AfD fights against judgment: Dreyer's criticism of the party remains allowed!
AfD fights against judgment: Dreyer's criticism of the party remains allowed!
The argument between the Rhineland-Palatinate AfD and the former Prime Minister Malu Dreyer (SPD) goes into the next round. Despite a judgment by the Rhineland-Palatinate Constitutional Court, which classified Dreyer's statements as justified, the AfD filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court last Friday. According to AfD state chief Jan Bollinger and Justice Robin Classen, the judgment that Dreyer supports in their right is not accepted by the AfD.
The disputes between the AfD and Dreyer led to violent discussions about the neutrality requirement, which says that state organs are not allowed to intervene unilaterally in political competition. Dreyer's public criticism of the AfD, which she classified as an anti -constitutional, resulted in a lawsuit by the AfD. This assumes Dreyer's statements a clear violation of Article 21 of the Basic Law, which is intended to protect the party competition.
the neutrality requirement and the protection of democracy
The constitutional court decided that Dreyer's statements, including a call for a demonstration against right -wing movements, violated the neutrality requirement, but served to protect democracy. This represents a defeat for the AfD, which in the past had success with similar lawsuits against government members. In his argument, Bollinger emphasizes that officials should express themselves privately, but these expressions of opinion should not be made in their responsibility as an official.
In addition, Dreyer expressed that the AfD's policy scares many people in Germany. The court ruling is confirmed by the court ruling to proceed against anti -constitutional currents. The judgment also gives new scope for a critical examination of the AfD and could have a lasting impact on the political landscape in Rhineland-Palatinate.
reactions and other complaints
The reactions to the decision of the Constitutional Court show the tensions within Rhineland-Palatinate politics. Jan Bollinger speaks of a dangerous precedent that could significantly change the political rhetoric between the AfD and the other state government. In addition, the CDU opposition has filed another lawsuit against Prime Minister Alexander Schweitzer (SPD). This refers to a criticism of Schweitzer at the CDU cooperation with the AfD and is in turn justified by the neutrality requirement.
The constitutional lawyer Joachim Wieland emphasized in this context that Schweitzer could not refer to the argument of protection of the democratic basic order. Although the State Chancellery has already withdrawn the controversial online publications, it remains to be seen how the courts will react to the new complaints and whether the political debate about the AfD in the country remains so emotional.
The dispute over the statements about Dreyers and the judgment of the Constitutional Court not only opens up another conflict between parties, but also raises fundamental questions about the role of officials in the political discussion and the framework conditions under which they can act.
It is particularly noteworthy that the Dreyer's court has classified statements as necessary for the protection of democracy, which could significantly influence the possibilities of future political criticism. This raises the question of how the political actors in Rhineland-Palatinate will behave in the future and whether similar challenges are becoming more important in a different form.The coming negotiation for the AfD remains of central importance before the Federal Constitutional Court. She faces the challenge of convincingly representing her view of things and at the same time weighing up the political reactions to her complaint.
| Details | |
|---|---|
| Quellen | |