To save its democracy and respect the Holocaust, Germany must stop blindly backing Israel
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388
In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.
In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state's relation to Israel.
The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be "supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order."
-
System shared this topic on
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388
In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.
In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state's relation to Israel.
The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be "supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order."
Archive Link because of paywall, although Haaretz definitely deserves to be financially supported.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388
In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.
In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state's relation to Israel.
The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be "supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order."
Exodus -> Exodus -> Stop
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388
In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.
In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state's relation to Israel.
The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be "supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order."
The four people in question were not simply peaceful advocates. They participated in a violent occupation of university offices, destruction of property, breaking open of closets, graffiti. University employees were threatened snd barricaded themselves in their offices.
State attorneys are prosecuting these crimes against these four. It’s true it hasn’t gone to court yet. All four have formally protested against their deportation and the court has granted them extensions until the verdict.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388
In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.
In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state's relation to Israel.
The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be "supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order."
It was really eye opening to look at the German reaction after the Netanyahu visit to Hungary. Scholz was happy that it happened and Baerbock spoke out against Hungary not arresting Netanyahu. Baerbocks Green Party will not be in the next government, but Scholz SPD will and Merz who is the coalition partner of the Scholz SPD has been even more pro Israel.
German democracy is really dead at this point. They are working hard on bringing in the AFD, with full support of the social democrats and conservatives. The Greens have failed to mount a decent defense and the left has been too divided to do shit.
-
The four people in question were not simply peaceful advocates. They participated in a violent occupation of university offices, destruction of property, breaking open of closets, graffiti. University employees were threatened snd barricaded themselves in their offices.
State attorneys are prosecuting these crimes against these four. It’s true it hasn’t gone to court yet. All four have formally protested against their deportation and the court has granted them extensions until the verdict.
That still doesn't invalidate that the authorities tried to deport people without a trial, ignoring the presumption of innocence and rule of law in general. That's at least AfD level disregard for the Grundgesetz.
Everyone involved in this should be forbidden from holding authority until they explain why what they did is the opposite of the values of a Rechtsstaat.
-
That still doesn't invalidate that the authorities tried to deport people without a trial, ignoring the presumption of innocence and rule of law in general. That's at least AfD level disregard for the Grundgesetz.
Everyone involved in this should be forbidden from holding authority until they explain why what they did is the opposite of the values of a Rechtsstaat.
Three of these are EU citizens. The EU wide freedom of movement can be revoked for public order and safety, health, or security reasons.
Für eine Verlustfeststellung aus Gründen der öffentlichen Ordnung oder Sicherheit gelten besonders hohe Voraussetzungen: Es muss eine tatsächliche und hinreichend schwere Gefährdung der öffentlichen Ordnung oder Sicherheit vorliegen, die ein Grundinteresse der Gesellschaft berührt. Diese Gefährdung muss auf dem persönlichen Verhalten des Unionsbürgers beruhen.
The corresponding law is Gesetz über die allgemeine Freizügigkeit von Unionsbürgern (Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU - FreizügG/EU) § 6 Verlust des Rechts auf Einreise und Aufenthalt
Known football hooligans and violent political activists are often barred from entry into other EU countries, if they’re likely traveling to a violent protest or big football match.
The law doesn’t say that a court verdict is necessary, it does say it isn’t sufficient though.
The argument is that these people are a danger to public order and safety. That means this is about prevention (Gefahrenabwehr) of future acts. Prevention is always done to the detriment of the innocent, because nobody has actually done anything yet. All of these are known to be active political activists and at times violent. They are likely to continue their activities, some of which endanger public order and safety. That’s sufficient to make a legal argument.
The courts are working this out now and the authorities are respecting court orders. So, I don’t see where this is disregards the Grundgesetz.
That said, I also think this is targeted repression and the crimes aren’t serious enough to warrant immediate revoking of residence.
The ministry of the interior is testing what the courts require as a minimum for losing residence rights.
-
The four people in question were not simply peaceful advocates. They participated in a violent occupation of university offices, destruction of property, breaking open of closets, graffiti. University employees were threatened snd barricaded themselves in their offices.
State attorneys are prosecuting these crimes against these four. It’s true it hasn’t gone to court yet. All four have formally protested against their deportation and the court has granted them extensions until the verdict.
The people in question are not convicted of any crime. Also the state attorneys are not prosecuting the people in question for violent crimes at the even in question. Rather they are prosecuted for "obstruction of police work" because they were outside the building when police brought out people it arrested inside. one of the people is investigated for calling a policemen fascist.
