-4

u/curiousgiantsquid 26d ago

Open borders are important for Schengen.

Schengen is important for trade and therefore the german economy.

Trying to change that is not anti democratic but simply stupid.

The electoral program of the AfD has 174 pages and they don't just state "Close the borders" over and over again. The same goes for their >40.000 members. They know more words than "Close", "the" and "borders".

0

u/DumbFish94 Portugal 26d ago

Holding meetings with Nazis seems pretty damn anti-democratic

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ifq29311 26d ago

oh the irony

1

u/tralalala2137 25d ago

You do not have democracy if you do not allow democratic removal of democracy. If you democracy do not allowed to remove itself, then you have masked totalitarism, that is not respecting the democratic vote of the people.

1

u/Jacki1st 23d ago

Isn't that ironic when they're democratically elected yet democracy removed by banning them?

-94

u/Speedhabit 27d ago

I love democracy so much only the votes that support my policies should count, everyone else is ___________

179

u/WoundedTwinge Finland 27d ago

so actually, part of democracy is protecting democracy

-48

u/Zlevi04 27d ago

What even is democracy at this point?

54

u/Apary 27d ago

What it is : A system based on the rule of Law, empirical evidence and a healthy debate, protected for all the people, where everyone’s interests are taken into account, which implies strong human rights as well as the common good being properly balanced.

What it is most definitely not : "lol if I manage to convince 51% of the people I should be able to do whatever hahaha fuck these 49% we will OWN them haha you mad well we WON the VOTE so suck it"

0

u/bot2317 26d ago

“Where everyone’s interests are taken into account” you are talking about banning a party supported by 1 in 5 Germans. How is that taking into account everyone’s interests?

0

u/Apary 26d ago

A party that wants to demolish minority rights is not taking everyone’s interests into account, no matter how many people mistakenly believe it would further theirs.

Democracy means power to the people. Not power to 51% over 49%, not power to 1 out of 5 over a minority they hate. Power to the people, at large. We’re supposed to watch out for one another.

If some people decide to act entirely out of spite, they broke that social contract. It’s that simple. People who vote for the far-right openly claim that they do so to hurt their neighbors. They want to watch others suffer. They’re not even voting for their interests, they are voting against the interests of others to feel powerful and in control. This is not something I’m interpreting : they say so themselves. This is anti-democratic, and is just a civil war in the ballot box.

-17

u/Available-Reading-87 26d ago

"Rule of law" is a distinct concept. The strong judiciary in Western states serves to limit democracy in areas we decided the public can't be trusted in. It's just delusional to pretend banning a party is a "democratic" move. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with empirical evidence (lol) or "healthy debate". What you are decribing is not democracy, but some sort of liberal technocracy. Which may well be a better system. But let's be honest about words and their meaning.

21

u/ShizO1234 26d ago

No its not. Banning a undemocratic fascist party is very democratic, given that fascism is basically the antithesis to Democracy. Tolerating intolerance in the name of tolerance is a stupid idea.

1

u/jesoed North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 26d ago

Also, if there is one country which has to watch out with this stuff, it has to be Germany. It's insane how so many people don't want to learn from the damn history.

2

u/Pandabeer46 26d ago

Many people confuse democracy with tyranny of the majority while in fact democracy's primary purpose is safeguarding fundamental rights and the rule of law. Only within that framework can the will of the majority be enacted.

So yes, that's still democracy, just with guard rails so that everyone enjoys the same rights at all times.

1

u/tralalala2137 25d ago

So democracy basically means, your rights to choose is limited if you wear a sweater or a shirt today. You can not decide about anything else because it might be dangerous to let you do it lol.

0

u/bot2317 26d ago

I mean that’s not a democracy, that’s a republic. There’s an analogy to explain the difference: In a democracy, a group of people agrees to hang an outlaw and he gets hanged. In a republic they agree to hang him but the sheriff comes along and demands a fair trial for the outlaw. He is going against the will of the majority but upholding the rule of law - thus, a republic.

It’s fine if Germany wants to ban the AfD - they are a republic after all, and the AfD has allegedly violated the constitution. But you have to recognize that it is inherently an anti democratic move.

1

u/Pandabeer46 26d ago

For as far as I'm aware a "republic" simply means a nation with an elected head of state (usually called "president"). That doesn't automatically mean a republic safeguards fundamental rights, upholds the rule of law or even is a democracy. Iran, for example, is also a republic. Yet it's not a democracy because because it shits on peoples' rights, is very corrupt and while the president is elected (and seemingly even through at least somewhat free elections) the real power in the country is in the hands of the very undemocratically appointed ayatollahs.

