EU Can the state exclude AfD members? - "AfD members will no longer be allowed to work in the civil service in Rhineland-Palatinate." "In Saxony-Anhalt[] affiliat[ion] with the AfD[] face the loss of their gun licenses."

https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/nach-vorstoss-in-rheinland-pfalz-darf-der-staat-afd-mitglieder-ausschliessen-686fa0d0d1592e395c9d6bf4

https://archive.md/UptcY

Translated from German:

AfD members will no longer be allowed to work in the civil service in Rhineland-Palatinate. And things are also becoming uncomfortable for supporters of the party in other federal states. However, the new initiative has drawn criticism from constitutional lawyers.

Rhineland-Palatinate's Interior Minister Michael Ebling (SPD) made a tough announcement: Anyone who wants to enter public service must declare that they have not belonged to an extremist organization in the last five years. Ebling also considers the AfD to be extremist.

Constitutional lawyers sound the alarm

Professor Volker Boehme-Neßler (62, University of Oldenburg) told BILD: “A blanket exclusion based on AfD membership is unconstitutional! It depends on the specific behavior in each individual case.” However, he added that even drastic criticism of the government is “of course permitted.”

The European Court of Human Rights ruled accordingly back in 1995 – at that time, the case concerned a teacher in the communist DKP. The ruling states: NO grounds for dismissal.

Professor Josef Franz Lindner (58, University of Augsburg) also says: “It's not party membership that counts, but behavior!”

Only those who actively call for the abolition of democracy, for example, may be dismissed. Even a status of “confirmed right-wing extremist” by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution does not change this.

Criticism also comes from the FDP. Wolfgang Kubicki (73) told BILD: “A distinction must be made between private and professional conduct. According to this, anyone who behaves impeccably and loyally at work should not be able to be dismissed solely on the basis of membership in a dubious organization.”

AfD responds – and warns its civil servants

There is unrest within the AfD. The federal executive committee has already sent a letter to members in civil service with recommendations for action. “Simply being a member of the AfD is not sufficient grounds for dismissal,” it states. The word “not” is underlined in bold.

The party also urges caution: “Be careful with your choice of words and stay within the constitution.”

More and more federal states are tightening their measures:

Rhineland-Palatinate, Bavaria, and Baden-Württemberg require applicants to disclose any membership in extremist groups—the AfD is on the list.

Brandenburg checks EVERY civil service candidate with the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

In Hamburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, this particularly affects police officers and judicial employees.

Hesse, Schleswig-Holstein, and Saxony-Anhalt are also working on stricter rules. In Saxony-Anhalt, hunters and shooters affiliated with the AfD even face the loss of their gun licenses.

Thuringia warned its civil servants twice by letter against involvement in radical parties, but does not ask about party membership.

Saxony rejects automatic consequences. Interior Minister Armin Schuster (63, CDU) said in May: “There will be no new radical decree.” He does not believe in “unprovoked ideological testing.”

“That would be a reversal of the burden of proof.”

Constitutional law expert Boehme-Neßler emphasizes that civil servants are held to a particularly high standard—they must demonstrate loyalty to the constitution. Employees have more leeway. A firefighter can get away with much more than, for example, a civil servant who teaches politics.

And in response to Interior Minister Ebling's statement that AfD members must “dispel” doubts about their loyalty, the constitutional law expert says: “Unconstitutional! That would be a reversal of the burden of proof.”

 

[Kyria the Great]

What is it with coalition countries trying to cordon Sanitaire certain parties with rather bog standard right wing talking points? The funny part is many of these parties would likely lose voters and members since they're being represented and level out. I do love how these countries are building to a point where the coalition governments won't be able to ignore supermajorities without blatantly making democracy a fake and gay joke by shutting down people's concerns.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

What is it with coalition countries trying to cordon Sanitaire certain parties with rather bog standard right wing talking points? The funny part is many of these parties would likely lose voters and members since they're being represented and level out. I do love how these countries are building to a point where the coalition governments won't be able to ignore supermajorities without blatantly making democracy a fake and gay joke by shutting down people's concerns.

Because their ideas are bugfuck insane, and only get implemented because of institutional capture. The bog standard right wing talking points would win a few, lose a few and be superficially pointless, but access to power allows you restructure civil services; and move people around in them. This means you can break up the completely left dominated infrastructure of power.

They actually do have to fight tooth and nail to keep any right wing thought out of their institutions, because their policies and culture are only able to properly run without any pushback. If you let in normal people, or right wing people you get whistleblowing, pushback, and attention. In the UK, the slight access to power that the milquestoast right has had, has allowed the rape gang report to be published in full, demonstrating just how fucking evil the entire government structure is. The more you dig into it, the worse everyone inside will look, since they fully believed they had won forever and made very little effort to actually hide their actions internally.