Germany’s spy agency BfV has labeled the entirety of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as an extremist entity.

The BfV domestic intelligence agency, which is in charge of safeguarding Germany’s constitutional order, said the announcement comes after an “intense and comprehensive” examination.

“The ethnicity-and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with the free democratic order,” the BfV said on Friday.

Hopefully this inspires the other parties to to start the process to see the AfD banned. I know the report might not look like much, because of how obvious the findings are. But previous attempts at banning them have failed because such an official report was missing. So maybe our political system starts getting its shit together.

As we say in Germany: Hope dies last

  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    It’s anti-democratic no matter what paradox you want to try and spin it as.

    This is one side who fears losing power trying to eliminate their political opponent who is rapidly gaining followers. It’s authoritarian, it’s anti-democratic, and it’s fascism. It’s LITERALLY WHAT THE NAZIS DID for crying out loud!

    Democracy means the will of the people. The government banning the party that has the most supporters is the exact opposite of that.

    • Yareckt@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      No it’s not anti-democratic. The parties can’t ban the AFD only initiate the process. Whether the AFD is antidemocratic and a has the ability to undermine democracy is decided by the highest court. Precisely so they can’t just ban the opposition.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Banning political party is anti-democratic. When parties can initiate the process to ban other political parties, that’s anti-democratic.

        When the party they’re trying to ban is also the most popular party with the people, that’s especially anti-democratic.

        • Yareckt@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Banning parties isn’t always anti-democratic. The reason why is a bit unituitive so I explained it quite detailed but I believe that’s necessary. Take for example a hypothetical party X. Party X will use legal loopholes to effectively destroy democracy when it gets into power (restrict free speech, manipulate ballots, lock up the opposition, etc.) . Now party X gets the majority. That creates a situation where Party X stays in Power indefinitely. Now at some point the majority of people people change their mind and now they wouldn’t vote for the party anymore so the government isn’t representative of the people anymore. But it doesn’t matter anymore because democracy is dead in the country now. So now the people have to go through the whole establishing democracy process again which costs many lives and many years of living under oppression. That could have been skipped if party X had been banned. Now the problem remains that a majority of people weren’t represented in a election. That’s obviously bad. However keep in mind that the only thing we need to ban to skip all those years of oppression is to ban a single thing that party’s just aren’t allowed to do. And that thing is being antidemocratic. So banning that one single thing allows us to keep all the other nice thing that democracy has to offer.

          • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The massive, gigantic problem with this is you’re making the assumption that party X will use legal loopholes to destroy democracy, and are using that assumption to instead destroy democracy by banning them over things you claim that they will do. You’re saying “we’re going to ban you for being antidemocratic because we think that one day you might be antidemocratic, so we’re gonna go ahead and be antidemocratic first”.

        • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Banning political party is anti-democratic.

          Except when it’s a nazi party. Don’t give nazis the time of day.

          • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            When the term Nazi has lost all meaning due to the left throwing it around at everything they don’t like, calling a party a “Nazi party” also means nothing and causes most people to just roll their eyes at you, and often actually look into what you’re so angry at. Maybe that’s why the AfD are gaining so many supporters?

            Nothing in their policies on their website is even remotely “Nazi” adjacent.

            What makes them “Nazis” in your opinion?

            • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              When the term Nazi has lost all meaning due to the left throwing it around at everything they don’t like, calling a party a “Nazi party” also means nothing and causes most people to just roll their eyes at you, and often actually look into what you’re so angry at

              Nah we calling nazis nazis. Not just things we don’t like. Question for you. If the AFD ain’t about nazis, why do nazis think they are?

              Nothing in their policies on their website is even remotely “Nazi” adjacent

              No, no just all the nazi dog whistles.

              What makes them “Nazis” in your opinion

              Goose steps like a nazi, has nazi ties, doesn’t decry nazis who love them. Brother you got yourself a nazi.

              • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                19 hours ago

                All that and still didn’t answer a simple question:

                What makes them “Nazis” in your opinion?

                Which policies are “nazi” policies exactly?

                Also worth pointing out, since you clearly don’t remember - the Nazi’s were far left socialists. They weren’t far right.

                • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  18 hours ago

                  You wanna talk about arguing in bad faith lol

                  the Nazi’s were far left socialists. They weren’t far right.

                  Revisionist historian here.

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      That is naive and reduces the entire argument to black and white.

      The world is not black and white. Its not even shades of gray. It can not be simplified like that, even less the way you attempt to.