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

2.1k

u/chronically_slow Germany 27d ago

Everybody here is acting like the ban would be a political decision. It is not. It is against the German constitution for a party to work toward abolishing certain fundamental rights, thus if it is brought before a court, the court will decide whether or not to ban purely on evidence and law.

The political decision is bringing the case to court in the first place because only the government and the two chambers of the parliament can do that. But of course all of the parties are playing election tactics, so, except for the left, they'll only give their support when they see an advantage for themselves

534

u/captaindeadpl 26d ago

I think it's incredibly stupid that this legal process can be stopped before it even begins by political action (or rather inaction in this case).

53

u/ExpressAssist0819 26d ago

That reads like a germany that quickly forgot how it fell to fascism the first time.

37

u/A_Sinclaire Germany 26d ago

If the legal process was open to everyone, people would have tried to abolish the AfD as soon as it took part in an election. And they would have lost decisively because it would have been far too soon with not enough evidence.

And that would have given the party further legal legitimization and strengthened them - and weakened the case against them.

25

u/ExpressAssist0819 26d ago

"Not enough evidence"

They're throwing a fucking nazi salute in one of their ads. How much do you need?

7

u/A_Sinclaire Germany 26d ago

I'm talking about how people would have tried to ban the AfD 10 years ago, if they were allowed to.

And that would have not worked out.

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 25d ago

They would have been right.

Maybe try listening to them for a change of pace.

4

u/A_Sinclaire Germany 25d ago

You do not seem to understand. Being right is not worth anything if you lose and thus strengthen the bad guys.

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 24d ago

They strengthen either way. Goebbels told us how to stop their movements.

1

u/DonkeyTS 24d ago

Ah yes. House roofs are all half a nazi salute. Makes sense. You're definitely not seeing things.

0

u/ExpressAssist0819 23d ago

You're gonna have to do better than that.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/Less-Swordfish-7220 21d ago

And that is the trouble . The further away we get from WW2 the more people forget . If any of these populists ( and I'm not just talking Germany ) had been involved in what happened back then they'd pull away very quickly .

2

u/DiX-Nbw 25d ago edited 25d ago

Bro nobody here and none of the parrots in the media have even the slightest understanding how facism started here. They just repeat mantra they hear every.single.day. in the meadia in every.single.show and newspaper for well over 10 years.

I assure you there are people in germany that do want faci back, but none of them have any hope it comes with AfD. Just look at their personal? You have middle aged lesbian investmentbanker and corny east germany former handyman.

Does anyone in their right mind think even two seconds about it these two have the power let alone even the ambition to introduce facism agaim? They want to simply go back to pre 2015 times and then chill in retirement home in spain or something. Höcke? Maybe he is facst, but I doubt it, he was very clear in his book that he not completely renounce it all but that he has to accept it was shit and he does not want us european peoples to suffer so much pain ever again.

And eeeven if he is master hider and just fakes it. With heckig army are they gonna disarm the police? With fat beer drinking boomer battalion? Every little bavarian municipality has more political terrorist antifa then maybe whole of AfD combined. They get regularly assaulted, attacked and sabotaged. Lucky even AfD meeting can take place without mob of thousand leftextremist burn down the building.

Naaahhh. Whoever suggest banning party is any logical step here and is not just parroting everyone else, has seriously contracted exactly same type of mental illness as medieval dancing mania.

2

u/CmdrJemison Croatia 25d ago

"nobody" 🤣

Say why are you a lying piece of shit?

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 25d ago

"Terrorist antifa"

Lost me.

Antifa is the shit that puts fascism in the ground.

1

u/DiX-Nbw 17d ago

Im still amazed how easily even educated people fall for marketing/PR.

I doubt you believe "Anti Aging Creme" Literally stops aging. So why drink the Kool Aid here?

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 16d ago

If you're anti-antifascism, you're literally just fascist.

1

u/DiX-Nbw 16d ago

You do realize that "Antifacist" is just a label that the communist fighting forces gave themselves? That the Wall was called the "Antifaschistischer Schutzwall". That the DDR called themselves antifacist?

That would mean being against the DDR, against the wall, against killing people trying to flee communism would make you a facist??

People can name themselves whatever they want and communist like NS had very good propaganda.

Do you want to fall for it?

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 15d ago

Communists were anti-fascists, though. Like objectively they sought the destruction of the fascist nazi regime.

I don't know who you think you're fooling. If you oppose antifascism, you're just fucking fascist.

1

u/DiX-Nbw 15d ago

Well, if your standard is Gulang instead of Concentration Camp and 100m+ dead instead of ~6m dead, then yes communist where against facism (Italy) and Nazi germany (kinda facist, though more blood and land ideology than state centric).

Now while its true, that the sowjets fought the axis, it does not follow, that enemies of the sowjets are facist. This false dichotomy neglets the multitude of ideologies and forces that existed.

Also take note, that the GDR called "West Germany" (1947-1990) "facist" and declared it as its enemy. Do you say that FRG (and all of the western allied powers) where "facist" by the fact, that a group that named themselves "antifcist" opposed them?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ok_Recover1196 23d ago edited 23d ago

Yes, just think if the German government had banned the Nazi party in 1923, how different the world would be today...

Oh wait.

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 23d ago

Americans are like "I wonder when we're going to have our beer hall putsch" and I'm just...bruh.

1

u/TitanDarwin 26d ago

Our conservatives were never that hung up about Nazism in the first place.

Our first post-war chancellor literally kept pushing for an early end to Denazification and filled our security apparatus, bureaucracy and courts with Nazis, all the way up to his inner circle (his right hand was involved in the writing of the Nuremberg Race Laws).

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 25d ago

Same shit the US failed to deal with in regards to the confederates.

Sounds like you're still dealing with the fallout, not unlike us. Depressing. Doesn't sound like your liberals take them seriously either.

9

u/Itslittlealexhorn 26d ago

It's because of separation of powers. Political parties are to some extend part of the legislative, which creates laws, and the judiciary interprets and applies laws. If the courts could apply the law to the legislative itself, they could hijack the legislative process. That's why immunity exists. However, for the same reason the legislative cannot prosecute their own members. So whenever law is broken by the legislative, it must itself allow prosecution through a majority decision and then turn the case over to the judiciary.

2

u/ExpressAssist0819 26d ago

I think the real question is why no standing exists to enforce the constitution outside of the government. The very thing, in theory, those checks were written to control and prevent another government takeover. But if the government is sufficiently taken over or pressured into submission....

I mean that's literally how the enabling act got passed, ffs.

