Germany’s political police bureau has temporarily suspended its awarding itself the power to wiretap right-wing-populist Members of Parliament pending an urgent legal review filed by the targeted Alternative for Germany (AfD).
Right-wing-sovereigntist party the AfD, which became the second largest party and official opposition in the German Bundestag (Parliament) earlier this year was declared “confirmed right-wing extremist” last Friday by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). The party immediately challenged the decision, first issuing a deadline to the BfV to withdraw their decision and once that had expired, filed a cease and desist lawsuit.
The BfV said on Thursday that given legal proceedings are now underway, they had suspended but not cancelled the new classification pending the ruling of the court. This was called a “standstill declaration” which the agency said did not imply it was reversing its decision, but only acting out of deference to the court.
For the time being, this means new powers of surveillance on AfD members including wiretaps on the party’s members of parliament have been paused. The court case could take months or years to resolve, the last such challenge having taken four months to answer.
The BfV is part of Germany’s post-war legacy and is charged with closely policing adherence to the national constitution, with those suspected of conspiring to wish to deviate from the establishment-enforced status quo liable to be investigated and even spied upon.
Responses to the AfD order suspension have been mixed. The AfD itself have hailed it as a small victory, a return of serve by using legal process against what they say is a lawfare attack on their freedoms.
Party leader Alice Wiedel said of the development: “We are defending ourselves with all legal means… the Federal Office has given a corresponding commitment to stand still until the actual court decision, not to further designate the Alternative for Germany as ‘confirmed right-wing extremist’.” This is an important step toward exonerating the party.”
Germany’s Die Welt cites constitutional lawyer and academic Volker Boehme-Neßler who remarked the change was a temporary legal victory. He said: “Legally, it ultimately depends on the verdict in the main proceedings. Experience shows that it can take a long time until the verdict is reached—far longer than a year.”
As previously reported, the sudden move to classify the second largest political party in Germany and consequently subject all opposition Members of Parliament to wiretaps came on the penultimate day in power of the outgoing left-coalition government last week on the very verge of it handing over power. The timing is therefore seen as conspicuous, and has created a political headache for the new government by forcing it to deal with a decision made by the previous administration chucking policy-decision hand grenades in its final hours in power.
As stated, it is alleged the outgoing interior minister rushed to get the extremism order promulgated in time, even to the point where it didn’t go through the usual legal reviews by interior ministry experts.
The new German Interior Minister has said he will undertake those reviews internally before then deciding what to actually do with the decision. While this raises some hope for the AfD it will subsequently be found not to be a justified decision, minister Alexander Dobrindt is very much a political rival to the party and can’t be expected to be doing it any favours.
One route forward, it is reported, may be to publish the BfV report, which despite having been paraphrased extensively in several German newspapers remains technically confidential. The 1,108 paper is said to contains a chapter titled called “Evidence of Efforts Against the Free Democratic Basic Order” and cites AfD politicians allegedly making a distinction between “Germans” and “passport Germans” as sufficient evidence to justify wiretaps of politicians.
Even pointing out that migrants are more likely to be criminals is seen as an affront to German democracy, as these comments “fundamentally undermine confidence in the post-war state order”, it is said to be asserted.
Read the full article here