It is classic Nazi rhetoric and uses the same scapegoat that Anders Breivik used to justify the mass murder of more than 70 teenagers in Norway.
It’s awful, but I’m not sure how exactly you think that would factor in or be relevant in a possible court case. I’m fairly certain the bar of evidence is a bit higher than “they share talking points with other Nazis”.
Because those talking points revolve around the idea of an ethnically homogenous Europe/Nation that is in davger of being “conquered” by inferior races that have to be deported or murdered to prevent this alleged conquest.
It is genocidal ideology and as such is both in clear violation to the constitution and a danger to the democratic order.
The point is that their ideology gives way to murderous violence.
that is in davger of being “conquered” by inferior races that have to be deported or murdered to prevent this alleged conquest.
While that’s a common talking point on the right, that’s not even what the statement is saying. The only ones who are clearly villified in it are the people in power and they’re even brandished as supposedly “unconstitutional” (implying the Afd is on the side of the constitution).
It’s still complete hogwash of course and pure conspiracy thinking that is gross and detestable in several different ways.
The point is that their ideology gives way to murderous violence.
I don’t disagree. My point is only that just saying/claiming that by itself isn’t going to hold up in court. If it were, Weidel would have long been sued and found guilty of “Volksverhetzung” for statements like that. But these people, at least the more cunning ones, know how to couch their hate in words that generate some degree of plausible deniability and let their followers fill out the blanks.
The AfD also made statements of “well temperated cruelty” against the people they deem undesireable. In combination with these and many more statements made by high ranking AfD members there is no plausible deniability left.
In combination with these and many more statements made by high ranking AfD members there is no plausible deniability left.
Well, that certainly is a much better and more comprehensive point. It’s also just a claim of course and personally I don’t have a good enough overview of all the statements made, their relations etc to meaningfully judge that.
You’re free to expand on that point in more detail of course. Other than that, I can’t meaningfull contribute much here at this point.
There is over 2000 statements by AfD members, high ranking officials and also from official functions, like state or federal party executive committees.
It’s awful, but I’m not sure how exactly you think that would factor in or be relevant in a possible court case. I’m fairly certain the bar of evidence is a bit higher than “they share talking points with other Nazis”.
Because those talking points revolve around the idea of an ethnically homogenous Europe/Nation that is in davger of being “conquered” by inferior races that have to be deported or murdered to prevent this alleged conquest.
It is genocidal ideology and as such is both in clear violation to the constitution and a danger to the democratic order.
The point is that their ideology gives way to murderous violence.
While that’s a common talking point on the right, that’s not even what the statement is saying. The only ones who are clearly villified in it are the people in power and they’re even brandished as supposedly “unconstitutional” (implying the Afd is on the side of the constitution).
It’s still complete hogwash of course and pure conspiracy thinking that is gross and detestable in several different ways.
I don’t disagree. My point is only that just saying/claiming that by itself isn’t going to hold up in court. If it were, Weidel would have long been sued and found guilty of “Volksverhetzung” for statements like that. But these people, at least the more cunning ones, know how to couch their hate in words that generate some degree of plausible deniability and let their followers fill out the blanks.
The AfD also made statements of “well temperated cruelty” against the people they deem undesireable. In combination with these and many more statements made by high ranking AfD members there is no plausible deniability left.
Well, that certainly is a much better and more comprehensive point. It’s also just a claim of course and personally I don’t have a good enough overview of all the statements made, their relations etc to meaningfully judge that.
You’re free to expand on that point in more detail of course. Other than that, I can’t meaningfull contribute much here at this point.
If you speak German there is this website, of an activist artist group that wants to initiate the party to be banned too.
https://afd-verbot.de/beweise
There is over 2000 statements by AfD members, high ranking officials and also from official functions, like state or federal party executive committees.
Thanks! Will take a look.