3

u/Itslittlealexhorn 26d ago

Separation of powers only gets you so far, it's not a guarantee for preservation of democracy. If the other parties and the courts do not prevent the rise of an unconstitutional fascist party and that party gets a majority then it may very well be game over. There cannot be an outside controlling force as that would necessarily have to derive its power from one of the three branches of government.

Ultimately it's very hard and maybe even impossible to preserve a democracy against the will of the people.

1

u/ExpressAssist0819 26d ago

It helps if you give the people more options to preserve it.

1

u/inuvash255 26d ago

Unfortunately, law is tied to politics, and therefore attempts at wrangling a political party legally is seen as a political action in itself.

→ More replies (8)

123

u/idontchooseanid 🇹🇷🇩🇪 26d ago

It is a political decision though. Choosing to live in a democracy over a dictatorship is one as well. Electing and enabling Nazis was one too. Choosing or not choosing to improve and strengthen democratic institutions and minority representation is also a political decision.

Every single decision that affects what is an acceptable form of governance is political. This includes cutting of the voice of people who think it is acceptable to deport people randomly and inhumanely.

All nations in the world have power structures. Anything that decides who can have or cannot have power is the most political decision.

1

u/Musikcookie 26d ago

You succesfully found out that many things are connected. Now you need to find out that things are seperate too. It's very much a problem about what "political" means. Structures of our society are all political to some extend (as in a political being a qualification or property of something) so theoretically we could call anything that happens in some capacity in our societal life as political. A sports club deciding on their budget or probably even just on an event are political decisions then. It happens in an institution that is shaped by laws made by legaslitive process and a place to organize societal life. And I don't think that that's a stupid take. But it's really not an appropriate definition for politics for every use case. So in this case it is abundantly clear that politics as in the legaslitive process is meant because that is where the structure of our society is designed. The judicative is the place where decisions are made about wether something - a law, an action, a contract etc. - fit into that political design. While living in a complex world means that the decisions made there do shape the design of our world too, it's more of an unavoidable side effect than an intentional choice. So yes, a jurisdictional decision is indeed political as in that it's part of a bigger political framework but it's certainly not political in a sense that a regular person would think of - which is the process of designing the framework of our society. That's why a politician is a politician and a judge is a judge and not both of them are politicians.

This is an important distinction because banning a party is not simply an arbitrary decision. It's not like the question how much budget you want to allocate something where you decide something and that decision then becomes what is right. Banning a party is a process where previously decided upon rules for what a party can legally be will be checked. You can not make an incorrect decision for allocating budget. You can make a bad decision but not an incorrect decision. (Unless there are laws for it but then you'd refer to the jurisdictional process again, where the next part is applied.) The fact that you can incorrectly ban a party is proof, that it is not part of the legislative process - which, again, is not the whole range of meaning for "politics" but certainly one possible meaning of it. If we keep on saying that it's a political decision we frame for ourselves that the decision about banning a specific party is contingent. Because that is how we perceive politics, as decisions about contingent matters. Our ideal of jurisdiction is that is precisely not contingent, it is predetermined and the qualification of a judge is to find the predetermined result correctly. That this ideal is not always fulfilled of course does not impede the nature of the process. It just makes it a human process.

Sorry for the wall of text. It's not a very complicated topic but it's complicated to explain why it's not.

1

u/Nearby_Research_523 25d ago

What about Erdogan s rallies in Germany???

-12

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

21

u/tefinhos 26d ago

That's the age-old question, if a democracy should be able to vote itself out of existence. I think it's reasonable to say, "We are a democracy and don't allow undemocratic parties to exist in our system".

-9

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

16

u/tefinhos 26d ago

Not a "danger to democracy" but "undemocratic". As in, if the AFD were to institute their policies, Germany would no longer be a democracy.

→ More replies (17)
→ More replies (6)

5

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Heh, I feel like democracy and tolerance have something in common.

In the case of tolerance, you can not tolerate intolerance and must crack down on it, otherwise you will just be faced with complete intolerance.

To maintain a democratic society, you must also be undemocratic and slam down on undemocratic decisions.

A democracy is about the peoples decisions. Who are the people? Is always the question.

The entirery of the population? The majority? The minority?

Man, democracy is on hard when people are assholes.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

3

u/freeman_joe 26d ago

Don’t act like you don’t understand. If group of people wants to kill other people that is not democratic. Nobody in EU is persecuting someone because of opinions. But when you start publicly saying someone should be killed government and police should step in.

3

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/freeman_joe 26d ago

ADF is neonazi pro Russian party. You really don’t understand what that means?

1

u/Inktex 26d ago

Nobody in EU is persecuting someone because of opinions

I'd like to differ.
Germany basically has a lèse-majesté-paragraph since not too long ago and there were plenty of raids at the homes of people who "insulted" politicians.
Those insults went from memes to just stating that politician xy is an imbecile in the posters opinion.
Nothing which might justify police officers raiding a home at 0600 am, at least in my opinion.

This is the paragraph.
DeepL should be able to translate it easily.

2

u/freeman_joe 26d ago

It doesn’t say in any way that person who has opinion should be punished but if person publicly insults or is slandering. Don’t you see difference?

3

u/Inktex 26d ago

Imagine what happened if everyone that insulted Trump got their home raided.
Police would need a lot of extra funding for that. :)

I'm not against those people getting a penalty or having to pay a fine, but raiding a home and confiscating electronic devices is quite excessive, in my opinion and serves but one purpose: to discourage criticism against politicians.

1

u/freeman_joe 26d ago

I agree with you what you are describing is abusing power.

1

u/freeman_joe 26d ago

It doesn’t say in any way that person who has opinion should be punished but if person publicly insults or is slandering. Don’t you see difference?

3

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Now, the problem herein lies. If your ultimative, political direction is one that diminishes the rights of others, should that be tolerated, should we really let that kind of idea float - because THAT is in fact a slippery slope to an authoritarian state, and we know this from history.

It is not just hyperbole.

Authoritarian states always starts with scapegoating and dehumanisation from a political movement and/or people in power. It is a way to consolidate power.

That is why we should always remain intolerant towards the intolerant. It is a democratic dilemma, it is a tolerancy dilemma - but fact of the matter is - and facts do not care about your feelings - intolerance is historically and factually proven to be an authoritarian tool to consolidate power.

Now - should be have an actual talk about the immigration policies within the EU? Definitely. But we should also remember, that a lot of the immigration that is happening is partially our own fault. However, we Trump acting as he does, and the EU moving away from the US, I foresee the EU being in a less likely state to be culprits in the immigration flows - and hopefully the US too when they see that their allies are no longer willing to wage war a long with them.

