Münchner Freiheit: How money and means can be deprived from the militant arm of the political left
No dough, no go, and no contributions no celebrations. That also applies to politics, in the partisan background, and for the organizations active in that area. The so-called Antifa (anti-fascists) are more than glad to receive government subsidies or be allowed to use facilities provided by the public hand. This can be changed. Munich FREEDOM would like to show you how.
Democracy is the competition for the support of one’s ideas, concepts, ideologies and approaches to solutions. Parties also, or in truth, only parties participate in this contest of ideas. According to the constitution, they have the duty of working together for the formation of a political line to which, without doubt, the contest of ideas belongs.
Of course, a contest is only a contest if it takes place under equal and consequently fair conditions. Thus, the equality of chances is a key criterion. For this reason, the state is bound to neutrality between all parties. It is not compatible with the idea of democracy that when a party that achieves temporary power through elections would use captured instruments of governmental power in such a way as to thwart its competitors or even eliminate them from the contest of political ideas.
This imperative of neutrality of governmental and communal establishments has also been presented in simplicity for the sake that a town hall rented to Party A must also be allocated to Party B. Thus, it doesn’t matter if the party governing the town council approving the rental contract finds the ideas of the party holding its session in the town hall acceptable. In a realistic campaign situation, this very thing should not be allowed to be a deciding factor – even if the established parties here and there need to be reminded of this basic principle with help from the administrative courts.
However, it is not just unacceptable to rule out parties based on their programs for use of public facilities. Likewise it is not consistent with fair competition between parties to employ public means for the sake of thwarting other political approaches and preventing their promotion. Thus, the police are fundamentally not allowed to be employed for the sake of preventing the legal assembly of a party.
But what is the behavior when the government puts the financial means into the hands of others to do what the government itself is not allowed to do? It can hardly be called legitimate if others are paid to do this and are equipped with – governmental – resources to facilitate the breaking of law by third parties. In other words: The state cannot pay third parties to perform actions that the state itself is not legally allowed to perform.
The Antifa – at least in its aggregate – has as its special objective the suppression of and battling against certain political opinions. That may at first still have been limited to actual Nazis, but for a long while now it has managed to flow over into civilian positions. It doesn’t need to be emphasized here that it is of great importance for the Antifa to put a stop to bearers of undesirable opinions in the promotion of their views, and even in doing so rendering an effective public battle of ideas impossible.
The Antifa undertakes this in many ways with government and community support. Thus extreme left-wing organizations are provided with money or – like the case of Munich and the Marat Kafe (Café) – they are given aid from the public hand in various and additional ways through the transfer of a building owned by the city.
If a party that is not prohibited should somehow express a decidedly different opinion about immigration than that opinion represented by the Antifa – and the established parties – then they would feel the resistance of the left-leaning Storm Troops. This resistance against a new orientation in foreign policy and, above all, against the competition of opinion oriented in this direction is being financed by the government and exercised by the Antifa.
It is even being permitted to promote political education of the citizens by means of government funds. But limits have been placed on this promotion through the principle of neutrality of the state with connection to direction and purpose.
Where these limits lie follow the judgment, among other things, by the Constitutional Court regarding the financing of party donations. In 1983, the Greens lodged a complaint when they themselves were still against such undercover party financing. The party of Joschka Fischer and Jutta Ditfurth saw their equality of opportunity impaired by the state funding for other parties. The campaign advantage was not consistent with the commission of the parties and the respective equality of treatment and, therefore, the rights of the Greens were infringed upon according to Article 21 and Article 3 of the constitution.
The Greens actually lost that trial before the Constitutional Court. However, only because the Karlsruhe protectors of the Constitution had no influence in the party campaigns due to the partisan donations which impaired the equality of chances afterward. At the same time, though, the court pointed out the limits of state-financed political education. But also which requirements such educational work must fulfill can be understood from the judgment. Thus, for example, the foundations are not allowed to engage in the competition between political parties or campaign aid.
The state supported Antifa, however, engages directly in the political competition of the parties and vehemently impedes the processes of various election events. It is irrelevant in this whether it happens within the legal framework. It is a seizure of influence on the election campaign being funded by the state. The stated goal of the Reds/Fascists is – in abiding with the above mentioned example – to put a stop to parties having an agenda that departs from established policies regarding foreign politics. It is the duty the Antifa to make it impossible for undesired parties to win over followers and supporters. To do this, the internet has been converted into a stake that is used to keep citizens from participation, to make the members of undesired parties seem offensive and to scare them away in the contest of opinions.
Partisan foundations, for this very reason, see the Constitutional Court as reliable permissible, since these foundations enable all interested citizens to have a public discussion accessible by everyone regarding political and societal questions. The fact that the financing and support of the Antifa does the exact opposite, is something that doesn’t necessarily need to be emphasized here.
Looking for a more effective financial means against the Antifa is, in all truth, hardly thinkable. Moreover, one would need to be a party according to the dictates of Article 21 of the Constitution. I first came up with the idea when I myself was still serving a function in a party and was engaged as a member there. In my observation, though, my former party didn’t pick up on this idea. For this reason, I wish great success for any democratic and rule-of-law minded party that would take up this idea – and at the same time act on it.
A few more remarks in closing:
- I have often discussed this basic idea and with (noteworthy) jurists as well. I was able to convince almost every one of them, and a great many were enthusiastic about it. One of them suggested to me that the Antifa should be seen as an administrative aid – which says something to the (administrative) jurists. For all the others: The towing company owner that tows off illegally parked automobiles, is a businessman, however he is allocated to the authorities.
- The causality of subsidizing the opposition is, in my view, not really a problem. Through the fact alone that the Antifa’s aim is to thwart specific parties, it cannot be the duty of the political organizations whose right were violated to lead the establishment of the fact that the structure of the Red hordes also that took part in the prevention of assemblies, etc. obtained the means to do so. The word “anti” makes it only too clear that one is oriented against a specific point of view that – as has been shown – for long already has stretched out over liberal market and conservative points of view. The Antifa orients itself against participation in the partisan competition of such viewpoints. However upon raising the prospect to the – first – success is the way an organization of the Antifa should be attacked, which can also be shown to have participated in the opposition (for example, a call on the internet page).
- Complaints about access to facilities made available to the Antifa have their justification. However, in themselves, they are not any good for depriving these organizations of funds. One is only achieving access for himself (his party, etc.), but not the denial of use by the Antifa and definitely not the resources.
- In the case of a nationally established party, the possibility exists of deciding on a specific location for the raising of the complaint. In this case not only the Antifa but also the possibility of administrative jurisdiction at the location could be considered there. One should consider the free choice provided in this fashion as an opportunity. Whereby the party in any case should be ready to take a very long path.
Article image: Often with state subsidy against the rule of law in the streets: The so-called “antifa” (Image: Jcarax68; Source: Wikipedia; Rights: see link)