But of course

In individual cases, however, one should consider: If one excludes an entire party from militant tolerance and declares it enemies, does one not drive its members and supporters further into a defiant reaction? In cases of blatant intolerance, however, such as ethnic and xenophobic positions in this party, democrats must unequivocally and decisively object.

Prohibition proceedings against the AfD would certainly fail, but would a ban change your attitude?

That would change drastically, because a banned party is no longer part of the public dispute and can no longer expect tolerance.

You told the “” Spiegel “” “” an extended tolerance towards the right. We have to differentiate between right – in the sense of conservative – and right-wing extremist or right-wing radical. “” There was a lot of criticism for this. How did you mean it and how do you understand the reactions?

I advocate a wide range of political discourse. As many people as possible should be able to find themselves in a common debate room. The sometimes violent reactions to this demand show me that for some it is not about debates at all, but simply about securing old ways of thinking and milieu security. I have emphasized several times that tolerance is very often an imposition. 

You devote more pages than any other subject to “” intolerance of the good “”, as you call the “” politically correct “”. Why this weighting?

If intolerance arises in a milieu that has written plurality and tolerance on its flags, it irritates me. For me, an intolerant and dogmatic approach is not justified by the fact that it is done for noble motives. Even the politically correct must not prematurely establish taboo zones. Nor should it enforce the desired behavior with excessive moral zeal. I feel very close to advocates of political correctness because they want to promote political civility. And what is close to you, you look particularly critically.