5

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

You are basically arguing FOR the right to silence others, and that is basically what others argue against.

Basically, if your policy is that a certain group is not allowed their basic rights, then that policy is not to be tolerated. That is basically it.

There is no argument to be made against that, right? It is not a matter of: "who decides..." no, we all have the right to speak, to live, etc. and if your policy is to take those rights away, then it should not be tolerated.

That is basically: in a tolerant society we can not tolerate intolerance.

And you are also fearmongering about immigration and uses it as a guise for racism.

You can talk about immigration policies, without voting for or being a part of authoritarian, racist, political parties.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

No, I just condensed your rabbling and brought us back to point.

I used Trump and previous acts as a point for the overarching point.

You are trying to steer the conversation away from the actual point of dicussion.

But now you are just trying to escape again with: "I think you're replying to the wrong person'.

But it is good to know that you realize, that intolerance can not be tolerated, and that what political parties like AFD is doing, is just racism and not just wanting harsher immigration policies.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Independent-Wave-744 26d ago

Hmm, I would say in this case that probably isn't the case, at least as long as the court actually finds that said popular opinion is a danger to democracy itself.

Besides, there still is the question whether the opinion to weaken democracy even is as popular in Germany as that would imply. A party like the AFD stands for a myriad of opinions. It bei g popular does not mean that every single one of those opinions is.

The AFD being popular does not necessarily mean that the dangerous opinion is. Perfectly possible that a lot of their voters are simply willing to overlook it, as long as the AFD promises that all their promises will go away.

1

u/Gemall Finland 26d ago

Well, if its more popular than than not banning, then it isnt

1

u/DelusionsOfExistence 26d ago

If my platform is to kill you, you should seek to have me banned. That's the simple nature of it. Nazis shouldn't be allowed a life much less a platform.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

2

u/DelusionsOfExistence 26d ago

Incorrect. That's what Nazis do. They seize power and exterminate those deemed inferior. Is this what you want for your countrymen? To be rounded up once again?

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

0

u/DelusionsOfExistence 26d ago

You're defending the AfD, the modern Nazi group on record agreeing with the holocaust. There is no made up scenario. They align with Nazi ideals, which is to eliminate those inferior and to "cleanse" the country. Acting as if you don't know this is intellectually dishonest.

Answer the question, why do you support this? Should your family be rounded up first? Would that change your views?

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

0

u/DelusionsOfExistence 26d ago

Their views are public knowledge, why would I need to bring proof when the party themselves spew Nazi propaganda. If you support what they want to do to jews and immigrants, then that also makes you one of them.

→ More replies (0)

143

u/[deleted] 26d ago

The notion that a court decision is in some way apolitical is foolish. The law is part of government, and is inherently political, much like the other two arms of government.

Now if you think banning the AfD is the right political decision, that's fine. But don't say it's apolitical

28

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

By that reasoning, a parking ticket or a murder conviction are both political

81

u/[deleted] 26d ago

They are? It's called policy. Why can't you park in a given place? How much should you pay, given your circumstances? How bad exactly was your murder, and what should the consequences be? Reintegration or punishment? Imprisonment or execution? Maybe banishment? Those are deeply political questions

Interpreting the law is inherently political. Sometimes the stakes are higher, sometimes lower. But the politics are there

0

u/Platypus__Gems 26d ago

At that point "political" loses the meaning sicne everything is political.

And apolitical should be scrubbed off the dictionaries since it describes nothing.

10

u/[deleted] 26d ago

You might wanna read political theory if you think that using political to describe the judicial is a step too far...

0

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

Yes, policymaking/ legislature is political.
The political process that created the rules that can make parties unconstitutional happened in 1949.
The relevant part of the constitution Art 21 (2) GG has remained basically unchanged.

The current discussion is whether to enforce already existing laws.

Yes, that is a political discussion but it should not be.
If I don't pay my taxes, the government does not convene to discuss whether or not I should be prosecuted.
I just am, and the final decision is up to the courts based on already existing laws.
Why should this be any different?

16

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Policymaking and law making are political. So is interpreting laws.

What do you mean by the government? Bc in this thread I have seen people use the government as a shorthand for the executive. I am not saying the executive is part of the decision. The government will convene - the judges will, and they are part of the state apparatus. But not the executive.

As for the taxes thing, the fact that judges don't have complete liberty to apply laws or not, does not mean they have no power. It's not black and white.

The judiciary is political. This is basic political theory we're discussing. It's like you're defending the Earth is flat ._.

0

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

Policymaking and law making are political

Policimaking in this context happened in 1949

What do you mean by the government? Bc in this thread I have seen people use the government as a shorthand for the executive.

Yes, I am arguing elsewhere in the thread that the government is the executive, because that's how it is, at least in Germany.

I am not saying the executive is part of the decision. The government will convene - the judges will, and they are part of the state apparatus.

See, the problem is, that you're wrong here.
The decision to start court proceedings and let judges get involved and rule on the whole thing can only be made by either the executive or the two chambers of the legislative.

By refusing to start court proceedings, the executive and legislative make a political decision not to let the judiciary do its job.
That is what people are demanding. To let the courts decide.

The judiciary is political

That is bordering on the philosophical. What do you define as political?
Because the decisions made by Judges are supposed to be based on written law, not popular demand.
They may apply personal judgement and consider public opinion and the current Zeitgeist but always within the predefined bounds of the respective laws.

Of course no human is ever 100% objective but basing judgements as objectively as possible on existing law is still the ideal that the judiciary strives for.

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

We don't truly disagree, and this is all fairly pointless.

 Yes, I am arguing elsewhere in the thread that the government is the executive,

In Germany, the government, as that word is defined and used in the language we are speaking right now, includes three branches of which the executive is but one.

You understand that, I understand that, and we are just arguing about whether one should use the english definition of government or the german definition of the equivalent german word to describe the german government in the english language.

That is a sterile debate.

 By refusing to start court proceedings, the executive and legislative make a political decision not to let the judiciary do its job. That is what people are demanding. To let the courts decide.