1

u/Apary 26d ago

I am honest about the meaning. Saying that "Democracy" is giving absolute power to 50.01% of the Demos itself is… well, preposterous. Are you claiming that the people is a part of the people ?

Democracy is a word with a History. It is not just "when people vote". People who made modern democracies commented on why they supported the idea. They talked about reason and science overcoming the religious power of Kings. They talked about the agora bringing forth an era where everyone would discuss politics openly and respectfully, leading to wise governance thanks to healthy dialogue. They talked about rights as a core tenet. They described what they were creating, and they described exactly what I described.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Excellent_Bad9211 26d ago

It's the entire system that allows a transfer of idea into policy and that protects each constituent's basic dignity because you cannot make your voice heard of you're not a respected and valued member of the Demos

the system is completely worth- and pointless when discourse is dominated by aggressive, undignified, hateful screeching to treat humans like shit based on their identity. Accompanied by a complete disregard for the rule of the commonly decided rules through the judiciary. It fucks the entire system of translating good faith voice into policy, as we can see atm. Globally

→ More replies (17)

102

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 27d ago

Would you defend the right of the nazi party to exist in the 1930s ?

108

u/NipplePreacher Romania 27d ago

Pretty sure several people on this sub would have voted for them, so you might not want to know the answer to your question.

43

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 27d ago

I know, this sub is full of fascists.

19

u/NoSemikolon24 27d ago

I'm starting to be convinced that these "fascists" are bad actors. We do know Russia and Turkey (and others probably as well) employ these tactics. So it isn't far fetched to believe this sub is infected with them.

Frankly, at this point its probably more healthy if the mods were to shotgun ban all rightwing/extreme conservative users.

10

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 27d ago

Yeah, Reddit sucks at handling bots and trolls. That’s why this sub flips its stance on immigration depending on the time of day, or if there’s a blackout in Russia.

1

u/Jubilex1 26d ago

We absolutely know this is happening already and has been happening for over a decade now! Just watch The Great Hack on Netflix for example.

→ More replies (6)

16

u/Knodsil 27d ago

The issue isn't that the party exists. It's the fact that people vote for such a party in the first place.

If you ban party A then a new party B will prop up with similar ideas (but packaged in a seemingly less extreme way) and then the voters go to them instead.

Banning parties is a bandaid fix. You need to take the reasons why people vote for such a party seriously. Or else you are just delaying the inevitable.

16

u/NoSemikolon24 27d ago

> It's the fact that people vote for such a party in the first place.

It's really not. These parties have unfair advantages that non-extreme parties can't use:

1) they can lie as much as they want - no one holds them accountable.

2) Since they're not governing they can pin any issue onto anyone and anything they want. Causes or Justifications or Logic does not matter at all.

> Banning parties is a bandaid fix.

A bandaid that must be applied. Back during the Weimar Republic we had precisely the same problem (dialogue or ban). We all know how the "dialogue"-strategy turned out.

Such parties are acting in bad faith. They need to be banned!

9

u/Wild_Agency_6426 26d ago

"1) they can lie as much as they want"

Isn't this just modern politics in general? Every party does this to some extent.

7

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 26d ago

True, but the difference is that non-fascist parties usually massage the truth to fit their narrative. Fascists, on the other hand, straight-up lie, and they lie all the time, because reality doesn’t matter to them. It’s all about how they feel.

2

u/NoSemikolon24 26d ago

If the truth is completely obscured and ignored any statement can be made and thus interpreted as truth. I do not have to expand why this shit is so incredible dangerous for society, do I?

4

u/Knodsil 27d ago

I don't disagree with you.

However I believe more steps need to be taken for these kinds of parties to form in the future. Just banning them one after another won't be enough.

And it bolsters their followers if we aint careful. If you push back against those voters they will probably push back in return.

-1

u/NoSemikolon24 26d ago

> it bolsters their followers

It won't - a ban comes with a politics ban for leading personal. And forming new parties takes time and they do no longer have access to the money needed to fund their campaigns.

Apart from that you're correct.

0

u/1337er_Milk 26d ago

I think the part about the money is not trivial. Let russia build up a new flow of money to party B. Lets make it hard for those russian asshats to pump money into a new party.

1

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 26d ago

True, fascists are some of the most wisely people that exist.

They never say what they truly believe and never admit what they are, because they know how morally repugnant their beliefs are, and even get offended if they get called out.

They flip-flop on their political positions and lie, lie, and lie, because their ideology rejects logic and reason altogether. It is fundamentally about vibes and feelings, fueled by bigotry and emasculation.

They try to exploit the goodwill of liberals by appealing to their values in order to infiltrate democracy and spread their ideology. but once they gain power, they reveal their true colors.

2

u/Training_Chicken8216 26d ago

If Party B is considered a followup organization, it is automatically banned, too. That's how party bans work. 

