Audio player is loading
Google
Click here to have WELT articles preferred in Google searches.
Author and entertainer Hape Kerkeling has spoken out in the Thuringian state parliament in favor of initiating proceedings to ban the AfD. At the Justice Committee hearing in Erfurt on Wednesday evening, Kerkeling said that he was not speaking as a constitutional lawyer, but as a descendant of a victim of National Socialism. The examination of German history is of central importance for the question of a possible AfD ban.
WELT documents excerpts from the almost 70-minute hearing, in which Kerkeling also answers questions from MPs.
The opening statement
"Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor for me to be able to speak before the Thuringian state parliament today. My name is H.P. Kerkeling. I have been working in the media for 42 years, have worked for both ARD and ZDF and have been able to benefit from the special freedom of expression that exists in this country for 42 years. I have written non-fiction books, I have worked as an actor and also as a director. So much for myself.
Dear MPs, ladies and gentlemen, I am not speaking today as an expert in constitutional law, but as the descendant of a victim of National Socialism. In Thuringia of all places. The first NSDAP interior minister of a German federal state took office in this country in 1930. Long before 1933.
Buchenwald is a few kilometers from here. This country, Thuringia, has experienced first-hand how a democracy abolishes itself when enough people look the other way. And today the Thuringian Office for the Protection of the Constitution has classified the local AfD regional association as right-wing extremist since March 2021. A classification that the Thuringian Higher Administrative Court expressly confirmed in 2024. This is a tested legal situation.”
In my statement today I am concentrating on a single aspect, the way this party deals with German history. In my opinion, their euphemistic attitude towards the Nazi dictatorship alone makes them unconstitutional. Fear, lies and hatred were the ingredients of the National Socialist ideology, and they are the same for the direction of this right-wing extremist party today. A party that bases its existence on fomenting hatred against minorities has no place in our country with its horrific history. Anyone who relativizes, trivializes or trivializes the crimes of 1933 to 1945 is abandoning the foundation of the Basic Law. Back then, Germany fell victim to a criminal gang. Looking back, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be proud of.
Being German meant and always means being European. And our Basic Law is not the product of Germanism, but rather the legacy and the memory, which has matured into law, of the atrocities of the National Socialists. It is quite unmistakable. Human dignity is inviolable. Anyone who deliberately scares people - whether with a disability, a different faith, a different skin color, queer or transgender - violates this dignity. And this brings us full circle to the three sentences that actually have to be established for the future of our country.
First, the Basic Law is anti-fascist because it is the institutionalized lesson from the murders and terror of the Nazi regime. Secondly, anyone who trivializes and refutes this country's criminal past forfeits any political right to exist in our democracy. And thirdly, and this is the sentence that I most hope you will take home with you this evening: Anyone who does not deal with history responsibly must never take responsibility for Germany's future. The trivialization of the Third Reich disqualifies people from holding state office and therefore also disqualifies them from any participation in our democracy at all.
Dear MPs, I ask you to use your voice and the influence of the state government in the Federal Council to finally initiate this important process. (…)”
Hape Kerkeling then answers questions from the plenary session, WELT sorts them here by topic
Comparability of the Nazi era with today?
"I believe that this is actually not about equating ourselves with the Nazi regime. It's about us as a pluralistic society having to look at when freedom of expression is actually in danger, when minorities are in danger. And when is this point reached? Everyone has to decide that for themselves.
But ultimately our basic law is very clear when it says that human dignity is inviolable. Untouchable is even a relatively tender word. That means it starts relatively early. And in this respect, this strong basic law, which is copied around the world as a model of success in democracies, essentially demands that we take it at its word. And I do.”
Brutalization of public discourse because of the AfD?
"So when you're on the Internet and on social media - and I tend to express my opinion - and when I criticize the Chancellor's wording on the subject of 'cityscape', for example. Then there's a lively discussion and CDU supporters and members also join in this discussion. But it remains constructive. You try to stay in the conversation. If you do the same thing and complain about the AfD on the Internet, then that doesn't qualify as a lynching.
Last week I was invited to the Bundestag parliamentary group. And there a photo was taken with Professor Karl Lauterbach, our former health minister, and then obviously a supporter, probably not a member of the AfD, wrote: Two who belong in a concentration camp. And then a series of comments come along saying, 'The blue wave is rolling, in the end they will judge you all', and one would expect a democratic party to stop this and have a moderating effect on its supporters. That never happens. You will never see one of the leading AfD politicians defending someone. And that alone is really scary.
And I call on the AfD: You have the chance to have a moderating effect today. We do have the chance to make a commitment to our democracy. You have the chance to move away from all trivialization of the Nazi dictatorship. They won't do it. Why don't you do it? Because you are fundamentally unconstitutional and your silence proves that.”
Where are minorities specifically at risk?
"A relatively simple example: I was allowed to be the patron of the CSD in Golzen. A small town in Brandenburg, a relatively large CSD and they wanted to raise the 'Rainbow Flag' at the town hall there. Actually a completely normal process in a democracy. But that became a political issue because of course the faction of the party that would like to ban all of this worked massively against it. I don't even know now whether the flag was flagged in the end or not.