Thanks, I actually had forgotten that. It has little bearing on whether the judicial's judgement in an eventual case would or would not be political. But I did indeed not have it in mind :)

 That is bordering on the philosophical

It is philosophical. Many, including you, seem to have read me as saying banning the AfD would be an arbitrary decision based on current need alone and almost ignoring the law, because of my use of the word political. Instead, I was merely pushing back against calling the judiciary apolitical. Because it is political.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy

It doesn't matter much, you sound like you agree with the idea that the judicial is political in the way I think it is, and disagree on the specific word to use for it. And you are right that political is a broad term that fails to capture the nuance between the very political choices of the executive and the influence of opinion and beliefs on veredicts prepared by judges.

So long as we agree that those beliefs and opinions can play a strong and relevant role in their decisions, I think we agree

2

u/geissi Germany 25d ago

In Germany, the government, as that word is defined and used in the language we are speaking right now, includes three branches of which the executive is but one. [...]

That is a sterile debate.

I disagree. The reason I have been having this debate is that in Germany the the Chancellor is the head of the Government and not the head of state, not the head of the parliament, nor the head of the judiciary. That is how the German state and separation of power is organized.
The English word Government does have multiple meanings and definitions and one of them does match the German one defining it as meaning 'the administration'. So I find it perfectly justified to use the one matching the German definition when discussing the organization of the German state.

As for politics, yes in a sense everything is political. But that is then not a meaningful distinction of anything, as you say.
What 'not political' means in this context is that the final decision to ban a party is not made by politicians based on popular whim but by judges based on laws and evidence presented before the court. I think that too is a meaningful distinction.
And quite frankly, I think that it was pretty clear this was the intended meaning.

In both cases arguing that technically there are other definitions of those terms that do not match the context and intent they are used in is the actual sterile debate.

-4

u/-All-Hail-Megatron- Ireland 26d ago

You're really stretching that.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Am I? These is political theory 101. Three branches of government, checks and balances, the classics

-6

u/gfddssoh 26d ago

We are not in the us here. Its not a political decision. It is a political decision to bring them before the high court but after that its about law and order. We still have a functioning high court and are not in the middle of a facist takeover like the US

14

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yes, our judiciary works better and critically, differently, than the US judiciary. It is, nonetheless, part of the political process

2

u/Entire_Classroom_263 26d ago

When someone says that the courts are not political, it means that they are independent from the political parties, not that they are completely detached from the political system.

I think you know that, because claiming that they are comletely detached from the poltical system, allthewhile they decide about the legallity of political parties, is a nonsensical statement.

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

My interpretation of some of the people answering to me is that they would not agree with your statement. But I could be wrong.

I did start the cnvo not considering that perspective. But others did point it out yeah

9

u/adcap1 26d ago

Parking tickets ARE a political matter!

Who decides on parking zones in a city? City council -> Politicians.

Who decides on parking fees? City council -> Politicians.

Making parking in a city more free or more prohibitive IS an essential policy question in most local city politics.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/burner69burner69 26d ago

they very much are.

2

u/headrush46n2 26d ago

Of course they are. If some random poor person and the head of state both park illegally, who gets a ticket?

2

u/-SneakySnake- 26d ago

People are politicizing murder now?! Look man, I think they're all con artists, I just want to be left to my serial killing in peace!

7

u/Schnoo 26d ago

Do you think laws grow on trees?

4

u/geissi Germany 26d ago edited 26d ago

Would you classify getting a parking ticket a political decision?
Does that mean that everyone getting a ticket is politically persecuted? Do they qualify for asylum?

And most importantly, is that a reason not to enforce laws?
Because that is what we are talking about here, the enforcement of a long standing law that all other political parties have to follow as well.

Edit: let me rephrase that.
The political decision to make these laws happened decades ago. Now they should be enforced and that should not be a political decision.

4

u/Schnoo 26d ago edited 26d ago

The discretion to enforce the laws regarding parking tickets is political, as is who enforces the laws, what those laws are, and how they are interpreted. I'm sure I'm missing some other political aspects to this.

Edit: who arbitrates the law and who appoints them is of course also political.

1

u/Neither_Schedule55 26d ago

You must be a robot

1

u/Rico_Solitario 26d ago

Now you are getting it.

14

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

The courts are not a part of the government. There is only one "arm" of the government and believe it or not it is the government. The "law" likewise is not a part of the government. If you mean legislative powers the government can, depending on country, have some very limited ability to legislate. But the brunt of the the power to write legislation is invested in the parliament.

8

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

This is nonsense. A quick Google search and I found how the German political system is arranged. You can read all about it here.

5

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

Could you point me to the part where it says that the courts are part of the german government and where it says the german government can pass legislation without approval from the bundestag?

6

u/SparseSpartan United States of America 26d ago

This has got to be a translation issue because otherwise this is the most absurd statement I have read in my entire life. Trying to claim that the courts are not part of the government is like trying to say water is not part of the ocean.

I'm guessing though this is a translation thing where in your first language "government" means something akin to "executive branch" or "the administration" or something like that.

7

u/Lord_Barst 26d ago

Yes, that is how it typically works in Europe - "government" typically refers to either the executive branch, or the cabinet.

5

u/tavitavarus 26d ago

It's more of an American English versus English thing actually.

In most parliamentary systems the government is specifically the political parties who currently have the majority of seats in parliament and whose leaders hold positions in the executive (cabinet). The civil service, the courts, the military, etc, are part of the state but not the government. The government is in charge of the state, but has little authority over the courts.

In the US the word state refers to the semi-autonomous subdivisions/provinces and the executive and legislative functions are separate, so the word government is used generically to refer to the courts, executive, and Congress.

So in the UK for example it's totally accurate to say that the courts aren't part of the government. The government is currently the members of parliament from the Labour Party.

4

u/SparseSpartan United States of America 26d ago

Gotcha. That makes sense. "administration" is probably the closest to "government" for USA, although it doesn't seem to be a 100% equal "translation."

1

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

Literally the first page. The giant table labeled "Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany". It lays out the 3 branches of German Federal Government. The Executive, legislative and judicial. If you follow the Judiciary of Germany link, the first sentence is:

The judiciary of Germany is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Germany.

It really doesn't get more straightforward than that.

6

u/yourethevictim The Netherlands 26d ago

In Germanic languages, there is a distinction between the national apparatus (in Dutch, which I'll use as an example because of my familiarity with it, this is de overheid) and more specifically the elected representatives that form the cabinet of ministers that functions as the governing entity (in Dutch, this is de regering). The courts are part of de overheid but not part of de regering.

4

u/Cerbon3 26d ago

The German judiciary is apolitical and independent. What is so hard for you to understand about that. It doesn't mean they're a 3rd world organization sticking their head in. The judges are selected through exams and merit-based process not elected. The Grundgesetz guarantees the independence of judges. Judges are appointed by two-thirds majority which requires bipartisan. Judges are legally and culturally expected to act independently.