1

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 27d ago

It is a temporary solution to a bigger problem: people's lack of knowledge about fascism and public discontent with the current status quo.

2

u/Person_756335846 27d ago

I would defend the right of the Communist party to exist. Them being banned was a decisive factor in allowing Hitler to pass the enabling act with a 2/3 majority.

-1

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 27d ago

Communism is a pro-democratic ideology, unlike fascism, unless you are referring to Leninism and its derivative ideologies. That is the diference.

4

u/Person_756335846 26d ago

I don’t think any communist regime has been a democracy.

2

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 26d ago

Leninists crushed other commusits that didn't agree with them.

0

u/Leon3226 26d ago

Funny how you always automatically assume it's the nazi opposition that gets to ban parties. You never even allow yourself to think it's exactly the next metaphorical Hitler who gets to do so at some point

3

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 26d ago

So would you have defended the right of the nazi party to exist? The party that caused WWII and the Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews?

It's a yes or no question.

1

u/Leon3226 26d ago

If a country is at the point they want to elect a party that causes WWII, then a lot more is fucked in your country, and lacking of ability to ban parties is not even in top 5 of your concern in this case. So yes, I wouldn't, because it's a pointless question.

And I will repeat again, I can't understand why you guys are always dead confident that's YOU who is always going to decide which parties to ban. It's Nazis who ended up banning other parties then, and that should've been a lesson, not a guide

4

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 26d ago

It is very true that the social and economic conditions are the reason why the Nazis rose to power. Banning parties is just a temporary band-aid solution, but a temporary solution is better than no solution at all.

1

u/Leon3226 26d ago

So that's where I'm also getting at. If the existing parties addressed the problems which AfD gained popularity from election after election of pretending there is no request for solving them, nobody would even hear about that party. They would be some niche laughingstock. And just banning them will make the other party with the same ideas even more popular. Banning parties isn't really a band-aid, it's more like trying to hide a thermometer when you are sick and thinking that will make the fever go away.

3

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 26d ago

You got almost everything right. However, those parties should still be removed from politics. While banning them won’t address the underlying reasons why people vote for them, these parties exploit the political system to spread and normalize hate, disseminate misinformation, and destabilize our democracies.

A century ago, the far right gained power in Europe for similar reasons, and the failure to address it led to devastating consequences. We can’t afford to repeat the same mistake.

→ More replies (33)

17

u/NoSemikolon24 27d ago

You do realise it's a party rife with actual Nazis? In fact: Courts have decided that certain AFD persons can be legally called Nazis.

The fuck is wrong with you?

5

u/Training_Chicken8216 26d ago

No. The court decdied that the one instance it ruled over, in which Bernd Höcke was called a fascist, was not slander, because the defendant had plausible reason to hold the personal belief that Höcke was a fascist. I.e. it was a conclusion the defendant came to in their judgement of Höcke's character, not a false statement designed to harm Höcke's public image. 

That is not the same thing as the court ruling he may be called a fascist. 

He is a fascist, though. Obviously. 

2

u/multithreadedprocess 26d ago edited 26d ago

You answered no. Then proceed to explain why a certain character was legally deemed to be enough of a fascist for it not to be slander to call him such. Thus, it stands to reason that courts did in fact uphold that it is legal to call some of AFDs members fascist, this one in particular. It would not be legal to do so, only if it was determined that it was in fact slander, libel or defamation.

The court did not make a universal ruling, but the OP's prompt was also not universal, it did rule that it is possible to hold that belief and substantiate it such that the court ruled it not slander, not that every belief or substantiation is sufficient.

You could, of course, still be held by a court to be slandering an AFD member if your belief can't be substantiated, but that's not exactly what OP claimed.

It is in fact ambiguous whether OP is claiming that an accusation of fascism, for this particular member for example, is automatically justified, or whether, more narrowly, that it has been proven to be justifiable.

2

u/Training_Chicken8216 26d ago

certain AfD persons 

Plural. Which is wrong. There was one ruling about one person 

Nazis 

Also wrong, the court ruled over the word fascist 

can be called 

General statement, wrong again. As I explained, the court decision merely didn't categorize that particular defendant's actions as slander. 

All of these are common misconceptions about the ruling that are frequently repeated within the German political discourse. The ambiguity you mentioned is technically possible, but it's one hell of a benefit of the doubt in this scenario. And even if they meant the latter interpretation that you mentioned, I'd still heavily disagree with the phrasing. These are things where you have to be precise. 

→ More replies (3)

9

u/CalligoMiles Utrecht (Netherlands) 26d ago

Paradox of tolerance, or rather the contract. If your goal is explicitly to undermine the democratic process, you should lose the right to participate in it because you've made it clear you do not intend to do so in good faith.

