Folk concept and racism
The dispute between the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the AfD drags on
April 11, 2024, 8:38 p.m
Listen to article
This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback
The struggle between the AfD and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution continues. The court case will examine whether the concept of people used by AfD politicians contradicts the constitution and what the party’s stance on Islam is. However, a judgment before the Higher Administrative Court is not in sight.
In front of the North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Administrative Court, representatives of the AfD and the lawyer for the Office for the Protection of the Constitution continued their exchange of blows. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution accuses the party of making a distinction between an ethnically defined German people and a legally defined state people and had classified it as a suspected right-wing extremist case. AfD federal executive Peter Boehringer referred to the party’s programs that have been adopted over the years. The party must be judged by these contents when it comes to the question.
In contrast, the lawyer for the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Wolfgang Roth, emphasized that party representatives would repeatedly differentiate between the German state people and ethnic identity in their statements. This is explicitly a devaluation of the others. “They are second-class citizens,” says Roth. However, the Basic Law does not distinguish between the people of the state and the people.
Thomas Jacob, Judge of the 5th Senate, pointed out that this clearly defined the open wound. The party refers to its own program, while the Office for the Protection of the Constitution quotes statements from party representatives. “The arguments are on the table and we have to evaluate it,” Jacob said. The 5th Senate of the OVG is supposed to clarify whether the judgment from the lower instance at the Cologne Administrative Court stands. The Federal Office based in Cologne had classified the party and the youth organization Junge Alternative (JA) as suspected right-wing extremist cases.
Islamophobia of the AfD
Another point was about the AfD’s view of Islam. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution accuses the party of blanket judgments, Islamophobia and thus a violation of the Basic Law. Roth quoted high-ranking party representatives with words like “Be careful of Muslim boys and men” or the warning “Flooding Europe with Muslims and knife Muslims.”
Roth complained about the lack of differentiation when, for example, Islam was described “in its entirety” as a terrorist organization by AfD representatives. Muslims are repeatedly denigrated across the board. The lawyer for the Office for the Protection of the Constitution: “This is not just about religious freedom in the Basic Law, but also about human dignity.”
Dispute over surveillance of the party
In the afternoon, the Federal Office and the party argued over the question of whether the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has to monitor the party or whether there is discretion. In its observation, the party assumes an abuse of discretion, as its lawyer emphasized. Roth contradicted and explained that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution had a duty to investigate.
After the first two days of negotiations in March and the subsequent interruption, the 5th Senate of the OVG now increased the pace a little. The presiding judge Gerald Buck interrupted those involved several times when already known content was repeated. The new 457 applications for evidence previously announced by the AfD lawyers were not yet an issue. After nine hours of oral argument, Buck and his fellow judges had not finished the prescribed program. Buck postponed until Friday. The OVG has scheduled eleven more appointments until June. According to a court spokeswoman, it is currently not possible to predict when there might be a verdict.