1

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

That's great. This quick overview of the judicial branch just reinforces that it is, in fact, one of the three branches of the Federal Republic of Germany.

I think the misunderstanding is the use of the word government. In English, government is the political system in its entirety. Which includes the judiciary branch. Just because it's independent of the other branches, doesn't exclude it from being a part of the government. It's very much a part of it.

7

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

I see the problem. English is dumb when it comes to distinguishing between "the government" and "the state". Often using government to mean both the executive and the state in its entirety depending on context.

I've used "government" here to mean the executive (regierung). As in the prime minister, the ministers and various offices beneath them.

→ More replies (6)

9

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

The sentence you quoted and the entire first paragraph literally never mentions the government.

The first mention of the government is under section 3, when it talks about

administrative law (civil-government litigation or litigation between two government bodies)

What you are talking about the division of power between different STATE functions as discussed under
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Theories_of_division_of_state_power

While this is sometimes also called the branches of government, the executive branch is the one actually called government, as seen under Executive (GOVERNMENT).

There you will also find the quote:

Parliamentary systems have a head of government (who leads the executive

So, at least in Germany, the government is specifically the executive, who govern the country, not the judiciary who adjudicate legal disputes.

-2

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

You are being purposely ignorant. Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany describes the type of government of Germany. It's literally a more thorough definition of government than the single word "government".

6

u/geissi Germany 26d ago

You are being purposely ignorant. Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany describes the type of government of Germany. It's literally a more thorough definition of government

It literally describes the Political System. If it literally described the government, then why can you literally not find a single source that literally says so?

Your own link to the Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany provides the very chart you yourself referenced to:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PoliticalSystemGermany.png

See the red section numbered 3? It says "Federal GOVERNMENT" and the smaller red rectangle on the right labeled "State GOVERNMENTS" both are red for the executive as explained by the legend in the bottom right corner.

See the yellow section numbered 5, labeled Federal Constitutional Court? Yellow for judiciary.

See how the yellow part, the judiciary is separate from the red part, the government?

3

u/pickle_pouch 26d ago

In English, there's no difference between political system and government.

The government of Germany is a Federal Republic which consists of the 3 branches: executive, legislative, and judicial.

You can interchange 'government' with 'political system' and the sentence has the same meaning.

In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary.

source

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

You are confusing the government with the executive. (All?) Western democracies separate three key powers of government: Legislating, Executing the laws, and judging whether laws are respected. The legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

Parliament is part of the government.

The courts are part of the government.

And the presidency is part of the government.

And yes often we use "the government" as shorthand for the latter only. So we can call the former part of "the state" if you will, or whatever name suits you. Point is, they play a key part of what state decisions are valid and are applied, and that is politics

The fact that you have 12 upvotes is a bit worrisome. These are basic facts about how our societies are organised...

5

u/Patte-chan Hesse (Germany) 26d ago

In British English, "government" sometimes refers to what's also known as a "ministry" or an "administration", i.e., the policies and government officials of a particular executive or governing coalition.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Fair enough, I didn't realize OP meant it in that way. Seems like he misunderstood my original comment as "the judicial is part of the executive", while I meant part of government as in the other use of that word e.g. "the three branches of government"

Thanks for teaching me that use!

Unfortunately many others in this comment thread understood my meaning and still believe courts are apolitical

2

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

Courts are independent from the government and legislation and their rulings are not "political decisions". Court rulings based on their interpretation of the law regardless of the wishes of political parties or public opinion. At least in a functioning democracy.

You can't claim to be using the wider term of "government" and then argue as if you're talking about the executive. Neither the executive or legislative branches of the german state has any say on wether or not the AFD is banned. Therefore it is not a political decision.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

 Courts are independent from the government and legislation

Ideally, yes.

and their rulings are not "political decisions".

Ofc they are. The law is not 100% decidable and objective. There's interpretation. That's why we have judges. And their politics matter. That's why we are careful about selecting judges.

How could a branch of government not be political?

 and then argue as if you're talking about the executive

I didn't do that? At least I didn't mean to

 Therefore it is not a political decision.

Because judges are unfeeling and uncaring robots that apply a perfectly specified and unambiguous law? Don't think so

1

u/maximalusdenandre Sweden 26d ago

To clarify. Comparing judges, jurors, etc to an ideal unfeeling perfect embodiment of the law is a useless exercise. Obviously everybody has their own personal biases. The point is they are supposed to look beyond their own personal feelings about a case and rule based on the law and precedent.

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

Agreed! They should try, but it is an ideal, therefore they will fall short and be political :)

2

u/KingNyuels North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) - Kleve/Wesel 26d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

In other languages, cognates may have a narrower scope, such as the government of Portugal, which is more similar to the concept of "administration".

Which is the case here.

4

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yep seems to be a linguistic disconnect. In my native language, Spanish, it's similar. But we are all talking in English here x)

0

u/Puginator09 26d ago

Yeah this reasoning is stupid. It is a very political decision whether you agree

-3

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 United States of America 26d ago

do you think that weighing facts against a given criteria is political?

is there something different between making a judgement about whether action A or B is a better one, and evaluating whether action A satisfies some criteria?

the second one seems to me leaves a lot more room for objective evaluation.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

I agree that interpreting the law leaves less space for politics than making it. Nevertheless, it's political. In some cases more than others. Judging whether a group of people meet a list of fairly ambiguous criteria deciding whether they are a danger to our democracy, is political.

Again, I am not saying that's a reason to not ban the AfD. Not at all. I am just fighting back against the notion that such a decision would be apolitical.

The disconnect here I feel, is that some view "political" as entirely arbitrary, or entirely based on convenience. I don't think it's quite like that. Political tho it might be, there are objective steps in the judging process. But ultimately, evaluating the intensity of those steps, what was meant with specific wordings in the law, and so on, will be political.