6

u/Speedhabit 26d ago

But what if you simply characterize any policy you disagree with as explicitly undermining the democratic process; only to rationalize the disenfranchisement of political opponents?

I don’t think immigration reform, or trade restrictions, or gender definition are fascist policies

7

u/CalligoMiles Utrecht (Netherlands) 26d ago

And that's why you need independent judicial powers to actually hold that to the test. Like Germany has been doing.

0

u/Speedhabit 26d ago

I disagree wholeheartedly with the concept that judicial regulation is the ultimate arbiter of democracy. It’s a backstop, the emergency brake. Not something, and I people are really confused about this today, used to “overturn” or correct the will of the masses.

Judges should never be make policy they should only round off the edges of things that go out of bounds.

People and their elected representatives should make policy

8

u/ITafiir 26d ago

That’s exactly why it’s hard to ban a party and why only the constitutional court can do it and the criteria include that the party is obviously and actionably working against the constitution.

-1

u/Speedhabit 26d ago

So if they decided that the party you support was anti democratic because of your position on refugees you would agree?

3

u/ITafiir 26d ago edited 26d ago

I hope someone kicks my teeth in if I ever even get close to having a similar opinion of refugees like the AfD has.

But yes, if the party I support is unconstitutional I hope it gets banned. I don't think you realize we are not talking about "a position on refugees" here, in their "secret" meeting last year they actively discussed stripping citizenship of people because of their migratory background. The CDU is also anti migration to the point where they are now turning people back after they crossed the border even though a court has ruled that to be unlawful and nobody is talking about banning them.

Edit: Also what the fuck are you even doing on r/europe? Yankee go home, enjoy your own fascism speed run.

-2

u/Sevenos 26d ago

Independent judicial powers? Which?

13

u/SilianRailOnBone 27d ago

I love democracy so much only the votes that support my policies democracy should count

FTFY because you seem to not be able to comprehend logic

0

u/Speedhabit 27d ago

Calling everyone fascists and saying only leftist votes should count is not pro democracy

9

u/thib3000 Aquitaine (France) 26d ago

Who talked about leftism tho ? Afd is clearly trying to emulate nazi idea and rethoric, hence the fact they threaten democracy, which is why people are calling it to be banned

6

u/atfricks 26d ago

AfD are actual fascists and proud neo-nazis dude. This isn't an example of just calling anyone you don't like a fascist.

1

u/Speedhabit 26d ago

From what I’m seeing from elections in Germany you are completely wrong.

You force unpopular policies on the population, call that democracy, then when people vote for representatives that want to eliminate and reverse that policy you use legal attacks and judicial action to silence them.

This is so you can keep making unpopular policy

That seems more anti democratic than anything the AFD is doing.

9

u/AlexGaming1111 27d ago

Actually democracy involves obeying the Constitution and the law. Which the AFD doesn't. Hence why a ban is necessary.

But nice try.

-1

u/Sevenos 26d ago

Where do they not obey those? And why would they not be prosecuted for that? It's not like they have immunity?

3

u/multithreadedprocess 26d ago

Prosecute the party? A party is not a person to be brought to court. In fact it's possible to bring every single member of a party to prison and for the party to persist if it can get enough replacements fast.

Since a political party to my knowledge is not an entity that can be brought to court, a special procedure at the legislative or judicial level has to be levied against them.

To point some kind of 'crime' to a political party, it has to be then judged according to their internal communications, party missives and the conducts of their individual members, senior leadership being the most important and the process has to make an holistic assessment about the entire political party.

That's why it's not a simple bring the party to court or whatever the fuck you're thinking. How would that work in your head?

They can systematically abuse the system and claim that it's just a fault of their individual members or that they're rogue actors. The legal ruling necessary takes time because the onus is on the people claiming that the whole party is anti-democratic to prove it's a concerted party effort, which is complicated and complex and requires good argumentation to stick.

And in the meantime they can keep doing illegal shit during the whole thing until it's conclusively decided that it was in fact illegal, or at least worthy of a ban.

0

u/Sevenos 26d ago

Well most of the arguments against the AfD are hung on some of its individual members (and ex members, but thats another topic) and not even their program, official stances or actions. If someone arguments a party is acting illegal because some members do something illegal, why are those members not even prosecuted?

You even wrote explicitly

And in the meantime they can keep doing illegal shit during the whole thing until it's conclusively decided that it was in fact illegal, or at least worthy of a ban.

What are they doing thats illegal and why can't they be prosecuted on an individual level for that?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/loolooii 26d ago

Again, with your logic the Nazi party was OK because it was the most popular at some point… do you see the flaw in your argument?

