Translation by yours truly. Original source [A]
One of the central figures in the conference was the Green Party politician Renate Künast.
It began with a seemingly innocuous invitation link to a Zoom conference. Quickly, one was logged in and could listen to the participants. FREILICH participated undercover when high-ranking politicians of Greens and SPD discussed the AfD ban procedure.
But one thing after the other: The Green member of federal parliament Renate Künast disclosed to the roughly 30 participants: The following conference is "so secret" that the main speaker was late to receive the participation link. Ahead, FREILICH learned: Only chosen members of the federal parliament were invited through e-mail - at least according to the plan, because the link has been forwarded to many others. But who was not welcome: members of parliament of the AfD. Because, during the Tuesday night conference, the participants discussed that, ahead of the start of a political party ban procedure, the Verfassungsschutz [Office for the Protection of the Constitution] should first present incriminating evidence about the AfD to the federal parliament.
The basis for this is a two-step process which Green Party politicians around MP Künast want to get into the federal parliament. In the conference, Künast explained her demand to abolish the free mandate of the elected AfD MPs [members of parliament].
A few minutes late, main speaker Christoph Möllers entered the stage: the Berlin-based constitutional lawyer criticized the competing AfD ban draft of CDU MP Marco Wanderwitz as "questionable". And baseless. Because, as soon as 37 MPs file charges at the Federal Constitutional Court, the intelligence agencies need to withdraw their informants from the AfD. In the failed procedure to ban the NPD, win which the Federal Assembly was represented by Professor Möllers, [the judges in] Karlsruhe criticized that the right-wing party, which was interspersed with undercover informants, is to be interpreted as an extension of the Ministry of the Interior. To ban a party with a two-digit approval rating, such as the AfD, is "kinda intense, too".
One day after the secret conference, Wanderwitz brought his ban procedure request into the federal parliament with the support of 113 MPs. Not among them: Renate Künast. The Green Party MP criticized Wanderwitz's request as premature in front of the media.
The participants are running out of time: At the start of the week, CDU and SPD agreed to an early general election on 23 February 2025, and Künast, who has been acting on the second rank of her parliamentary group as the speaker on nutrition policy, could use more of a public profile. The SPD politician Maja Wallstein considers the red-Green minority government, which resulted from the FDP's exodus, an "ultra bad political sign."
In spite of the time pressure, the participants didn't want to jump the gun: Lukas Benner, who helped his Green party mate Künast in the proposition, warned in the conference: If a ban procedure fails at the Federal Constitutional Court in the preliminary check already, the AfD gets a "hand and seal" with the "Karlsruhe eagle on it".
Künast knows: The hurdles for a party ban are extremely high, "extremist" does not need to be "unconstitutional" at all. The Green politician pointed out that, so far, the federal government has yet to issue a proposition for an AfD ban procedure. This could be because Nancy Faeser (SPD), who has written as a guest author for the left-wing magazine antifa, has yet to collect enough criminal evidence on the AfD, Künast said.
Professor Möllers, too, complained about the lack of transparency of Faeser's domestic intelligence agency: Of the court ruling of the upper administrative court of Münster in May 2024, only the verdict has been published. The public has been left in the dark in regards to the line of evidence. With regards to an AfD ban procedure right here and now, Möllers called himself a "skeptic". To get rid of doubt, a ban procedure would need to be conducted as a "concerted action by the federal parliament and the federal government". They would need to "explain" the purpose of a ban to "as many parties as possible". He does not consider himself ready yet to give this explanation to a broad public.
Möllers emphasized that a ban procedure against the AfD would be much harder than the failed ban procedure against the NPD. Because, unlike the latter, the AfD has a "clean party program". Unlike in the NPD procedure, in which it was especially publicly available information that was used as evidence, a procedure against the AfD would be more reliant on evidence gathered by intelligence agencies. But intelligence agency evidence is problematic in court in many aspects. And finally: An AfD ban would be uncharted territory in terms of foreign policy. Möllers did not specify whether he was alluding to the right-wing strengthening in Europe and the re-election of Donald Trump as US president.
The Green Party MP Lukas Benner complained that, in a party ban procedure, the federal parliament is disadvantaged as the petitioner: Unlike the federal government and the Federal Assembly, the parliament does not possess any agencies that can work out a watertight petition. That is why Nancy Faeser's interior intelligence agency has to deliver criminal evidence on the AfD to the federal parliament for a party ban procedure.