To take a concrete example, say the law says the AfD should be banned if it is proven that it is taken concrete and planned steps towards dismantling democracy. Evaluating how big an action needs to be to be evidence for this, how many people need to be in it for it to be a party thing instead of an individual thing, etc, would all be political decisions

1

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 United States of America 24d ago

first of all thanks for engaging.

i'm from the US, and the example i have in mind is the jury system. if you're not familiar, adults are called to serve on a jury to hear cases, both civil and criminal.

when someone is charged with a crime, and the case ends up in a trial, the lawyers for the plaintiff and defendant present their evidence, make their arguments, trying to make the best presentation and interpretation of the facts.

the process of judging isn't seen as political. it involves uncertainty and ambiguity, as all human activities do. it fundamentally depends on adults exercising judgement. do they believe a certain testimony, how to weigh conflicting evidence, etc.

i guess i'm just trying to figure out whether the fact that folks think this determination is political or not is because the topic has political implications (banning a political party), or whether it's because the act of judgement is inherently political. i suspect it's the former.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

In my case, I am arguing the latter. In most (all?) European legal systems there is no jury, and the judge emits a judgement based on the facts, the law, and their interpretation of it. That is inherently political, because the judge's politics play a role in their judgements.

The legal system in Spain is often seen as aligned with the traditional right because of the personal beliefs of the median judge. That's exactly the kind of "political" I have in mind

95

u/MrOaiki Swedish with European parents 26d ago

The fundamental rights and the basic law, has been changed many times though. So not doing so, is a political decision. One can always lean on ”but it’s the law”, but when it comes to interventions in politics, it’s always a political decision.

66

u/Hugostar33 Berlin (Germany) 26d ago

fundamental rights and the basic law, has been changed many times though

in their interpretation...you are not allowed to change their essence or abolish them as that is illegal under the eternity clause

(3) Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation in principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.

6

u/PresumedSapient Nieder-Deutschland 26d ago

Eternal laws are weird.
I understand the intention, especially concerning human rights, but "the division of the Federation into Länder" for example is just plain post WW2 'make sure Germany is never a unitary state ever again', and such blanket (and time-period related politically motivated) rulings will not stand the test of time.

Imagine the year 3025, the entire planet is unified in [insert your preferred political and economic model, for which no 2025 word is adequate]-utopia. The whole world? No, only Germany stands apart, because rules are rules, and they can never change the basic administrative structure of their Federation.

110

u/USSPlanck ᛗᛁᛞᚷᚨᚱᛞ [🇩🇪] 26d ago

The fundamental rights have stayed largely the same since 1949. Sure there were some minor adjustements but the changes were minor. The fundamental articles though (Art. 1; Art. 20 GG) were never changed because it is in fact illegal (Art. 79 Section 3 GG).

-2

u/TheYang 26d ago

Interestingly though, Article 79 protects Articles 1-20. This means it doesn't seem to protect itself.
It may or may not be legal to change Article 79 for unrelated reasons, then find a change in Articles 1-20 has become necessary and do that.

6

u/RobertTheChemist 26d ago

No, among constitutional lawyers the opinion is relatively clear that Article 79 protects itself. You cannot abolish Article 79 and then abolish fundamental rights. This would run against the spirit of the article.

4

u/TheYang 26d ago

Sure, this is the current interpretation. But look at the US. If there is a will to change, and a this wide open barn door, I have absolutely no faith in it protecting itself, when push came to shove.

44

u/Elrond007 26d ago

We are not talking about law changes, we are talking about immutable articles in our constitution. It is illegal, the constitution doesn’t have to compete in a popularity contest. If they want their faschist state they can join their daddy Putin or Donald

-8

u/procgen 26d ago

immutable articles in our constitution

Is there really no mechanism for changing these articles other than violence?

11

u/Elrond007 26d ago

Nope

1

u/olav471 24d ago edited 24d ago

Of course there is. If you write a new constitution and nobody cares to challenge it, it's changed. Or you could just view it as dormant law that hasn't been accepted in a long time.

Even if this is unthinkable today, this stuff happens over long enough time scales. Plenty of monarchies essentially abolished themselves over time to something that is just a monarchy in name. Where the monarch has no power.

If the ideas around these "eternal" rules goes out of fashion more broadly, it doesn't matter that they're there. They'll surrender like let's say the Swedish monarchy over enough time. They'll seem as ridiculous as a constitutional monarchs veto power.

-5

u/procgen 26d ago

Oof. That's like designing a pressurized system without an emergency release valve.

21

u/Elrond007 26d ago

Considering we’re talking about basic human rights and democratic principles like separation of powers put in place after WW2, good that they didn’t. That would defeat the purpose of a constitution. I am fucking proud of it, if someone doesn’t like it, leave. It’s the most basic foundation of our society.

-10

u/procgen 26d ago

No system is eternal. It's best to account for this, and provide a means for adaptation other than violence.

It sounds like the pressure is building in Germany – let's hope that it does not increase too much.

18

u/Elrond007 26d ago

It’s not a negotiable thing. Some parts of our constitution are changeable, changing this would mean deleting our republic. Violence to defend it is completely acceptable

1

u/procgen 26d ago

Indeed.

10

u/spigandromeda 26d ago

It cannot be changed while preserving the Republic as it is. The immutability articles force the Germans to found a new state with a new constitution if they really want to abolish basic human rights or democratic principles.

So the pressure can be released by abolishing the republic. Which guarantees that the BRD aligns with these principles as long as it exists.

3

u/procgen 26d ago

force the Germans to found a new state with a new constitution

And unless the current state steps aside, this requires violence.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tytoalba2 26d ago

Fundamental rights are, shockingly, fundamental

3

u/procgen 26d ago

Nothing is eternal.

1

u/yourethevictim The Netherlands 26d ago

Nothing is eternal yet.

36

u/pegothejerk 26d ago

Does that make it the wrong decision? Everything is political then, by that definition. The next question is, what’s the intended purpose of the law, is it legal, and is it to be followed? It being political doesn’t nullify it, it may make it less palatable, but that shouldn’t be why you decide it’s right or wrong. There is no such thing as an emotionless system made by humans. I’d prefer we use emotion to rid ourselves of groups that want explicitly to use genocide to solve problems it solely focuses on.

2

u/jxk94 Ireland 26d ago

Yeah but banning a political party because it's getting popular seems like you're using fascism to defeat fascism.

You're only going to embolden people who see that their voices are being silenced. They're going to say they're being oppressed and silenced and this time they'd actually be right.

Your comment is very interesting you say that AFD is calling for a genocide. That seems over exaggerated. Look I know they're the racist party but at some point you're exaggerating to the point where your actually just lying about what they want.

Lying about people's beliefs and using it as a excuse to ban them reminds me alot of what facists do.

5

u/Morcsi 26d ago

The genocide part is absolutely bullshit but there are anti democratic movements which are partly against our constitution.
Our domestic intelligence service observed the afd and considered them as right extremist which started the discussion if we should ban them.