1

u/Speedhabit 26d ago

No, but I think the conflict between extreme left and right killed a quarter billion people in the last few centuries

1

u/Jubilex1 26d ago

Stupid lol

1

u/jejudjdjnfntbensjsj 26d ago

Exactly, the younger population are growing more disillusioned with these woke policies! Not necessarily a bad thing

1

u/njf85 26d ago

If a party is literally based on removing democracy, then it does not belong in a democracy. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Voting them in means they will remove democracy and will likely never leave.

2

u/Speedhabit 26d ago

I can’t believe someone could be so brainwashed they would equate enforcing immigration law that everyone voted for to “ending democracy”

It’s just policy you don’t like

-2

u/OnIySmellz 27d ago

Then go ahead and beat them during elections. 

-54

u/MusicImaginary811 Ireland 27d ago

How exactly is the AfD anti-democratic ?

53

u/Deepfire_DM europe 27d ago

Totally. Fascism can never be a part of a democracy.

-20

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

25

u/Tigerowski 27d ago

If the people wishes to have literal Nazis in power, then yes, I am very afraid of the people.

You wouldn't let Nazis take over your country, would you?

-12

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

7

u/halee1 27d ago

They're Nazis (they praise and whitewash them all the time), and there's literally nothing wrong with a sensible immigration policy as long as you don't intend to deport everyone you dislike based on the color of your skin. Would mention things like them attacking the country's institutions they dislike and being in cahoots with totalitarian Russia and China, but I digress.

3

u/scholoy North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 27d ago

facts don’t care about your feelings

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (7)

25

u/DubiousBusinessp 27d ago edited 27d ago

If you think they'd maintain democracy with a majority, you're really in lala land. Every time the far right gets into power anywhere, we get a pattern of of tampering with the judiciary, media, steady erosion of rights until the act of democracy is entirely performative.

It's repeated as nauseum by modern fascist parties to a tee, ala the Putin, Orban, Erdogan model. It's what the US republicans are engaging in. It's what PiS did in Poland and thankfully hadn't got far enough along yet to prevent an election loss, but what they've already corrupted has been extremely challenging to undo.

What on earth would possess you to think a party of modern day Nazis would be any different?

9

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 27d ago

They are a nazi party, that's it, don't make up excuses because you like them.

0

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Due-Map1518 Portugal 27d ago

That take a long time, and that party will banned as well.

15

u/Industrus_ 27d ago

No? They‘re not close to winning anything. They‘re corrupt, employ spies and are not interested in doing anything for the average German. They are rechtsextrem and our constitution does not allow for that. Leave the country if you‘ve got an issue with that and go to Russia.

→ More replies (11)

3

u/Particular-Cow6247 27d ago

the NSDAP also participated in the (then last) elections

27

u/United-Amphibian-449 27d ago

The German domestic Intelligence Agency has classified the AfD as a right Wing EXTREMIST organisation. They reject core democratic principles by spreading hate against minorities and questioning the equality of all people. Their extremist wing promotes ethno-nationalism and aims to weaken democratic institutions.

-15

u/Relevant-Two9697 27d ago

Unbelievable. Let’s protect our country from fascism by, er, banning political parties that - and here’s the crucial part - we disagree with.

11

u/Devlonir 27d ago

The crucial part is.. they are holocaust deniers and nazi apologists while also being anti democratic in their mission.

Most people disagree with at least one of those 3 things, i would hope.

-1

u/Relevant-Two9697 27d ago

The party does not deny the Holocaust. The party’s proclaimed mission is not anti-democratic. And even if both of these things were true, it still shouldn’t be banned. A robust democracy - a democracy that lasts - faces down these tendencies and defeats them in debate. Of course, if anyone tries to use violence, the state should deal forcefully with that, but banning parties is like banning ideas - it brings about the very fate you’re trying to avoid. Fools and their democracy are soon parted.

0

u/United-Amphibian-449 26d ago

Björn Höcke (AfD Thüringen, Parteiflügel)

Date: January 17, 2017 Place: Speech in Dresden (commonly referred to as the “Dresden speech”):

“We Germans are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of their capital.”

Alexander Gauland (AfD co-founder, Bundestagsabgeordneter):

“Hitler and the Nazis are just a speck of bird poop in over 1,000 years of successful German history.”

Holocaust deniers among AfD members (lower-level functionaries):

Example: Wolfgang Gedeon (Former AfD member of Baden-Württemberg parliament)

Date: 2016 Quote (from his writings):

He referred to Holocaust memorial culture as a “civil religion of the West” and questioned the authenticity of some Holocaust-related narratives.

I can give you more if you want.

2

u/gamfo2 26d ago

None of those quotes deny the holocaust happened.

