The German federal government wants to deal with a ban on the AfD. The Ministry of Justice wants to have the exclusion checked. The party was recently classified by the constitutional protection as a “secure right -wing extremist”.
The German Minister of Justice Stefanie Hubig argues to investigate an application for a ban on the right -wing populist Department. The party “must take very seriously as a possible danger to our democracy,” said the social -democrat of the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”. “This absolutely includes checking a party ban,” she added.
“The ban on party is the most popular sword that our democracy has against their organized enemies. You should not go prematurely,” said Hubig. That is the other way around: “If the requirements for this were met after a thorough investigation, it would be difficult not to use the instrument.”
High obstacles for a ban
Hubig announced that the German government, which has been in office for two weeks, would advise on a prohibition procedure and find a joint answer. She also sees the parliament as a duty to deal with the subject. “I would also like to emphasize: the discussion must also take place in the Bundestag and the Federal Council.”
Because the application for a prohibition procedure could not only be submitted by the federal government, but also by the Bondstag or Federal Council. The calls after the start of a prohibition procedure had become louder after the federal office for the protection of the Constitution had upgraded the AfD to “right -wing extremist efforts” in the early May.
The party, on the other hand, defends with an urgent application. The AfD (alternative to Germany) had doubled its mood to 20.8 percent in the elections of the Bundestag in February and had become the second strongest strength. A decision of the responsible administrative court of Cologne, the domestic secret service has put the new classification on hold and therefore the AfD will only continue to lead if such a -driven suspicion.
Minister of the Interior Alexander Dobrindt had pointed out on the supporters of a prohibition procedure that the opinion of the office for protecting the constitution was not sufficient for such a procedure.
At the request of the federal government, the Bondstag or the Federal Council, the Federal Constitutional Court would have to decide on a party prohibition. It is not enough for a prohibition to represent an anti -consisting of opinions. She must also be fought actively and aggressively against them. Moreover, achieving these anti -backiscellation goals must at least seem possible.
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
