'Right-wing extremist' AfD is a threat to German democracy, minister says
Berlin: The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party pursues a proven campaign against the free democratic order, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said on Friday, commenting on the party's designation as 'right-wing extremist' by the domestic intelligence agency.
"The AfD represents an ethnic concept that discriminates against entire population groups and treats citizens with a history of migration as second-class Germans," Faeser said in a statement.
Follow live updates on Pahalgam attack news: Pakistan to allow stranded nationals cross Attari-Wagah border
"Their ethnic attitude is reflected in racist statements, especially against immigrants and Muslims," she added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
A critical test for institutions
The Supreme Court stopped short of instituting an internal probe into the conduct of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, following a March letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat raising issues of jurisdiction, this newspaper reported Monday. The letter reiterated the process as referred to by Rajya Sabha chairperson and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar previously in February in Parliament — that only Parliament and the President have the jurisdiction to proceed against the judge, who is in the dock for alleged hate speech against Muslims delivered in December 2024. Even as the Supreme Court took note of that speech, a group of 55 opposition MPs filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics'. As per the law, the removal of a high court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must go through Parliament. The chairperson will now have to decide on the admissibility of the motion and if an inquiry needs to be held. The Rajya Sabha chairperson, who has been vocal about judicial integrity and institutional probity, should ensure that the complaint against the judge is now processed in a transparent manner and concluded before the judicial officer retires in April next year. A timely closure in the matter is necessary to ensure that there is no reputational damage to the judiciary, Parliament, or the concerned judge, in case he is found innocent of the alleged hate speech. Interestingly, while Justice Yadav, reportedly, regretted his conduct and assured the Supreme Court collegium that he will render a public apology in a closed-door meeting with it in December, he has not issued one and instead defended his speech, delivered in a meeting of Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists in Prayagraj, as reflecting India's cultural ethos. A judge is bound by oath to protect constitutional values, not articulate majoritarian sentiments or populist views, even if they are part of some perceived cultural ethos. Any deviation is a violation of the oath and compromises the integrity of the judiciary. The Justice Yadav case presents a critical test. It is not merely about the conduct of one judge but will have wider implications for the principle of separation of powers and commitment of public institutions to constitutional ideals. How this matter is now handled by the Rajya Sabha will set an important precedent for the future of India's democratic institutions.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Murugan conference row: DMK calls it Sanghi event, BJP defends it as devotion
A political controversy has erupted in Tamil Nadu ahead of the Murugan Devotees Conference scheduled for June 22, with the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) dismissing the event as a politically motivated gathering, and the BJP defending it as a celebration of Home Minister Amit Shah, speaking at a party meeting in Madurai on Sunday, called on devotees to attend the conference in large numbers to display unity. He criticised the DMK for allegedly undermining religious sentiments, linking it to the recent controversy over Thiruparankundram Hill, one of the six sacred abodes (Padai Veedu) of the deity Murugan. advertisement'Our Madurai has ancient history which goes back 3000 years. I have come here. DMK has dared to call Thiruparankundram Hill associated with God Murugan as Sikandar Hill. For years devotees of God Murugan have prayed here. I urge the people of Tamil Nadu to attend the Murugan Devotees Conference in large numbers and show them the devotees' strength,' Shah said. The controversy surrounding the Thiruparankundram Hill initially erupted when police barred members of the Muslim community from transporting goats and hens to the Sikandar Badusha Dargah, located atop the hill on January 22. The police stated that while prayers were permitted, animal sacrifices were not allowed. The hill also houses the revered Murugan Temple, situated close to the Dargah, adding a layer of religious sensitivity to the Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments PK Sekar Babu dismissed the conference as a political event. 'This is a pure Sanghi and political conference. We conducted the conference where devotees of God Murugan from 27 countries participated. We did not plan to bring a crowd, seek money, arrange 2000 buses but even then 7 to 8 lakh people attended. But they planned this conference with intention to use it to divide people in the name of religion,' he to Sekar Babu's comments, senior BJP leader Tamilisai Soundararajan accused the DMK of fearing the BJP's religious outreach. 'People like Sekar Babu are seeing our devotion-filled Murugan Conference with fear. Be it a political conference or religious conference, our only intention is to do good for the people and make devotion prosper. Why did you conduct Murugan Conference when you do not believe in him? This is only creating doubts in people's minds,' she MP A Raja also criticised the BJP's plans, alleging that the conference was being organised for political reasons. 'They are doing Murugan Manadu (conference) on June 22 purely for political gains and to create differences between Hindus and Muslims. They want to turn Hindus against Muslims and Christians. This conference is not to unite Hindus or for Lord Murugan. The people of Madurai will reject this. Amit Shah tried creating differences between communities in Tamil Nadu. The people of Tamil Nadu will never accept these kind of statements,' he said. IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
