Germany: Intelligence agency says entire AfD 'extremist' – DW – 05/02/2025
www.dw.com
One of Germany's most popular parties, the AfD, has been designated by the country's domestic intelligence agency as an extremist organization that threatens democracy.

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

  • cyberblob@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    25·
    2 days ago

    While you can argue that Individuals in the AfD are antidemocratic, I honestly do not see evidence for that on the general party level.

    I read their program. Weird? Yes. Antidemocratic? No.

    • chillhelm@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      2 days ago

      The Bundesverfassungsschutz has released a 1000 page report detailing their investigation and assessment. I find it unsurprising that the AfDs advertising material for an election hides their anti democratic aspects.

      • cyberblob@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        10 minutes ago

        Look I am all for marking extremist, but it really matters on what grounds. And it matters how it is done.

        Why is the report Not public? Does Not make any sense.

        Why has the report not undergone internal audits as it would be standard procedure? Seems odd at least.

        Its really all about „Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“ - and no it does not matter if you personally think „it is obvious“.

        Based on what I have read, hence based on what is known about the content of the report, there is no good evidence (but I could be wrong). Also no legal implications follow from this report, and based on what is known about Nancy Faeser involvment I can not deny a certain „Geschmäckle“ which is undermining the original purpose.

        If you wanna do these things, they need to be done with undeniable evidence and transparency.