And as a result, a minority feels that they are no longer wanted or wanted. And believe me, it's not nice to be afraid in your own homeland. I believe that this state has an obligation to ensure that all its citizens can live without fear, in freedom. This is an idea that has existed since the 17th century with the beginning of the Enlightenment. And I think we have to stick to that. And there are a lot of people in this country right now who, I think, have legitimate fears.”
Who specifically is afraid?
"So it's natural - that's the goal of this party - to use fear to keep people in check, to stir up hatred among their supporters. That's what this party feeds on. And spreading this game between hate and fear, that's just something we know from our German history. And that's how we see that it's actually now time to stop it. And it affects a lot of people.
It affects queer people, like I said, transgender people. It affects people who are Jewish, who are Muslim. There are millions of people who are afraid and I hear more and more the discussion: When do I have to leave this country? What do they want to do with us? And people who come with the election slogan: Everything is possible.
I understand that with a car manufacturer, it's about increasing speed and having more seats in the car. But a political party where everything is possible and which makes that its election slogan, Buchenwald is also possible under certain circumstances.”
The chances of success of a ban procedure?
"I was able to follow the entire hearing today and my personal, very subjective impression was that the constitutional lawyers who spoke out in favor of the ban were all convinced democrats. I don't mean to say that the constitutional lawyers who spoke out against the ban are not democrats. But they didn't really seem convinced as to whether they were doing the right job as devil's advocate.
Once again, I trust in our constitution. I trust in our institutions. I am now 62 years old and this country has achieved an incredible amount that it can be really proud of. And most importantly, it created this incredibly good democracy. We live in peace with all our neighbors. And that has been the case for almost 90 years. No other country has as many borders as Germany. We have to stay open.
And I believe that our Federal Constitutional Court will of course keep all of this in mind when it has to make a judgment. And again, I don't think this party will be given a clean bill of health. None of us know how this process will turn out. And here again: That's a good thing. As soon as we know how the proceedings will end, there is a risk that this party will already be in power.”
Wouldn't it be possible to present the party with arguments?
"A party that has clearly set itself the goal of destroying the parliamentary system from within can no longer really be overcome with arguments, I believe. In addition, the problem is not just the AfD and its work in Germany, but we have to look a little further. Cooperation with Russia, China, Russia - a country that cooperates with North Korea - should become one of our closest cooperation partners. You have to let it all sink in your mouth. And then there is the United States As was already mentioned (...) I will no longer be able to travel to the United States, but that also has to do with the fact that the USA is on the direct path to autocracy and the AfD also finds that worthy of support.
No, I don't think we can give this party any more arguments. We have this strong leverage. And as a citizen of this country, as a freedom-loving citizen of this country, I would like those responsible in politics to use this lever to take away this fear from the people who are quite rightly afraid. And I know that the CDU has problems with it. But I believe that any handout to the AfD would lead to the dismantling of the CDU.
You didn't ask me about that, but I'll tell you anyway. And when I hear the Prime Minister of Hesse saying that we just have to shake hands with the AfD and build a bridge to the center... That won't work. This bridge will break before Mr. Rhine stands on the bridge.”
And what will actually become of AfD voters – if it is actually banned?
"(...) If you compare that with the rest of Europe, then East Germany is also relatively stable economically compared to other nations. And that's why I think it's entirely possible that these people can find their way back into the democratic parties very quickly. However, the democratic parties have to (start) listening again, approaching the people, addressing their concerns. And that's actually my appeal to all democratic parties: stay with the people, stay close to the pulse and take all concerns seriously. Whether justified or unfounded, take them seriously Take voters’ concerns seriously.
And then I am firmly convinced that we can get all these people back on board. Suppose this party ban procedure fails. Like I said, I don't believe that. And even if it fails, the party would still have a flaw, namely this ban procedure. (…)”
How did his grandfather's anti-fascism shape him?
"So my grandfather was a member of the Communist Party in 1933 and he was chairman of the Bochum regional association. One day after the seizure of power, he distributed leaflets and in these leaflets he called for the Hitler dictatorship to be overthrown in office for one day and a general strike, and much more.
And my grandfather left me a legacy and also made it clear to me how dangerous a development in this direction can be. And he had a few lessons for me that I won't forget.
One of them was: If you start sweeping the bottom up, then it's almost too late. What did he mean by that? That those who were particularly incompetent came up with simple solutions. Put it against the wall, lynch it - and even if it's only in the discussion, let's talk about it! When you talk about it, you slowly get used to the idea. And if I keep talking about brutality, then of course I'll put it into action at some point.
That's what brought me to this personally and the fact that I'm in this situation now is actually unbelievable. Maybe my grandfather knew that. But honestly, I really want to stand up for our democracy and do so unwaveringly. And that means saying what you stand for in a timely, relatively hard, clear manner. And my credo is the tender sentence “Human dignity is inviolable”. And you can violate that very quickly. And here we have already overshot the mark.”
