Edit: People are also targeted for being critical of the Verfassungsschutz, so me writing this as well as you replying positively is a likely reason to be monitored, take care!
Edit: People are also targeted for being critical of the Verfassungsschutz, so me writing this as well as you replying positively is a likely reason to be monitored, take care!
http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/er-hatte-sport-und-geschi...
The political views of a far-right politician such as Höcke (probably aka Landolf Ladig[1]), if you translate them into what he hopes to turn Germany into, threaten the liberal democratic basis of the German constitution. And that we have a law against.
Naturally, the means through which said anti-nuclear activists try to achieve their goals, if only of making themselves heard, need to be legal, and if those actions are sufficiently illegal that they constitute a crime, I'm sure that will get the perpetrators in trouble and rightly so.
[1] https://andreaskemper.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/landolf-ladig...
http://www.dw.com/en/clashes-between-police-and-anti-nuclear...
A considerable part of their actions is very disruptive, seeking to, in the view of the protesters, I imagine, annoy everybody involved in the transport of nuclear waste to such an extent that they'll give up, while in actuality just causing a financial burden for the taxpayer (17000(!) policemen were in service during the protest you linked to according to [1]). That includes the traditional "Schottern" (the "[removal of] gravel from the bed of the train tracks to stop the train" as the article calls it), see also [2].
Even encouraging others to go "Schottern" on the internet is punishable[3] (sorry, again only in German) and punished, though.
And with respect to physical attacks, I think those protesters are rather harmless. I believe not a single policeman was injured in the aforementioned protests, even though thousands of protests were there (1500 at some point, 5000 at another point in time).
[1] http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2010-11/castor-gorleb... [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottern [3] http://www.oberlandesgericht-celle.niedersachsen.de/portal/l...
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/atomausstieg/castor-...
Anyway, I think that based on this it is not entirely unreasonable that the police does keep an eye on the protesters.
However, I'm quite doubtful about the wisdom of the "Trojan" plan:
http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-to-use-trojan-spyware...
If I recall correctly (well, this is from 2011), the majority of injured police was not at the hands of protesters but accidents, exhaustion and "friendly fire" - but a very few police got attacked or were injured in brawls and suffered minor injuries - the paramedics were mistakenly pepper sprayed by the police, and the police vehicles mostly had accidents where they drove into ditches and such, but a one or two were e.g. scrapped or damaged by people throwing train track gravel at it. Both injuries and damage (to police property), were aggravated by heavy rain and storm and the events taking place in rural areas and/or on gravel train tracks.
According to the police itself, most protesters were strictly peaceful and caused property damage to the train tracks at most ("Schottern").
So you got it mostly wrong, I'm afraid.
I do think it is extremely unreasonable and actually harmful to democracy for the police to track lawful, non-violent peaceful protesters exercising their basic rights (Grundgesetz) of free speech and freedom of assembly, or sanction or discourage them otherwise. This does not include violent people or people breaking the laws by e.g. willfully causing property damage, of course.
I also think it's very wrong to sanction people who you claim to be racist. If they are found to be unlawfully racist by an actual court, or demonstratively found to spread racist garbage as a teacher at a school, then again, that's a different matter.
My understanding of the demonstrations is that they were not intended as lawful, non-violent peaceful protests. The organizers wanted to make criminal damage (the "Shottern"), and some of the group were also very intent on violence.
The problem here is that anyone who was participating surely must have known what they're about to participate, even if many have themselves only wanted to not damage or hit anyone themselves. Just create a crowd where this can be done. And it is indeed hard to decide what level of surveillance is necessary and appropriate to prevent violence and large-scale damage.
(1) That's fair to do, but something to keep in mind when interpreting the numbers.
There's certainly a debate to be had about whether they're too strict, but IMHO, Höcke is so far across the line that I'm all in favor of keeping him out.
Edit: Note: higher standards apply for all government employees, but they're stricter for some, among them teachers, police etc.
Interestingly this list also contains the leftist party "Die Linke" which now has been a member of the federal parliament for a rather long time. That being said it's probably not a hindrance if you are a member there but you are expected to explain yourself.
Due process is there for a reason.
[1] http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/er-hatte-sport-und-geschi...
Just because you have a different opinion does not make yours right nor does it make mine wrong. I'll reiterate for you why I don't see any censorship here.
Bernd Höcke is "verbeamteter" Teacher. Beamte in germany are a special kind of state employees that get many benefits (1) but in return give up some liberties (2) and as part of their oath of office they commit themselves to a neutral political view in public and a very strict adherence to the constitution. All kind of extreme political opinion voiced in public are off limits for them - left or right. It's a contract that Bernd Höcke willingly and freely entered without coercion. He violated that rule in 2006 and was warned. He now violated it again. He basically violated his employment contract and for that he's terminated. He's still free to voice his opinion. No censorship here.
(1) can't be fired unless they commit a grave offense, get their health insurance and pension funded by the government etc. (2) also the right to strike, etc
My understanding is that
1) he is not leading the party, he is one of the speakers for the party in the local (state) assembly. And I understand he is actually repeatedly clashing with the actual AfD leadership.
2) any comments about "shooting children" or even generally changing rules of engagement regarding firearms are not, as far as I know, an AfD party position, as the party leader responds in [0]
3) I understood the comments about using firearms were for a context where authorities are under a violent attack when performing their duties. Specifically, did they mention children? I didn't think so, but I could be mistaken.
I don't need to like what the "fringe" says, but I wouldn't like to make it bigger than it is. Because precisely this kind of exaggeration is what is undermining the credibility of legitimate criticism of AfD (the most devastating kind being, "hey, what would you really do instead?" because that is a question that is very hard to answer.) Its supporters see the opponents as just twisting the truth.
(I'm not experiencing this in Germany, but there are very similar discussions going on here in the Nordic countries: enormous straw men constructions are built all the time around criticism of immigration policies, and people are really quite fed up with that. If you keep repeating to people that they are racists, they may eventually start to believe you. In Sweden, the political consensus to "exclude the extreme right fringe from politics" seems to be resulting in the "extreme right fringe" now having the second largest electoral support of all parties [1], and continuing to grow. Once they go near 50 % it's going to be hard to talk about "fringe".)
[0] http://www.dw.com/en/german-right-leaning-afd-leader-calls-f... [1] http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22117739.ab
you are mistaken.
I am just wondering how governments make intelligence "actionable".
(Historically, the Verfassungsschutz was founded after WW2 and its goal was to persecute communists. It was headed by hardcore Nazis for more than 30 years. Even the Americans called it a “phony” institution, since its name translates to “Constitution Protectors”.)
There are rumors that big parts of the Neo-Nazi scene is funded by the Verfassungsschutz. They funded and instrumented the NSU assassinations and the Oktoberfest bombing. That's only what we know of today, go figure.
If there was a fascist regime change in Germany, yes, I would expect a lot of people to be disappeared.
Impact on me personally, right now? How would you feel if there was a military black-ops agency tapping you?
Of course it's unclear what the secret police is up to. This is mainly for the federal police and customs police.