Nancy Faeser is worse than the new Coke lid.
The Federal Minister of the Interior wanted to ban a far-right magazine, even though she couldn't. She completes the picture of a thin-skinned, aggressive federal government.
Those looking for evidence that our state is tipping towards freedom-hostility don't have it too hard right now. Opening a bottle of cola from the fridge might suffice. The PET bottles have new caps now, due to, of course, EU environmental protection. The lids don't come off as easily anymore. I find it unusual and, like every person over forty, I hate changes.
But it seems to be about more than that, as the bourgeois press explains: "People are being taught how to drink correctly," writes an author of the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung". Yes, one could rip off the caps, she admits. But that seems to be only a cunning fig leaf of freedom, because: "The ripped-off tabs now stick out sharply from the bottle neck and cut into the fingers." And: "They prick the cheeks and lips while drinking."
I don't want to seem heartless, but if someone looks like Edward Scissorhands has applied their lipstick after consuming a cold drink, it might be time for a sippy cup.
Legal Nonsense from the Highest Level
The traffic light coalition presents better evidence of freedom-hostility than the EU: The federal government is currently collecting testaments of freedom-hostility from the judiciary on a weekly basis. For example, the anti-discrimination commissioner was rebuked by the court three times because she refused to provide information to Julian Reichelt's rabble-rousing organ "Nius". Various parts of the traffic light coalition have already failed against Reichelt due to exaggerations. And the Robert Koch Institute had to hand over corona documents due to legal pressure.
Most recently, Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser failed against the far-right rag "Compact". Faeser had announced "the ban of the right-wing extremist 'COMPACT magazine'" a month ago, but that was already legal nonsense from the highest level: An interior minister cannot ban magazines, only the organizations behind them.
The phrasing was at best simplistic and at worst authoritarian, because one of the biggest legal disputes around such bans revolves exactly around this distinction: Can the state effectively ban magazines by pulling the legal rug out from under the journalists' feet?
Hoecker Talers and Everyday Texts
Even more problematic for the knight against right-wing extremism is the fact that she has crashed into a low-hanging branch at full gallop: The Federal Administrative Court has suspended the "magazine ban", which was never one, for now. The court approved the rug trick, but they have doubts: They doubt whether the state can abruptly eliminate an organization whose magazine presents a brown audience with right-wing extremist material and absurdities like a "Hoecker Taler" in the online shop, alongside legally sound everyday texts.
One could also take action against the organization with event and assembly bans, the judges mused, and that might be a subtle hint that an interior minister should not primarily ban an organization if she is targeting the magazine. A final decision is still pending.
This would have been less dramatic, had the Minister not celebrated the strike against the far-right too much beforehand, pompously beating her chest with legal arguments. The image of masked police officers standing in front of "Compact" editor-in-chief Jürgen Elsässer in his bathrobe was one that no AI could have fabricated more beautifully. It didn't look like a calm rule of law back then - and after the defeat at the Federal Administrative Court, it now seems downright reckless.
Elsässer sees his interim victory (literally, somewhat delicate: "Victory! Victory! Victory!") as proof of the dictatorial nature of Germany. But that's nonsense, because in a dictatorship, he wouldn't have been able to sue. But such logical flaws should not reassure anyone: Faeser's "Compact" ban is already a significant fiasco, even if she manages to enforce it in the end.
Nightmare for fundamental rights
Moreover, it's not Faeser's only overreach: During the summer break, there's also a murmur about other initiatives by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, laid out in an unpublished bill. The state would be able to compare public data on the internet to find criminals, i.e., faces, videos, gait patterns, etc., a nightmare for fundamental rights, as critics believe.
The same law would also allow secret apartment searches, but only in case of terror danger - well then! "In the state governed by the Basic Law, we don't do such things. That would be an absolute taboo," says Marco Buschmann of the FDP, who sits next to Faeser as Federal Minister of Justice. That's probably what they call inter-ministerial coordination. Older people may remember that the FDP once resigned from the Justice Ministry over such ideas, during the "Big Eavesdropping" case.
If the federal government wants to contradict the impression of overreach, it's doing a lousy job. The overall picture shows a state that is thin-skinned and aggressive towards its citizens. Difficult and polarized times on their own do not justify the erosion of fundamental rights.
Thanks for nothing
A democracy must be vigilant, as it is set up in the Basic Law. I don't know if "Compact" is so dangerous that it must be banned. The Basic Law demands such a step under certain conditions. However, there is no automatic process, as authorities can and should weigh facts. A political leadership must weigh the political repercussions of a "magazine ban." In times when many people feel they can no longer express their opinion, restraint and legal precision are required.
Freedom is not a fair-weather idea; on the contrary, the more difficult the search for truth, the more freedom a society needs. Those who applaud Faeser's authoritarian gestures on the left should also keep this in mind: So far, the authoritarian state has been a trademark of the right. There is no political vacuum here. And those who have to be reminded of their fundamental rights by the courts today cannot tomorrow drum for the liberal democracy.
Faeser's haste has at least ensured that a far-right figure like Elsässer, journalists' associations, and commentators oriented towards freedom now stand on the same side. Thanks for nothing - I'd rather have cut my face with a soda lid.
In light of the Minister's premature celebration and aggressive rhetoric towards banning "Compact," the image of law enforcement became questionable. Her overreaching actions have led to a significant fiasco, even if she manages to enforce the ban in the end.
The anti-discrimination commissioner, who faced legal challenges for refusing to provide information, serves as another example of the federal government's questionable approach to freedom-hostility.
