Lawmakers discussing important issues at legislative assembly. - The AfD party equates the safeguarding of the constitution with the practices of the Stasi.
During a heated debate in the state parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in Schwerin, AfD lawmaker Horst Foerster sparked controversy by comparing the Constitutional Protection with the notorious Stasi of East Germany. The comparison was deemed "beyond good and evil" by SPD MP Robert Northoff. Michael Noetzel from the Left party responded, "It's appalling to compare these two institutions." He emphasized the stark contrast between the two, noting that the Constitutional Protection does not possess executive powers, control prisons, or have the authority to arrest individuals. "The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is evident here," Noetzel remarked.
Foerster had raised the issue during the discussion of the fundamental right to freedom of expression requested by his faction. He argued that with the introduction of the new extremism category "constitutional protection-relevant delegitimization of the state," anyone who criticizes the government could potentially be targeted. This parallel with the GDR crime of "state-hostile agitation" becomes evident. "The Constitutional Protection is startlingly becoming an institution that has taken on the role of shield and sword of the government, just as the Stasi of the GDR," Foerster stated.
In the past, Foerster had raised concerns about the diminishing freedom of expression in Germany. "The state is not only seeking to regulate speech, but also thought," he claimed.
Opposing lawmakers from all other factions disputed Foerster's claims. They cited the entrenchment of freedom of expression in the German constitution. "We should be grateful to live in a country where the right to express our opinions is not just enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution, but also upheld by state institutions," emphasized FDP faction leader René Domke. People can say whatever they want, as long as it's not illegal or infringes on the rights of others, he added. When boundaries are crossed, it's the responsibility of the law and, if necessary, the courts to make that determination. This distinction from the GDR regime was emphasized.
Read also:
- Despite the controversy brought forth by AfD lawmaker Horst Foerster's comparison of the Constitutional Protection to the Stasi, the discussion on the fundamental right to freedom of expression in the state parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in Schwerin continued.
- Foerster's comparison drew strong condemnation from SPD MP Robert Northoff, who described it as "beyond good and evil."
- The GDR state security, notorious for its oppressive practices, served as a stark contrast to the Constitutional Protection, which does not possess executive powers, control prisons, or have the authority to arrest individuals, according to Michael Noetzel from the Left party.
- Foerster argued that the new extremism category "constitutional protection-relevant delegitimization of the state" could potentially target anyone criticizing the government, drawing a parallel with the GDR crime of "state-hostile agitation."
- The AfD party's equating the safeguarding of the constitution with the practices of the Stasi raised concerns among other lawmakers from different factions, who cited the entrenchment of freedom of expression in the German constitution.
- The Rights faction leader, René Domke, emphasized that while people can say whatever they want, the law and, if necessary, the courts should determine when boundaries are crossed.
- The issue of freedom of expression and the role of the Constitutional Protection in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania came under scrutiny, drawing comparisons to the authoritarian practices of the GDR state security, and sparking a political debate in the German state.
