Classification process postponed
AfD turns migrant members into witnesses
March 13, 2024, 9:18 p.m
Listen to article
This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback
The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case. The party is defending itself against this in the Higher Administrative Court. The second day of negotiations is characterized by frequent interruptions because the AfD is pursuing its own strategy.
The first day of negotiations ended after eleven hours, and the second day did not bring a quick decision either. The final word has not yet been spoken in the appeal process regarding the classification of the AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case. After two days filled with small-scale discussions and numerous motions from the party, the presiding judge, Gerald Buck, decided to close the meeting. The hearing will continue at a later date to be announced. On the second day of the trial, the party’s lawyers tried to elicit details from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution about its methods of gathering information. They also filed a motion to adjourn the hearing and not resume it for at least six weeks.
In response to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s accusation that the AfD distinguishes between an ethnically defined German people and a legally defined state people, Roman Reusch, a member of the AfD federal executive committee, suggested questioning AfD members with a migration background as witnesses. The court responded to the proposal and listened to descriptions from three AfD members from the Hesse regional association with a migration background about their experiences with the party. The Hessian state chairman Robert Lambrou was born in Münster and has a Greek father. A woman born in Nigeria and a man from Iran who has lived in Germany since 1995 also commented. Roth thanked you for the statements, but pointed out that the descriptions would not change the findings of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
The lawyer for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Wolfgang Roth, countered the AfD by saying that representatives of the party had degraded people with a migration background to second-class status and talked about the alleged destruction or extinction of the German people. He quoted, among other things, statements by the Thuringian AfD state leader Björn Höcke, the honorary chairman Alexander Gauland and Christina Baum from the AfD federal executive board.
Reusch said these were “splitting hairs” that might not be understood by AfD members with low levels of education. He rejected the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s assessment as “insinuations that are somehow cobbled together from small snippets of facts.”
Roth also accused the AfD of submitting applications “out of the blue” with the aim of “delaying the process”. The AfD’s lawyers, Michael Fengler and Christian Conrad, rejected this. After several detailed, almost identical requests from the AfD to name witnesses, the presiding judge also emphasized that he was interested in conducting the trial efficiently.
AfD wants to know more about informants
The second day of the hearing focused, among other things, on the use of virtual agents, i.e. employees of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution who use a different identity on social networks, and so-called informants – informants from the party’s environment. The BfV declared on Tuesday evening that “only two of the several thousand pieces of evidence” that had been submitted to the court “contain statements or behavior from human sources of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.”
The Federal Office also critically examined whether, during the processing of the AfD as a suspected case and the Junge Alternative as a suspected case and as a proven extremist effort, members of state or federal executive boards were appointed as confidants of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, from whom a “controlling influence” could have emanated. There was no such influence during the relevant period.
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution rules out “external control”.
When asked, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution emphasized that its evidence on the AfD came mainly from speeches and social media posts by elected officials and officials. It can be ruled out that employees or informants of the Federal Office or the state authorities for the protection of the constitution could have provoked this. The BfV’s lawyer accused the other side of not presenting any evidence that could indicate “external control” or “manipulation” when asking about possible influence from informants.
In the appeal process, which began on Tuesday, the 5th Senate is clarifying whether the ruling from the lower court at the Cologne Administrative Court stands. The BfV, based in Cologne, had classified the party and the youth organization Junge Alternative (JA) as suspected right-wing extremist cases. The judges in Cologne confirmed this view in 2022. Since then, the party and the JA have been allowed to be monitored using intelligence means. The OVG must now clarify whether the assessment is legal according to the Federal Constitutional Protection Act.
When it comes to using informants, people are now very cautious and cautious when it comes to parties. The first of two unsuccessful ban proceedings against the right-wing extremist NPD, which today calls itself Die Heimat, was discontinued in 2003 because of the numerous informants that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution also had in the party’s leadership.
Taking photos despite being banned in court
AfD representatives also caused a stir because they violated a photo ban in court. According to the meeting police requirements of the 5th Senate, photography is prohibited for all those involved in the entrance hall of the OVG during the oral hearing. A group stood in front of the judges’ table, took a group photo and published it on X.
Court employees had made the group aware of the ban. In the presence of journalists, an AfD representative claimed that the presiding judge had allowed the photo. This representation is false, said court spokeswoman Gudrun Dahm.