Einzelfallmap social media accounts that tracked refugee crimes.
Some of their content was debatable, but they were nowhere near the level of indymedia.
Then they put the identitarian movement on a watch list, who have done very little so far in terms of actual crime.
... which regularly posted conspiracy theories, fake news and distributed hate speech against migrants.
> Einzelfallmap social media accounts that tracked refugee crimes.
...ONLY "refugee" crimes, without a comparison to German crimes this is nothing more than inciting hate.
> Some of their content was debatable, but they were nowhere near the level of indymedia.
It was Twitter and Facebook that shot them down. Private entities, not the government - that's a difference.
> Then they put the identitarian movement on a watch list, who have done very little so far in terms of actual crime.
One IB guy in Berlin nearly ran over a cop with a car. The IB tried obstructing of SAR NGOs, and they were filmed while trying to pirate a speedboat of Open Arms NGO boat. IB activists have committed many crimes, ranging from simple vandalism over shooting with (fake) guns (Martin Sellner in Austria) to attempted murder (the guy with the truck and the police officer).
Also, there's the continuous effort to ban the right-wing party (NPD).
"Normal" right-wing as in conservative would be CDU and CSU. To quote the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) [0]
>Die Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) vertritt ein auf die Beseitigung der bestehenden freiheitlichen demokratischen Grundordnung gerichtetes politisches Konzept.
The Nationaldemocratic Party Germany (NPD) stands for a political concept aimed at abolishing the free democratic constitutional structure.
[0] https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemit...
edit: fix'd formatting
Horrible.
Also, banning a political party is quite a big hammer, regardless of how important the party itself is.
What I'm having trouble following is the logic of "the violent extremism on the other side is less bad, because it hasn't led to similarly horrible effects yet".
Breaking the law is breaking the law.
Literally illegal to call for less immigration.
Not at all.
In that specific hate-inciting speech Geert Wilders was calling for fewer Moroccans. And this is primarily directed towards Dutch people with a Moroccan background who've already live in the Netherlands for decades or are second-generation immigrants. There is virtually no immigration from Morocco, in 2015 approximately 1% of the immigrants arriving in The Netherlands was Moroccan [1].
[1] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2016/47/jaarrapport-inte...
Most political parties in The Netherlands have talked about the problems of immigration and integration in The Netherlands at least since Pim Fortuyn 15 years ago. Some parties longer (e.g. Frits Bolkenstein of the VVD, who Geert Wilders worked for). So, it is by no means illegal to talk about current or past immigration policies.