Möllers agreed that, from the federal parliament's right to introduce a proposition to initiate a political party ban procedure, the right to information from the interior intelligence agency follows. The way how Nancy Faeser's Ministry of the Interior, which rules over the interior secret service, "handles law", is "compartmentalized", however. The worst case scenario would be that the federal government and the majority of the federal parliament don't combine forces in preparing a party ban procedure. This would call the legitimacy of a ban proposition into doubt, the professor said.
Möllers reminded the listeners: The failed NPD ban procedure, at the time, has been proposed by the Federal Assembly. Without tight-knit cooperation with the federal government, the state governments that are represented in the Federal Assembly would never have managed to initiate a ban procedure.
The Green Party MP Karl Bär, who is part of the nutrition committee with his party mate Renate Künast, interjected: If you supplied the federal parliament with intelligence agency information about the opposition, wouldn't the AfD get that information too? Möllers appeases: "I gotta ask a very stupid question, it's very embarrassing that I don't know, but you all know this: Is the AfD in the parliamentary control committee?" Künast's reply: "No!"
The parliamentary control committee is a committee of the federal parliament which supervises the intelligence agencies and secret services. It is part of parliamentary tradition that every parliamentary group can put their members into the committees in proportion to their representation. That is how it is said in § 12 of the law of the federal parliament. But, so far, the other parties have obstructed the AfD from sending their MPs into the parliamentary control committee to supervise Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser's intelligence agency.
For that to remain the case, professor Möllers suggested to "think of a construction" in which the parliamentary control committee together with another committee takes over the decision-making process for the federal parliament. According to Möllers, these committees should decide as a surrogate for the rest of the MPs on whether the federal parliament shall initiate a ban procedure against the AfD.
Regarding democracy, Matthias Gastel spoke. The Green Party MP wanted to know whether an AfD prohibition could be problematic from a democratic point of view because of the size of the party. Because, in the case of a ban, the parliaments would "no longer be representative" due to the lack of AfD mandates.
Möllers said: Banning a party with the size of the AfD is "not a problem". The only problematic aspect is the loss of mandates. Because that could violate the European Human Rights Convention. Künast is also critical when it comes to intervening in free mandates: "Well, because you're getting rid of mandates, which isn't without issues, eh. If we look at history what has been going on here in this Reichstag or in the Kroll Opera House," Künast said.
Undercover among Greens: How the Greens actually think about an AfD ban
Nobody should be privy on this Zoom conference: But FREILICH were there live, when high-ranking politicians planned the AfD ban on Tuesday night.
One of the central figures in the conference was the Green Party politician Renate Künast.
It began with a seemingly innocuous invitation link to a Zoom conference. Quickly, one was logged in and could listen to the participants. FREILICH participated undercover when high-ranking politicians of Greens and SPD discussed the AfD ban procedure.
But one thing after the other: The Green member of federal parliament Renate Künast disclosed to the roughly 30 participants: The following conference is "so secret" that the main speaker was late to receive the participation link. Ahead, FREILICH learned: Only chosen members of the federal parliament were invited through e-mail - at least according to the plan, because the link has been forwarded to many others. But who was not welcome: members of parliament of the AfD. Because, during the Tuesday night conference, the participants discussed that, ahead of the start of a political party ban procedure, the Verfassungsschutz [Office for the Protection of the Constitution] should first present incriminating evidence about the AfD to the federal parliament.
The basis for this is a two-step process which Green Party politicians around MP Künast want to get into the federal parliament. In the conference, Künast explained her demand to abolish the free mandate of the elected AfD MPs [members of parliament].
A Green secret conference
A few minutes late, main speaker Christoph Möllers entered the stage: the Berlin-based constitutional lawyer criticized the competing AfD ban draft of CDU MP Marco Wanderwitz as "questionable". And baseless. Because, as soon as 37 MPs file charges at the Federal Constitutional Court, the intelligence agencies need to withdraw their informants from the AfD. In the failed procedure to ban the NPD, win which the Federal Assembly was represented by Professor Möllers, [the judges in] Karlsruhe criticized that the right-wing party, which was interspersed with undercover informants, is to be interpreted as an extension of the Ministry of the Interior. To ban a party with a two-digit approval rating, such as the AfD, is "kinda intense, too".
One day after the secret conference, Wanderwitz brought his ban procedure request into the federal parliament with the support of 113 MPs. Not among them: Renate Künast. The Green Party MP criticized Wanderwitz's request as premature in front of the media.
The fear of failure
The participants are running out of time: At the start of the week, CDU and SPD agreed to an early general election on 23 February 2025, and Künast, who has been acting on the second rank of her parliamentary group as the speaker on nutrition policy, could use more of a public profile. The SPD politician Maja Wallstein considers the red-Green minority government, which resulted from the FDP's exodus, an "ultra bad political sign."