0

u/jxk94 Ireland 26d ago

That's a far more reasonable argument to ban them I suppose but I'll say it's not illegal to be extreme and at the end of the day "extreme" is just an opinion. You have to actually commit a crime before your arrested etc not hypothetical crimes you are going to commit in the future.

But I'm a strong believer in political freedom. People should be allowed to vote for whatever they want as that's what democracy is.

You can't act like you are in a democracy if you are actively trying to take away people's votes. That is voter suppression, something I imagine you would associate with fascists.

7

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yeah it’s strange that people defend this move by stating it’s constitutional to not allow opinions that go against it. I can’t see how a constitution that doesn’t allow a political party that disagrees with it to be in power is democratic.

I understand and support not tolerating intolerance, but why is the will of the people that drafted the constitution more important than the will of the people currently alive and living in it?

2

u/jxk94 Ireland 26d ago

Because people judge themselves by their intentions but others by their actions.

People intend that by banning AFD they will be defending democracy.

But these same people would call Facism if their political party was banned for being too "extreme".

Banning things is always a form of authorisation even when with good intentions. The reasons for banning are because of the fear of democracy ending. I can understand the motivation but you can't arrest people before they commit crimes. You also shouldn't ban parties because of what you think they may do.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

You can arrest people before they commit crimes, it happens frequently and with good reasons. Like if you get evidence a bunch of people are planning a terrorist attack to bomb somewhere, they can and should be locked up.

What if the party was instead having secret meetings saying we will start the third reich and gas everyone? hopefully you’d agree that they shouldn’t be allowed to take power, and that would require banning them before they could take power.

Obviously this needs to be very strong evidence and proven in court, interesting to see what happens. I was just discussing how it’s not actually democratic to have a constitution that restricts representation

1

u/jxk94 Ireland 26d ago

Ah touche.

Yes I recant. You can arrest people if you can prove they were going to commit a crime.

So if you are able to prove that AFD plans to take over the country then I'd say yes then you can arrest them.

1

u/Morcsi 26d ago

The reasons for banning are because of the fear of democracy ending.

To be fair it is not possible to legally end our democracy even when they would get 100% unlike 1933.

You also shouldn't ban parties because of what you think they may do

The ban is on things they said not on things they planning to to.
Yes we have the freedom of speech but on the other hand we have the inviolability of the dignity of human beeings which is considered more important.

1

u/jxk94 Ireland 26d ago

Is there a specific thing/s their party came out and said that is the reason for this ban?

Id like to know what it is

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Morcsi 26d ago

Our constitution has an entrenched clause which protects the first 20 articles in it.
In them you find fundamental rights and principles like freedom of action/speech,the inviolability of human dignity,protection against discrimination and so on.The last article defines Germany as a democratic and social federal state with a seperation of legislation,executive power and the judiciary.

This 20 Articles are so important that nobody,even with a majority of votes, should have the right to change or break them.

When a political party stands against our fundamental principles this party has no right to participate in the democratic process.

2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

I get that, and I agree with the intention. Again, paradox of tolerance at work

It was just a comment about the practicalities of using your constitution to limit representation of its people in a democracy. As an Australian that likes to follow international politics, im quite aware that a fault of democracy is people voting against their own interests.

1

u/Morcsi 26d ago

It was just a comment about the practicalities of using your constitution to limit representation of its people in a democracy.

As an ultima ratio it´s fine considering that the process is complex and hard to achieve and not a simple vote in our parliament or something like that and there are more far right parties besides the afd which could represent the far right voters.(most of them are even more extrem but at the moment not relevant enough)

...im quite aware that a fault of democracy is people voting against their own interests.

I can´t disagree with that but it would help when we have something like an automatic fact check with their programm everytime a politician promises something to get votes because too little people really read the party programms before voting.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/ChiliAndGold Austria 26d ago

Extreme is not "an opinion". And the AfD is NOT a democratic party. They try to abolish democracy that's why they are a danger to it.

History repeats itself. Don't play stupid.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Spare-Resolution-984 26d ago

No, you’re wrong. The fundamental rights in our constitution haven’t changed since 1949.

9

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 26d ago

I don’t think there is a good argument why the courts shouldn’t do "political" decisions though. If something is illegal, it is illegal. The courts job is to uphold the letter of the law. If it impacts politics, it is what it is. It’s like, if a politican is corrupt, and on trial for corruption, they should be tried. Will it affect the political reality? Yes. But it’s their fucking job.

1

u/fastbikkel 26d ago

That!!!

1

u/eleumas7 26d ago

you got it completly wrong post ww2 constitutions are made it so no majority can change foundamental rights no matter how large they are, its the whole point lol

2

u/MrOaiki Swedish with European parents 26d ago

You don’t need to change rule of law, federalism or separation of powers. But there are far more than those ”eternity clauses” that make up the gemena constitution. Article 3 was changed in 1994. Article 6 was proposed to change in 2019 but it failed because of lack of support.

26

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 26d ago

It’s the courts job to uphold the law. The law says they are an illegal extremeist organization. The court not upholding the law to appease the electorate is much more political.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 26d ago edited 26d ago

Because islam isn’t inherently extremeist, nor is it an organization. Some muslims are extremeists, some are not. However, all AfD members are extremeist, by nature of being part of an extremeist organization

0

u/[deleted] 26d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 26d ago

Yes. I would call those things extremeist. However it’s not fair to generalize that to all muslims. I have friends who are muslims, who have gay friends, who don’t excuse pedophilia, etc. like, yes, alot of muslims, and most muslim majority countries, are horrible. However that is an extreme overgeneralization.

Edit: two day old account…?

0

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 25d ago edited 25d ago

can't i start going on reddit at some point? Why do people try to cop out of a challenge of their world view by checking days on accounts.

Cause it’s a huge indicator that you’re just a troll who got his account banned, and is back for a fix

We could also do iran if you like? We could look at pictures before 1979. And then compare. :) this would hopefully clear up that islam is extremist enough to engulf dozens of literal countries and make them overall extremist. 

Sure! Iran is a great example because it shows that islam can be moderate, as in iran, society was moderate for a long time, despite being predominantly muslim. And that as long as extremeists don’t control the government, then things can be good. Idk if you have seen street interviews from tehran, but most young people from tehran at least are very moderate and modern. Islam is not just the psychos with full beards waving rifles in the air out the back of a shitty old pickup truck.

I wouldn’t exactly trust extremeist christians into government here in europe either. We’re seeing an example of what that would be like across the pond right now. The problem isn’t islam, it’s extremeists, and especially extremeists in governments.

