SFP 1-1

The Government's Case
To begin with, it is important to demonstrate that a substantial, if not most of the Government's
case is based on collections of NPD speeches, declarations or other such materials. This serves
to prove that Government's attempt to the NPD is in effect, if a charge is based on nothing else,
an attempt to curtail the NPD's right to free expression.
On the 3 rd of December 2013 Germany's Union Assembly (Bundesrat) officially submitted
it's lawsuit of the NPD to Germany's Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVG))
(Balk 2014). The following is a sample of charges brought by the Bundesrat's officially submitted,
265 page document, Antrag nach Art. 21 Abs. 2 GG i.V.m §§ 13 Nr. 2, 43 ff. BverGG.
As an initial confirmation of this paper's thesis, that the charges are largely based on public
statements, we read on pages eighteen to nineteen,
„Der Antrag ist maßgeblich aus allgemein zugänglichen Materialien informiert. [...]
Von besonderem dokumentarischem Wert sind zahlreiche programmatische Äußerungen,
[...]” (Möllers/Waldhoff 2013: 18-19).
Included is evidence from police investigations, described as,
„[...] von der Polizei vorgenommene [...] Beobachtung öffentlicher Veranstaltungen
der Antragsgegnerin (NPD), die es der Polizei gestatten, mit Hilfe von Notizen oder
anderen Formen der Aufzeichnung Aktivitäten der Partei zu dokumentieren” (Möllers/Waldhoff
2013: 19-20).
In addition the charge sheet cites, “[...] Erkenntnisse aus der empirischen sozialwissenschaftlichen
Forschung [...]” (Empirical Social Studies), as well as, „Sachverständigergutachten”
(Expert testimony) (Möllers/Waldhoff 2013: 20, 22). As a result we conclude, that the
Government's case rests on three Pillars of evidence. One, NPD statements and speeches, two,
Police records of speeches, three social studies and expert testimony. Next, we examine three
examples given in the paper, to evaluate the nature of NPD speech and activities.
One: Anti-Semitism
In the section A. Sachverhalt/III Ideologie/5. Insbesondere Antisemitismus, the following evidence
is presented. The paper list's „[...] offen antisemitische Äußerungen, auch wenn einzelne
Begriffe entsprechend konnotiert sind”. Such as „fremdreligiösen Bauten”, „Zinswucher”,
„Weltdiktatur des Großkapitals”, or „Bundesrepublik als ‚Judenrepublik‘”, „jüdisch-amerikanische
Interessen” and „Krummnasen für Juden“ (Möllers/Waldhoff 2013: 52).
Two: Parlamentary Statements
The following are exerts from the section A. Sachverhalt/IV. Politische Aktivität, in 1. Parlamentische
Aktivität (Landtage). In evidence is the „Verachtung des demokratisch-parlamentischen
Systems” (Möllers/Waldhoff 2013: 60), by quoting the NPD's Tino Müller, who stated:
2