In spite of the time pressure, the participants didn't want to jump the gun: Lukas Benner, who helped his Green party mate Künast in the proposition, warned in the conference: If a ban procedure fails at the Federal Constitutional Court in the preliminary check already, the AfD gets a "hand and seal" with the "Karlsruhe eagle on it".
Künast knows: The hurdles for a party ban are extremely high, "extremist" does not need to be "unconstitutional" at all. The Green politician pointed out that, so far, the federal government has yet to issue a proposition for an AfD ban procedure. This could be because Nancy Faeser (SPD), who has written as a guest author for the left-wing magazine antifa, has yet to collect enough criminal evidence on the AfD, Künast said.
Procedures against the AfD are harder
Professor Möllers, too, complained about the lack of transparency of Faeser's domestic intelligence agency: Of the court ruling of the upper administrative court of Münster in May 2024, only the verdict has been published. The public has been left in the dark in regards to the line of evidence. With regards to an AfD ban procedure right here and now, Möllers called himself a "skeptic". To get rid of doubt, a ban procedure would need to be conducted as a "concerted action by the federal parliament and the federal government". They would need to "explain" the purpose of a ban to "as many parties as possible". He does not consider himself ready yet to give this explanation to a broad public.
Möllers emphasized that a ban procedure against the AfD would be much harder than the failed ban procedure against the NPD. Because, unlike the latter, the AfD has a "clean party program". Unlike in the NPD procedure, in which it was especially publicly available information that was used as evidence, a procedure against the AfD would be more reliant on evidence gathered by intelligence agencies. But intelligence agency evidence is problematic in court in many aspects. And finally: An AfD ban would be uncharted territory in terms of foreign policy. Möllers did not specify whether he was alluding to the right-wing strengthening in Europe and the re-election of Donald Trump as US president.
Can't do it without Nancy
The Green Party MP Lukas Benner complained that, in a party ban procedure, the federal parliament is disadvantaged as the petitioner: Unlike the federal government and the Federal Assembly, the parliament does not possess any agencies that can work out a watertight petition. That is why Nancy Faeser's interior intelligence agency has to deliver criminal evidence on the AfD to the federal parliament for a party ban procedure.
Möllers agreed that, from the federal parliament's right to introduce a proposition to initiate a political party ban procedure, the right to information from the interior intelligence agency follows. The way how Nancy Faeser's Ministry of the Interior, which rules over the interior secret service, "handles law", is "compartmentalized", however. The worst case scenario would be that the federal government and the majority of the federal parliament don't combine forces in preparing a party ban procedure. This would call the legitimacy of a ban proposition into doubt, the professor said.
Möllers reminded the listeners: The failed NPD ban procedure, at the time, has been proposed by the Federal Assembly. Without tight-knit cooperation with the federal government, the state governments that are represented in the Federal Assembly would never have managed to initiate a ban procedure.
Keep the AfD out
The Green Party MP Karl Bär, who is part of the nutrition committee with his party mate Renate Künast, interjected: If you supplied the federal parliament with intelligence agency information about the opposition, wouldn't the AfD get that information too? Möllers appeases: "I gotta ask a very stupid question, it's very embarrassing that I don't know, but you all know this: Is the AfD in the parliamentary control committee?" Künast's reply: "No!"
The parliamentary control committee is a committee of the federal parliament which supervises the intelligence agencies and secret services. It is part of parliamentary tradition that every parliamentary group can put their members into the committees in proportion to their representation. That is how it is said in § 12 of the law of the federal parliament. But, so far, the other parties have obstructed the AfD from sending their MPs into the parliamentary control committee to supervise Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser's intelligence agency.
For that to remain the case, professor Möllers suggested to "think of a construction" in which the parliamentary control committee together with another committee takes over the decision-making process for the federal parliament. According to Möllers, these committees should decide as a surrogate for the rest of the MPs on whether the federal parliament shall initiate a ban procedure against the AfD.
Is that still democratic?
Regarding democracy, Matthias Gastel spoke. The Green Party MP wanted to know whether an AfD prohibition could be problematic from a democratic point of view because of the size of the party. Because, in the case of a ban, the parliaments would "no longer be representative" due to the lack of AfD mandates.
Möllers said: Banning a party with the size of the AfD is "not a problem". The only problematic aspect is the loss of mandates. Because that could violate the European Human Rights Convention. Künast is also critical when it comes to intervening in free mandates: "Well, because you're getting rid of mandates, which isn't without issues, eh. If we look at history what has been going on here in this Reichstag or in the Kroll Opera House," Künast said.
Last edited:
