And not just a few years ago, this is an ongoing issue. For instance, a government minister in Hessen tries to ensure that this politician from AfD (in opposition to the ruling CDU/SDP coalition) should not be able to work as a teacher.

http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/er-hatte-sport-und-geschi...

You're conveniently letting out the part about the racist remarks which are the actual cause. I'm all in favor of not letting racists teach children.

Well, very likely the same can be said about anti-nuclear protesters: they're not excluded for "political reasons", but for criminal actions which are "actual cause". Or so someone says. (Though in the case of this teacher, it looks like no crime could be cooked up). With AfD I've heard of trying to use just the political alignment as a reason (couldn't find the link just now).

You're missing the key difference here: The maximum an anti-nuclear protester could hope to achieve through his or her actions would be to have the country quit nuclear power generation, nuclear waste storage, etc.

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...

This is drifting beside the original point, but my understanding is that the anti-nuclear movement in Germany has established a non-negligible violent culture. If you go to these protests, you know you're going to participate in or give vocal support for violent action.

http://www.dw.com/en/clashes-between-police-and-anti-nuclear...

(I don't mind drifting for a bit)

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...

Actually I thought dozens of policemen were also injured, and police cars torched. Also a couple of paramedics were attacked if I got this right (I'm not native German).

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...

It says nowhere how the police got injured (attacked by the protesters, tripped and fell, got a dose of their own pepper spray, accidentally struck by a college when they used force on protesters). It does not say if the paramedics were attacked or if the injuries were just accidents. It also says nowhere that any police vehicles were torched, just that some police vehicles were somehow damaged.

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.

If dozens of policemen are injured and a couple of police cars burn in a demonstration, and the demonstrators had nothing to do with it, I must say that this a very remarkable coincidence. The police don't trip over like that and get careless with their matches anywhere else, to such a degree.

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.

The focus is a tabloid paper that belongs to the right of the political spectrum, they're rather fond of taking the police report at face value. And it's like the parent says: The police counts scratches and paint bags as "damage" (note: it's not a dozen police cars burned) as well as ankle injuries as "injured" (1). There are some clashes between the police and the protesters at the castor demos, but the demonstrations are not violent. The overwhelming majority is peaceful.

(1) That's fair to do, but something to keep in mind when interpreting the numbers.

If you're looking for samples you'll probably find sufficient if you're looking for NPD affiliates (they're not illegal either). If you look up cases where the affiliation is left-wing or anarchist you'll find even more. The standards for teachers are really very strict [1] - the must be "weltanschaulich neutral".

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.

When I started working in public sector I had to sign that I'm not a member of an unconstitutional group. As examples it included a list similar to this one: https://www.justiz.bayern.de/media/pdf/verzeichnis_extrorgan... It includes left-wing, right-wing, and islamist extremist groups.

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.

Very interesting list, but perhaps it is meant to include some hardline former members of the SED?

Die Linke is seen by some as some sort of pariah in the German political landscape, due to its legacy and roots in the SED from which they never really distanced themselves in a very clear form. It's a bit of a touchy topic and the expansion to west Germany swept up a lot of nutcases, some of them in the more extremist spectrum. The topic gets even more confused since they're fairly well rooted in Eastern Germany where they are basically a left wing form of the SPD while they never managed to achieve that success in the West.

Interesting list indeed, and not only the entry for "Die Linke" is at least questionable

And who gets to decide who is a racist?

Due process is there for a reason.

In this case I don't doubt it will end up in the courts which will observe due process. The statement was "we will try by all means" and Höcke is certainly free to appeal. Though the statements quoted were obviously racist, not even thinly veiled.

The distinction we hold in America is between letting a racist teach children vs teaching racism to children -- it is the act, not the beliefs, that are controlling. Though obviously I understand why European states are more wary in such cases.

I'm against censoring. What I read here: >>hatte ... von einem "lebensbejahenden afrikanischen Ausbreitungstyp" gesprochen - was von Experten als rassistisch gewertet worden war<< [1] should not be compared with how the term 'racist' has e.g. been used in the Third Reich. As I understand, it's a scientific method to generalize and the race is a factor (among many others) and one should be allowed to say such things without loosing the job.

[1] http://www.focus.de/politik/videos/er-hatte-sport-und-geschi...

You're mistaken. There's no censoring going on at all. Höcke is free to say whatever he wants in public. He even gets more publicity and reach than most people. However, freedom of speech doesn't mean that statements are without consequence. He already collected a warning for voicing extreme right tendencies earlier (before the AFD even existed) and well, now there's consequences. He's a history teacher and fringe right wing people are just the kind of history teachers that are unfit for the job. (fringe left-wing nutcases as well).

You are wrong. Censoring [1] is exactly what I said, "the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds". He is being threatened to lose his job, this is suppression. You don't have to agree with him but one should be careful with 'fringe right wing' claims and who is or is not fit for a job. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censoring

> You are wrong.

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

sorry, he leads a party that openly called for shooting children at the border. He's fringe (or I hope so, because if he isn't, I need to emigrate)

> he leads a party that openly called for shooting children at the border.

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

> Specifically, did they mention children? I didn't think so, but I could be mistaken.

you are mistaken.

can you translate this phrase? google translate produces "life-affirming African propagation type", which doesn't have any clear meaning...

The intended and implied meaning "the African race has more sex and reproduces faster"

HN doesn't disappoint ;-) knew already at writing time that this will deplete karma. (Nevermind, I have enough :-)

Nice term... who gets to define what counts. I remember a recent UK failing to protect children incident that shows the term itself is worthless to be used as any part of official government law.

What is the expected outcome of "being monitored"? If a new WWIII starts that means you'll be disappeared? In the mean time - what impact will this have on you?

I am just wondering how governments make intelligence "actionable".

Right now its mostly about “divide and conquer”. They inject moles into political groups which will then actively push for violence and extremism which in turn causes a split of the group. Another effect is that people that are active in opposition politics are always questioning whether their comrades are on the states payroll (“V-Mann”). The goals here are to 1) weaken opposition, and 2) provide plausible reason for more sate security (e.g. Verfassungsschutz).

(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?

In the past they used it to infect the laptop of a potentially drug trafficking medical doctor.

Of course it's unclear what the secret police is up to. This is mainly for the federal police and customs police.