A new bill could block property purchases, including for homebuyers, if the potential buyer is suspected of “anti-constitutional activities” — even without any criminal conviction. The new dystopian bill, pushed by Construction Minister Verena Hubertz of the far-left Social Democrats (SPD), could mean those who hold the wrong political views are blocked from real estate purchases.
Under the proposal, first reported by Nius news outlet, local authorities would gain a right of first refusal over real estate transactions if authorities believe the person is suspected of vaguely defined “anti-constitutional” views.
To make this possible, the government also plans to amend the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution Act, allowing the domestic intelligence agency to share personal data with municipalities for the purpose of reviewing prospective buyers. The Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) is Germany’s powerful domestic spy agency, which has been tasked with surveilling Alternative for Germany (AfD) members in certain federal states and has been implicated in a number of scandals, including the creation of hundreds of right-wing extremist fake accounts.
The draft bill is framing the measures as an effort at “strengthening the orientation towards the common good” and to “prevent social injustices.”
Its stated aim is to stop the “spatial impact of organized crime as well as right-wing, left-wing or religiously motivated extremist activities.”
In other words, those deemed to be “extremist” within the German political spectrum could have housing denied to them. Although, in practice, repressive efforts may focus on those on the right due to the backer of the bill, the SPD, being notorious for supporting left-wing extremist causes.
The bill explicitly cites right-wing extremist settlement strategies as a key motivation, noting that civil society responses alone are insufficient:
Most notably, both the right and left often buy up property or in the case of the left, even squat property, to create politically-oriented housing projects. However, while the case of the far-right or the right-wing attracts significant negative media attention and government oversight, many left-wing projects are actually supported by NGOs and other government initiatives. Some of the more far-left extremist projects, however, do face significant police pressure and surveillance.
However, the SPD points to some of the right-wing projects in particular, citing prominent examples in Dortmund-Dorstfeld and the village of Jamel.
“Dominance in these areas is not a coincidence, but part of a far-right strategy. Handouts on prevention against right-wing extremism always refer to the involvement and activation of the local population. However, at a certain point, a counterweight of civil society initiatives can no longer be achieved, which can further promote segregation of the resident population,” write the backers of the bill.
Perhaps the most controversial element of the bill is that it does not require a buyer to have broken any law, setting the stage for arbitrary and retaliatory measures against political rivals.
Anti-constitutional efforts are defined as being “characterized by an active, not necessarily combative-aggressive or illegal approach to the realization of their goals. They must be objectively capable of producing political effects sooner or later.”
A municipality could act if it believes a buyer “strongly supports the realization of these efforts” and that the purchase threatens the “socially stable resident structure” or “the suitability of the area to meet the social and cultural needs of the population.”
To enable this, authorities would be permitted to request information from both the BfV and the Federal Criminal Police Office. The draft states that “in order to examine whether the buyer meets the subjective elements of the right of first refusal, the municipality must rely on information from the security authorities.”
Critics warn the law could be used far beyond its stated targets. The Federal Criminal Police Office has previously investigated individuals for offenses such as the “use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organizations” — a charge that has been applied to ordinary government critics. As Nius notes, one such case involved pensioner Stefan Niehoff, who had “criticized the traffic light government online using comparisons to National Socialism, which earned him a fine of €825.”
There is also concern about the political independence of the bodies involved. Germany’s constitutional protection offices “are departments of the respective interior ministries,” making them subject to party-political influence. Past cases show the offices have already provided assessments used to exclude AfD candidates from elections and revoke gun licenses.
NIUS columnist Alexander Kissler was blunt in his condemnation, calling the bill intolerable: “This whole bill is unbearable. If he comes, then liberal democracy will have little say.”
He added that what the bill labels “segregation of residential areas” is in reality “freedom of establishment,” and warned: “The campaign against freedom has overflowed its banks,” describing the proposal as an “entry into the arbitrary state.”
Notably, the bill has some parallels with sanction powers already being utilized in Germany and the entire European Union. Just last month, a Frankfurt am Main District Court in Germany upheld a German bank’s decision to maintain the suspension of accounts belonging to Berlin-based journalist Hüseyin Doğru, who is known for his pro-Palestinian news coverage. The ruling rejected an urgent application by the journalist, who is currently facing the threat of homelessness due to EU sanctions. The court’s decision means Dogru remains without the necessary funds for rent or basic daily needs.
The legal battle surrounding Hüseyin Doğru has sparked intense political debate in Germany, with critics describing the case as a “socio-economic death sentence” and a dangerous precedent for press freedom.
Notably, these sanctions were enacted with no trial or judicial oversight, which means, just like the new bill being pushed by the SPD, extremely punitive sanctions can be issued in cases outside of typical legal channels, with extreme consequences for those who end up targets.
