The CDU and CSU asked a question about NGOs just before the Bundestagswahl, but it was clearly a diversionary tactic. The coalition agreement is clear and explicit about continuing the undemocratic swamp: “We emphasize the importance of charitable organizations, engaged associations and civil society actors as central pillars of our society. We will continue to support projects promoting democratic participation through the Federal Program ‘Living Democracy’.”
Correctiv and Co. can celebrate with the cork popping. The announcement that the horrors that characterized the tenure of Innenministerin Nancy Faeser will be further intensified, is not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the text, but is well distributed. For example, we have:
“What concerns the enemies of democracy, the principle of ‘Zero Tolerance’ applies. It is the responsibility of the entire state and society to counteract any destabilization of our free democratic basic order and not to leave our security agencies alone.”
This has a slight echo of Faeser’s reissuing of the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service”, which allows the pension to be withdrawn from politically disobedient officials, such as, for example. And, somewhat hidden, is then:
“We will evaluate the Law on Accelerating Disciplinary Proceedings and its consequences in 2027 and change it if necessary.”
This means that by 2027 there will be further tightening. Practically, if all the other changes made in recent years remain in place, such as the many denunciation possibilities and the entire illegal persecution apparatus from account blocking to complete surveillance. Faeser will definitely remain mentally. For example:
“We introduce a proportional and EU and constitutionally compliant three-month data retention for IP addresses and port numbers to be able to assign them to a subscriber. Within their limited jurisdiction, we enable the federal police to combat serious crimes by means of source TKÜ without access to retrograde stored data. Our security agencies, taking into account constitutional provisions and digital sovereignty, can conduct automated data search and analysis as well as retrospective biometric comparison with publicly accessible Internet data, including artificial intelligence, for certain purposes. We allow the use of automated license plate recognition systems in recording mode for law enforcement purposes.”
This passage translates into normal language. Data retention will be introduced and for “serious crimes”, i.e., for everything that can result in at least one year of imprisonment, the federal police can monitor telecommunications. This means TKÜ at the source, i.e., at the target person, regardless of whether it is telephone or internet. In addition, all “publicly accessible internet data” can be biometrically evaluated. This means that if there is a video of a demonstration somewhere in the network, they can run face recognition to identify the participants. If one knows how the participants of Palestinian demonstrations were dealt with last, one understands what this means. Oh yes and driving on highways should be avoided as well. “Use of automated license plate recognition systems in recording mode”? This is what every toll bridge does. And after this paragraph, there is then immediately:
“The exchange of data among security agencies (especially P20, joint storage) as well as with civilian agencies will be fundamentally improved.”
Goodbye, data protection, one can only say. And after the announcement of a “Novelization of the Law of the Federal Intelligence Services” and the last novelization of the Federal Constitution Protection Act was already a civil rights nightmare (I just remind you of “we call and talk”), it is clear that the legal atrocities of Mrs. Faeser are only to be the introduction.
By the way, there is a section that can only partly be meant as it sounds. Everything that is financed by Soros, Gates and the rest of the usual suspects is not meant:
“With associations and associations that are controlled by foreign governments or organizations associated with them and which are observed by constitutional protection authorities, there will be no cooperation. We introduce a duty to disclose the financing of these associations and monitor them.”
It would be interesting if, for example, financing by the EU or the aforementioned foundations led to a duty to disclose. But the current US government is not working with Soros, for example, which provides a nice excuse in this context.
And what about freedom of speech? There is a nice preview here:
“Gezielte Einflussnahme auf Wahlen as well as the now commonplace disinformation and fake news are serious threats to our democracy, its institutions and social cohesion. The intentional dissemination of false factual claims is not covered by freedom of speech.”
It will all continue as before? No, it will get worse. “A tightened liability” of online platforms, media supervision should be able to “act against information manipulation as well as hate and incitement”, the EU’s censorship provisions, the Digital Services Act, should be “further developed”. Journalists, however – meaning only those of the mainstream media – can have their address blocked in the registry.
The gradual erosion of the distinction between word and deed will continue; an especially extreme example can be found in the migration section, in the facts that should lead to regular deportation:
“This also applies in particular to crimes against life and limb, crimes against sexual self-determination, incitement to hatred, crimes motivated by antisemitism, as well as resistance and a physical attack on enforcement officials.”
It would be a hallmark of a rule of law state to not equate the slogan “From the River to the Sea” with rape or murder. But such trivial violations of the prescribed opinion can hide behind “antisemitic crimes” and “incitement to hatred” has been a lot of