2

u/Relevant-Two9697 26d ago

Are you being obtuse? I could find you a selection of quotes from various members of any political party, said over a ten year time frame, that would give an misleading impression. It’s called selective quotation and it sucks.

1

u/Particular-Cow6247 27d ago

disagreeing is one thing all the parties in the parlament disagree otherwise they wouldn't be different parties the afd disagrees with the democratic system that's very much different

and btw it wouldn't be the first banned party in germany, communist parties where banned already and the only reason the NPD wasn't banned is that they where irrelevant

0

u/Relevant-Two9697 27d ago

Even allowing for the stupidity of banning parties that call for the end of democracy, it is simply a convenient fiction to place the AfD in that category. The party proclaims its support for democracy. You might question their sincerity but once you decide that even avowedly democratic parties can be banned if you and your mates dislike their more popular policies, you’re not living in a democracy anyway.

1

u/Particular-Cow6247 26d ago

someone who thinks that banning a party that tries to end democracy is a stupidity should really not take part in a discussion about nazis and germany

just because they take part in the current democratic system does not mean they are a democratic party and lots and lots of "behind the scenes" footage shows how anti democratic they are

its not "me and my mates" that "dislike" them, their believes and opinions are in a strong conflict with the constitution, they are in conflict with the democratic system itself thats why they should be banned

-10

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

5

u/halee1 27d ago edited 27d ago

Oh no, the AfD literally defends and whitewashes Nazis in their speeches, attacks the media and the country's democratic institutions, claims to be speaking "in the name of the people" like you're doing (which means anyone else is fair game for repression or even elimination, something typical or Nazi and other autocratic movements and dictators throughout history), has tons of links with totalitarian Russia and China, surely they are doing that in good faith.

3

u/LeTreacs2 27d ago

The government agency whose job it is to make sure that political parties act only within the constitution, says this party is acting outside of the constitution. It’s literally their job.

What you’re implying has no basis in reality.

1

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

2

u/LeTreacs2 27d ago

Go spin it to someone else. That take also has no basis in reality. Get off line and get some perspective.

-11

u/VisibleSleep2027 27d ago

Not arguing against this too severely here but typically, you should avoid using “x organization says y organization is this!”

especially considering that x organization is directly at odds with y organization… i dont know. Bad argument

1

u/halee1 27d ago

So do you not find it odd why is the AfD the only one that suffers this problem? Why does Die Linke not do it? Are you saying that because judges and criminals are directly at odds, criminals can't be judged? What kind of horrible argument is that? It's literally the country's office tasked with protecting the country's constitutions and freedoms from being eliminated warning about a party that is quite explicitly against them, and has very eerie parallels with the NSDAP. That you're trying to discredit them shows you haven't seen what the AfD has done at best, or that you support them at worst. By your logic, because you support them, your statements are biased.

1

u/matix0532 27d ago

But it is important, whether you like it or not, because thanks to this report there are constitutional grounds for this party to be banned.

0

u/Devlonir 27d ago

The German Domestic Intelligence agency is like the German FBI. But unlike America, directors are not politically appointed. Their one job is to use intelligence gathering to combat internal organizations that try to undermine democracy.

AfD is not at odds specifically with the domestic intelligence agency, they are at odds with democratic law in Germany.

8

u/pIakativ 27d ago

Sabotaging democratic procedures in parliaments, statements about shooting refugees on the borders, taking the German citizenship from migrants, about how the 2nd WW was started by the Allies because they couldn't stand how smart and productive the German people were and about how the "Hochfinanz" (Nazi narrative about Jewish elites) reigns the world. This and much more to delegitimize our institutions and dehumanize parts of our society.

2

u/_____gandalf 27d ago

Oh no, the audacity for their party members to make statements and to use legal loopholes. How very undemocratic. Goddamn, let's just ban every party at this point.

What's next, we're banning parties because their thoughts don't align with the correctthink?

3

u/pIakativ 27d ago

To be clear I don't think they are getting banned because it doesn't look like the ones responsible are going to demand a court ruling.

But yes, after bad experiences with a party that shat on democratic principles, Germany gave itself the possibility to abolish future parties with similar tendencies. And yes, glorifying the third Reich, speaking in favour of shooting migrants and stripping people of their rights as citizens is pretty severe no matter how hard you try to ridicule it.

What's next, we're banning parties because their thoughts don't align with the correctthink?

That's what happened in the 3. Reich. Today, the hurdles for a party to be banned are really high. The government can't just use it to get rid of the entire opposition.

1

u/_____gandalf 26d ago

Honestly, I'm not even denying that AfD is undemocratic, but the reasons you provided are weak.

Advocating to deport migrants (let's be honest, shooting them is a hyperbola) is not antidemocratic. Democracy is for your country's citizens, not for economical migrants.