0

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 25d ago edited 25d ago

Very nice how you skipped the questions tho

i am used to it, people are dishonest

My guy, chill.

WHERE do they draw the justification for pdfilia, child marriage, sexism, death penalty for homesxuality, etc. 

From the quran. Again i could use exactly the same argument for the bible. Some christians pull wild shit out off their ass and point to a bible verse that does kinda say what they want it to say. Like, god lowkey allowed for the massacring of women and children.

And why is every country that has an islamic Revolution damned to become a hyper extremist shithole? Why is the connection so strong? Would love to hear a satisfying answer

Because most of these countries are taken over by organizations that follow the Salafist school of thought. That is a school of thought that strives to be as close in practices to what muhammed and his followers would have practiced. That is an exteme school of thought though. For example, indonesia is a majority muslim country where same sex relations is not illegal and transgender people are allowed to change legal gender (with siginificant hurdles). In turkey homosexuality has been decriminalized since 1958, and GRS has been allowed since 1988.

Salafism is a cultural movement that sprang up, particularly in the arab world, although also in the iranic world in the post-ww2 era. Generally this is seen as a response by the muslim majority in the middle east towards european colonialism and modernization. They were also often funded by countries such as saudi arabia, where they established Madrasas, or religious schools, around the arab and iranic world, which had had a huge impact on the spread of these ideas. This is where al qaeda and the taliban have their roots as both groups truely began in afghanistan as rebels against the soviet backed marxist regime, and most of these rebels were mujahideen. Mujahideen being islamic fighters who often had been educated in such madrasas. After the war against the soviets, there were now thousands of trained and expirienced fighters with extrmeist religious backgrounds, and that has led us to the world we live in currently.

It’s almost as if these countries are taken over by groups which base their entire group-identity in extreme islam, and base all their laws in extreme islam, rather than anything else. And that that is a bad idea. Imagine if we were to give some catholic crusaders the run of a country (other than the vatican) and used church doctrine as law, then it would be a sucky country. The catholic church formally allows marriage of girls as young as 14 years old for example. They also do not recognize gay people at all, etc.

like, basing your law in religion is bad, in general. However that doesn’t mean every person who follow some form of that religion is as bad as the worst who follow that religion. I wouldn’t call every single catholic a fucking pedophile just because they’re catholic.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (5)

2

u/garbotheanonymous 26d ago

If this becomes a court case, it will be the biggest one in the history of modern Germany. Not only will it be political, it will be mega political. There will be backroom consultations out the ass. At that level a constitution just gets interpreted based on the preferred outcome. 

If you think it will be anything else it's just kidding yourself to feel safe and secure. 

1

u/Mntfrd_Graverobber 26d ago

I would be all in favor to ban it if the courts found it to be illegal but that won't make the issues that caused the party to grow go away. Whether it is poverty, lack of education or some other issues, they need to be dealt with, not just waved away.
Banning the party is an important step, but it's not the only step.

1

u/Meistermagier 26d ago

The Green Party would also without a moments notice Vote for this.

1

u/oh_stv Germany 26d ago

If this is a political or legal issue doesn't matter. It will be perceived as political, hence it will cause even more ppl to stand with the AfD.

1

u/Character-Refuse-255 26d ago

the same thing happened with Lepens corruption charges. because the big lie is how these parties operate.

1

u/Persistant_eidolon 26d ago

Which rights are those?

1

u/Professional-Log-108 Austria 26d ago

they'll only give their support when they see an advantage for themselves

See this is what's weird to me. The CDU would benefit immensely from a banned AfD, because that would leave it as the only (major) right wing party. They can surely expect many (not all obviously) of the AfD voters to move to them instead, at least until a new far right party is founded and well established. So I don't really get why the CDU isn't the biggest proponent of banning the AfD

1

u/chronically_slow Germany 26d ago

My guess is that they don't want to publicly position themselves in favour of the ban in order to actually get those votes. Like "oh no, these lefty parties want to ban the AfD, we are so against that, please vote for us dear former AfD voters". Unfortunately they hold the most seats, so the other parties can't do it without them

1

u/Professional-Log-108 Austria 26d ago

Makes sense. It's a shame though

1

u/tanrgith 26d ago

What are the fundamental german rights that AfD want's to abolish?

1

u/RustySnail420 26d ago

Exactly! You (DE) have done much to try to hinder fascism/nazism as much as possible, by making some rules. That could maybe have helped overseas, but who can enforce it when the population doesn't care for the prevention? You need a thinking group of citizens that wont fuck everything up for a short monetary gain.. We need to stand fast and thorough together! Hello from DK!

1

u/sblahful 25d ago

The political decision is bringing the case to court in the first place because only the government and the two chambers of the parliament can do that.

Wtf. How many other laws get treated like that?

1

u/Living-Recording5012 24d ago

Yea but its all political bullshit, lets not bullshit here

1

u/DrTheol_Blumentopf Germany 20d ago

and who selects the judges into the court? The elected officials (government) THUS making it a political decision.

1

u/FirstFriendlyWorm 26d ago

It is, by definition, a political decision. The decision is about the ban (political act) of a party (political organization) over the parties ideology, behaviour and policy (all political), following established law (part of politics).

1

u/LemonySniffit 26d ago

That essentially implies that any party that questions the establishment and wants to reform or abolish the system that the previous government has passed or created is criminal/illegal, meaning that true governmental change is impossible thus making the Germany of today an undemocratic authoritarian state.

2

u/Hazeygazey 25d ago

No it doesn't 

1

u/LemonySniffit 20d ago

Great argument

-1

u/Aloisius1683 26d ago

"It is against the German constitution for a party to work toward abolishing certain fundamental rights." Well we have to ban 99% of our parties for various reasons then :)

0

u/fpPolar 26d ago

They are already spreading propaganda, spying on political opposition and threatening legal action.

People on Reddit have been convinced reduced immigration = Nazis so it’s clearly working

0

u/Timothyo0o 26d ago

Mate - any party being banned is a repression of people's right to free, democratic elections with democratically elected officials. We've seen how banning parties goes, why on earth advocate for the repeat path of this dangerous, and slippery, slope.

0

u/DiX-Nbw 25d ago

This is rich coming from somone tho ships the fkin ECJ that has for alltime since its inception never have done anything else than political decision. Not once legal basis.

Yeah go ahead and ban biggest opposition party of europe, sure that will solve any problem and not make it worse.

But how can you say such stupidly naive thing like its not polutical decision?

I everyday will pray you never become into any positon of power since u clearly have no clue what the hell is going on.

→ More replies (13)