• 0 Posts
  • 86 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
rss



    1. Claiming the BfV is biased against the AfD has to be your attempt at satire. The same BfV that was run by Maaßen for 6 years? The same BfV that covered up their involvement with the NSU?

    2. For the assessment of the BfV the publicly stated policy goals of the AfD may or may not have mattered (if I wanted to destroy German democracy I wouldn’t write that into my election program either). The BfV has come to the conclusion that the AfD’s actual goals are incompatible with the FDGO, because they are based on their understanding of what “German” means (which for the AfD is primarily an ethnic designation).

    3. Here are two examples of policies that the AfD fought for (its from their Grundsatzprogramm):

    • No more citizenship for persons who are born in Germany and reach adulthood while living here unless one of their parents is German. This is discrimination based on ethnicity. This violates Art.3 Abs. 3 of the Grundgesetz.
    • AfD wants to suspend the right to Asylum. This violates Art 16a, Abs 1 of the Grundgesetz.


  • The report was intended for publication at a later date specifically because it had not passed the full review process yet. That’s why it’s not public. A news magazine with a reputation for investigative reporting (think German NYT but a bit more conservative leaning) has gotten their hands on at least part of the report and chose to write about it.

    That is why the report is not public (yet), because it is still undergoing the internal audits you are asking for.

    Yes it matters how it’s done. And they are trying to do it right. How the report got to the magazine and the motives of potential leakers are pure speculation at this point.

    From what I have read (hence from what is known) it’s a 1000 page document compiled by an organisation that has had it in the past trouble when it came to persecuting right wing extremism (they covered up their involvement with a right wing terror group and a former head of the BfV was kicked out for passing information about the early stages of this investigation into the AfD to the AfD, to name just two recent examples).

    If such a report makes it through such an organisation I expect it to hold more than just hear say and speculation.

    no legal implications follow from this report,

    That is not entirely correct. If the BfV internally accepts the report as factual it can use a wider array of tools to observe and investigate the AfD. It’s content could (again, after the review process has been completed) be published and used as evidence for administrative and legal proceedings of whatever nature. (eg a prospective teacher was prohibited from joining the Bavarian education system because of her left wing extremist political views. If the AfD is classified as a right wing extremist organisation the same could happen to AfD members).






  • I don’t think you can generalize to the degree you are implying here.

    There are significant differences between how we (as in humans) act outside the family and inside the family. Somebody may be toxic, have substance abuse issues, or display sociopathic traits outwardly but be a kind, loving and caring person towards their children. This discrepancy would of course create conflict, but parents not being perfect is also perfectly normal and happens in middle class families too.

    I personally know a couple of people from fairly rich families. And while some of them definitely had toxic parents, some did not. Most of them are just people. In a lot of cases its just a case of ignorance. How they react to being confronted with their ignorance is IMHO more relevant for character judgement and that is also a trait instilled by their parents.

    For what it’s worth, the absolutely worst parents I know are thoroughly middle class.







  • Specifically where it relates to violent crime.

    Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:

    “If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges.”

    While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:

    “The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope.”

    The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.

    As I understand it “All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is… like… super cool” would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.