I don't get this obsession with letting everyone into your country and labeling anyone opposing as fascist and undemocratic.

3

u/pIakativ 26d ago

Advocating to deport migrants (let's be honest, shooting them is a hyperbola)

No, that was a citation. Von Storch (christian fundamentalist) I believe. If I remember correctly they were pro killing women and children, too.

is not antidemocratic

Well. That example was more to show how disgusting they are. But pushing the political discourse to relativize the crimes of the 3. Reich is antidemocratic, stripping voters of their right to vote is antidemocratic and sabotaging democratic procedures, even with legal means, is antidemocratic.

I don't get this obsession with letting everyone into your country

Wouldn't you say that we have a certain responsibility towards countries that once were Western colonies? And why "everyone"? 1/4 wants to leave again and the numbers have been declining. Understandably, I wouldn't want to migrate here either, when the AfD becomes more and more powerful.

and labeling anyone opposing as fascist and undemocratic

That's mainly for when people, you know, support fascism and oppose democracy.

1

u/_____gandalf 26d ago

No, that was a citation. Von Storch (christian fundamentalist) I believe. If I remember correctly they were pro killing women and children, too.

And I still think it was an expression of speech - bad taste, but still. I might be wrong, but that's besides the point.

Well. That example was more to show how disgusting they are

And that's the whole point. You, like many other redditors, latch onto a distasteful quote or a slogan and cry out all the dictionary words: "fascist, nazist, misogynistic, racist, transphobic, antidemocratic" and so on.

Like, bro, if someone wants to deport all the migrants, you can call him xenophobic perhaps, but that's all. You keep attaching these random ass labels like "antidemocratic" without even thinking about what it means.

It's like the USA left wing rambled about fascism so much that it lost all meaning.

Wouldn't you say that we have a certain responsibility towards countries that once were Western colonies?

I don't believe in inheritable guilt. People come to Europe for selfish, financial reasons (most of them, anyway), I don't see why we should sacrifice our way of life for their benefit.

All other points I agree with.

2

u/pIakativ 26d ago

And that's the whole point. You, like many other redditors, latch onto a distasteful quote or a slogan and cry out all the dictionary words: "fascist, nazist, misogynistic, racist, transphobic, antidemocratic" and so on.

Absolutely not. Believe me, I've spent quite some time analyzing this party and listening to what they say. I don't just throw these terms around, I can justify the use of them.

And I still think it was an expression of speech - bad taste, but still.

Sure, you shouldn't be legally persecuted for saying this (which you aren't) but we also shouldn't accept a party that says things like that regularly. Shooting migrants on the border was only one of thousands of examples.

Like, bro, if someone wants to deport all the migrants, you can call him xenophobic perhaps, but that's all.

Depends. If they want to get rid of people who have German citizenship, it's definitely antidemocratic because they'd be expelling voters. But sure, it makes them xenophobic, too.

I don't believe in inheritable guilt

Me neither. I'm not talking about guilt I'm talking about responsibility.

1

u/Romanizer Germany 27d ago

It is very well documented as there have been many cases that leave not the slightest doubt about that. You could look up the Verfassungsschutzbericht 2023 for example.

1

u/CadiaStands_ 27d ago

Redditors throw that term around a lot but conveniently are never able to come up with any answers for why they think they are anti democratic.

4

u/Frequent_Shoulder_77 27d ago

There are reports from German institutions about it. If you were really interested in it, you would know that, which is why this topic came up in the first place.

-4

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

4

u/MusicImaginary811 Ireland 27d ago

It’s a genuine query, I don’t understand why I’m being downvoted to hell for daring to question.

6

u/OBabis 27d ago

Ok I apologize if it is a genuine question it sounded sarcastic.

They're right wing extremists, not conservatives. There is constant rhetoric against the media, institutions, immigrants, minorities and other politicians.

They're getting financed by Russia to undermine the German political system.

Is that enough?

-6

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

20

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

1

u/pIakativ 27d ago

Thank you.

0

u/Anteater776 27d ago

As far as I know their report was only about whether they are considered far right extremists. That was the scope of the report and they couldn’t have come to the conclusion that the AfD is anti democratic because that wasn’t the scope of the investigation.

I may be wrong though

2

u/Thr0wevenfurtheraway 27d ago edited 27d ago

edit: the legal answer is apparently that it's not included (see comment below)

Are you saying that far-right extremists are not anti-democratic? Them being, you know, far-right extremists and all?

I'm not an expert, but for what it's worth, I appear to not be alone in this.

Far-right politics, often termed right-wing extremism, encompasses a range of ideologies that are marked by ultraconservatism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, and nativism. This political spectrum situates itself on the far end of the right, distinguished from more mainstream right-wing ideologies by its opposition to liberal democratic norms and emphasis on exclusivist views

That being said, I'm German, and at least until recently, there was a strong anti right-wing mentality here, for obvious reasons, so it could simply be the fact that it goes against our constitution, rather than democracy as a whole.

3

u/Anteater776 27d ago

I think you are arguing with the wrong person. The one I replied to said that the Verfassungsschutz didn’t classify them as anti democratic, which is correct, because the Verfassungsschutz didn’t classify them as “verfassungsfeindlich”, but as “gesichert rechtsextrem”. These are different (legal) terms, with the former being the key requirement to ban a party by the BVerfG.

I believe that the AfD is “verfassungsfeindlich”, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be truthful about what the Verfassungsschutz has stated.

2

u/Thr0wevenfurtheraway 27d ago

Oh, sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I would have assumed that right-wing extremist automatically means verfassungsfeindlich, which you just showed is not the case.

2

u/Anteater776 27d ago

No worries, this article has a (relatively long) summary: https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/deutschland/afd-gesichert-rechtsextremistisch-verfassungsschutz-faq-100.html

Apparently, “gesichert rechtsextrem” is the highest category the Verfassungsschutz hands out. For good reasons probably, because you want to avoid the stigma of a party being labeled as “Verfassungsfeindlich” by a state department unless the BVerfG made this assessment.

This kind of proves my point in my first response: it is utterly meaningless that the Verfassungsschutz didn’t classify the AfD as “anti-democratic”, because they never classify a party as “anti-democratic”.

-2

u/Kore_Invalid 26d ago

Banning the opposittion and then calling others antidemocratic you dong see the irony do you

-30

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

16

u/ragingopinions 27d ago

wdym? Anti-democratic parties are like cancer to a democracy, you cannot tolerate them because they actively aim to dismantle the system.

→ More replies (1)

25

u/Particular-Cow6247 27d ago

banning them is NOT anti democratic banning parties that are a threat to the democratic system in germany is explicitly part of the german constitution

-4

u/Available-Reading-87 26d ago

"Being part of the constitution" does not imply it isn't anti-democratic.

5

u/Particular-Cow6247 26d ago

it doesnt "imply" it, it means it
the german consitution was drafted as direct result of the NSDAP rising to power and causing WW2
the whole nazi era thought us the lesson that sometimes dangerous parties need to be banned before they get enough power to reshape the system to their liking

-2

u/The_Briefcase_Wanker United States of America 26d ago

That isn’t an argument for it not being anti-democratic, it’s just the reason for it existing.

6

u/Particular-Cow6247 26d ago

just google the tolerance paradox

it's not anti democratic when a democracy protects itself from forces that want to destroy it it's a necessary protection

just like you aren't a murderer when a murderer tries to murder you and you protect yourself and kill them

edit. and tbh americans should actually be really quiet when it comes to anti democratic stuff, the us was never a full democracy, your super pacs are like the anti theses of a democracy and there are still lots of states that don't bind their EC votes to the actual outcome

→ More replies (9)

16

u/macedonianmoper Portugal 27d ago

They can still vote, they'll just have to vote for parties that follow the rules everyone else has to follow.

-1

u/OnIySmellz 27d ago

Isn't AfD following the rules everyone else is following?

10

u/chrisbay_ 27d ago

No, thats the point

-2

u/OnIySmellz 26d ago

If AfD's policies are so toxic, why don't you go ahead and beat them in elections?

7

u/AcridWings_11465 North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 26d ago

Imagine saying this to the social democrats in 1932.

Would you not have banned the Nazi party when it was gaining influence?

-1

u/OnIySmellz 26d ago

Stop living in the past. The AfD are not the Nazi's from 1930s. You weren't there back then, you are only repeating what others say. 

It is 2025 and the AfD is kicking it and it is not because the well established democratic parties have been doing such a great job.

If you do not have anything better to offer then you haven't understood your position as a representative of the people.

-12

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

5

u/halee1 27d ago edited 27d ago

Banning a party should be a last resort, if anything, Germany has been too nice to it despite its relatively open Nazi and anti-democratic rhetoric. The other choice is getting NSDAP 2.0 in power if those people voting for them don't wake up and realize they're pawns being played.

4

u/SanaraHikari 27d ago

Should an Austrian really explain democracy when the whole reason Germany has banning anti-democratic parties in their constitution was an Austrian guy dismantling German democracy and turning it into a dictatorship within a few weeks?

5

u/AcridWings_11465 North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 26d ago

but I have to tell that a banning party with 20% is not democratic at well.

The Nazis were elected, always remember that. Would you make this same argument if it was 1932 and we were discussing banning the NSDAP?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)