See https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/abschiebung-ausweisung-palaestina-aktivisten-rechtswidrig-eugh-freizuegigkeit-berlin for a more neutral description by a legal magazine, which bothers to make proper distinctions:
Die Darstellungen des LKA in den Ausweisungsbescheiden lesen sich weniger brutal, aber immer noch bedrohlich. Hier ist die Rede von 20 Personen, die sich Zugang zum Gebäude verschafft, dort Wände beschmiert und die Technik zerstört hätten. Sie sollen Brecheisen bzw. "Kuhfüße" bei sich geführt haben. Hiermit sollen sie versucht haben, eine Tür zu einem Raum aufzubrechen, in dem sich ein stark verängstigter FU-Mitarbeiter verschanzt hatte. Äxte, Sägen und Knüppel werden nicht erwähnt. Im Anschluss an die Besetzung kam es zu Festnahmen. Zehn Verdächtige – unter ihnen auch die vier Aktivist:innen – sollen versucht haben, dies zu verhindern.
Roughly translates to:
"The description of the events by the LKA (state criminal investigators) used in the deportation notices is reading less brutal but still threatening. It describes 20 people which empowered themselves entry to the building, vandalised walls and destroyed technical equipment. They are alleged to have carried crowbars, with which they (the 20 people who entered the building) tried to open a room, in which a strongly scared FU employee had barricaded himself. Axes, Saws and clubs are not mentioned. Subsequent to the occupation, multiple arrests occured. Ten suspects -among them the four activists- are alleged to tried to prevent the arrests.
So the police investigators are not claiming the people to have participated in the occupation, but rather to try to prevent arrests that were made because of the occupation.
The next Paragraph:
Im Ausweisungsbescheid gegen US-Bürger:in Longbottom ist dies der einzige aufgelistete Sachverhalt. Bei den anderen dreien kommen im Zusammenhang mit anderen Protestaktionen weitere Ermittlungen wegen demonstrationstypischer Delikte hinzu. Das sind etwa Widerstand gegen (§ 113 Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) oder tätlicher Angriff auf Vollstreckungsbeamte (§ 114 StGB) sowie Äußerungsdelikte wie Beleidigung (§ 185 StGB), Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB) oder Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen (§ 86a StGB). Den Befreiungsversuch nach der FU-Besetzung wertet die Polizei als Gefangenenbefreiung (§ 120 StGB).
Translates to:
"The deportation notice against US-Citizen Longbotton only lists this occurence. For the other activists other occurences in relation to different protest actions are mentioned as being under investigation. These are "typical for demonstrations" such as resisting or attacking police officers (§ 113-114) and "Speak-Crime" (sorry for the bad translation) such as insults (§185), hate speech (§130) or using symbols of an unconstitutional organisation (§86a). The attempted freeing of arrests after the FU-occupation is considered by the police as freeing of arrested people (§120).
So none of the people are investigated for violent crime in relation to the FU-occupation.
The article further notes that the "typical for demonstrations" investigations do not warrant a deportation unless convicted and repeated. For the FU-occupation it is noted that this is more serious and could suffice for such a move, however the police reports only provide general descriptions rather than tying specific actions to the activists threatened with deportation.
Long story short: At the time of the deportation notices none of the people were accused for violent crime in regard to the FU occupation. All of this was conjecture made by the interior ministry of the state of Berlin and a willfully or ignorantly complicit press
-
Three of these are EU citizens. The EU wide freedom of movement can be revoked for public order and safety, health, or security reasons.
Für eine Verlustfeststellung aus Gründen der öffentlichen Ordnung oder Sicherheit gelten besonders hohe Voraussetzungen: Es muss eine tatsächliche und hinreichend schwere Gefährdung der öffentlichen Ordnung oder Sicherheit vorliegen, die ein Grundinteresse der Gesellschaft berührt. Diese Gefährdung muss auf dem persönlichen Verhalten des Unionsbürgers beruhen.
The corresponding law is Gesetz über die allgemeine Freizügigkeit von Unionsbürgern (Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU - FreizügG/EU) § 6 Verlust des Rechts auf Einreise und Aufenthalt
Known football hooligans and violent political activists are often barred from entry into other EU countries, if they’re likely traveling to a violent protest or big football match.
The law doesn’t say that a court verdict is necessary, it does say it isn’t sufficient though.
The argument is that these people are a danger to public order and safety. That means this is about prevention (Gefahrenabwehr) of future acts. Prevention is always done to the detriment of the innocent, because nobody has actually done anything yet. All of these are known to be active political activists and at times violent. They are likely to continue their activities, some of which endanger public order and safety. That’s sufficient to make a legal argument.
The courts are working this out now and the authorities are respecting court orders. So, I don’t see where this is disregards the Grundgesetz.
That said, I also think this is targeted repression and the crimes aren’t serious enough to warrant immediate revoking of residence.
The ministry of the interior is testing what the courts require as a minimum for losing residence rights.
All of these are known to be active political activists and at times violent.
That is false. They are not "known to be violent" see my other comment. They are not accused of violence in regards to entering the FU building. They are merely accused for trying to prevent arrests by the police. Something that is already the case if you build a chain and let the cops beat you, but not push through to grab someone they want to grab.
The rest is politically motivated conjecture by the interior ministry.
The courts are working this out now and the authorities are respecting court orders. So, I don’t see where this is disregards the Grundgesetz.
Because repeated attempts to violate the principles of the constitution by the executive are still causing a lot of damage, even if the courts later catch it. For the people threatened with deportation their life was turned upside down for at least two month now. Losing everything you have in one country, your flat, your personal belongings, your work, your education, your social environment... Those are huge impacts on the individuals protected constitutional rights. These go far beyond what a conviction to a fine or even a short prison sentence would cause in damages to the individual. This is also fundamentally different from your example of people not being granted entry into a country. Being deported from where you life is different from not being able to enter another country for a limited time.
-
The people in question are not convicted of any crime. Also the state attorneys are not prosecuting the people in question for violent crimes at the even in question. Rather they are prosecuted for "obstruction of police work" because they were outside the building when police brought out people it arrested inside. one of the people is investigated for calling a policemen fascist.
See https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/abschiebung-ausweisung-palaestina-aktivisten-rechtswidrig-eugh-freizuegigkeit-berlin for a more neutral description by a legal magazine, which bothers to make proper distinctions:
Die Darstellungen des LKA in den Ausweisungsbescheiden lesen sich weniger brutal, aber immer noch bedrohlich. Hier ist die Rede von 20 Personen, die sich Zugang zum Gebäude verschafft, dort Wände beschmiert und die Technik zerstört hätten. Sie sollen Brecheisen bzw. "Kuhfüße" bei sich geführt haben. Hiermit sollen sie versucht haben, eine Tür zu einem Raum aufzubrechen, in dem sich ein stark verängstigter FU-Mitarbeiter verschanzt hatte. Äxte, Sägen und Knüppel werden nicht erwähnt. Im Anschluss an die Besetzung kam es zu Festnahmen. Zehn Verdächtige – unter ihnen auch die vier Aktivist:innen – sollen versucht haben, dies zu verhindern.
Roughly translates to:
"The description of the events by the LKA (state criminal investigators) used in the deportation notices is reading less brutal but still threatening. It describes 20 people which empowered themselves entry to the building, vandalised walls and destroyed technical equipment. They are alleged to have carried crowbars, with which they (the 20 people who entered the building) tried to open a room, in which a strongly scared FU employee had barricaded himself. Axes, Saws and clubs are not mentioned. Subsequent to the occupation, multiple arrests occured. Ten suspects -among them the four activists- are alleged to tried to prevent the arrests.
So the police investigators are not claiming the people to have participated in the occupation, but rather to try to prevent arrests that were made because of the occupation.
The next Paragraph:
Im Ausweisungsbescheid gegen US-Bürger:in Longbottom ist dies der einzige aufgelistete Sachverhalt. Bei den anderen dreien kommen im Zusammenhang mit anderen Protestaktionen weitere Ermittlungen wegen demonstrationstypischer Delikte hinzu. Das sind etwa Widerstand gegen (§ 113 Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) oder tätlicher Angriff auf Vollstreckungsbeamte (§ 114 StGB) sowie Äußerungsdelikte wie Beleidigung (§ 185 StGB), Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB) oder Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen (§ 86a StGB). Den Befreiungsversuch nach der FU-Besetzung wertet die Polizei als Gefangenenbefreiung (§ 120 StGB).
Translates to:
"The deportation notice against US-Citizen Longbotton only lists this occurence. For the other activists other occurences in relation to different protest actions are mentioned as being under investigation. These are "typical for demonstrations" such as resisting or attacking police officers (§ 113-114) and "Speak-Crime" (sorry for the bad translation) such as insults (§185), hate speech (§130) or using symbols of an unconstitutional organisation (§86a). The attempted freeing of arrests after the FU-occupation is considered by the police as freeing of arrested people (§120).
So none of the people are investigated for violent crime in relation to the FU-occupation.
The article further notes that the "typical for demonstrations" investigations do not warrant a deportation unless convicted and repeated. For the FU-occupation it is noted that this is more serious and could suffice for such a move, however the police reports only provide general descriptions rather than tying specific actions to the activists threatened with deportation.
Long story short: At the time of the deportation notices none of the people were accused for violent crime in regard to the FU occupation. All of this was conjecture made by the interior ministry of the state of Berlin and a willfully or ignorantly complicit press
Also the state attorneys are not prosecuting the people in question for violent crimes at the event in question.
Are you sure? (German) source::
Ob das Geschehen im Innern den Tatbestand des Landfriedensbruchs erfüllt, ist ebenfalls nicht gesichert. Die Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin teilte auf LTO-Anfrage jedoch mit, auch bei ihnen sei dieses Delikt vermerkt. Ein Ende der Ermittlungen sei aber noch nicht absehbar.
Translation
It is also not certain whether what happened inside the building constitutes a breach of the public peace [Landfriedensbruch]. However, the Berlin public prosecutor's office informed LTO that this offense had also been recorded. However, an end to the investigation is not yet in sight. [deepl]
-
The people in question are not convicted of any crime. Also the state attorneys are not prosecuting the people in question for violent crimes at the even in question. Rather they are prosecuted for "obstruction of police work" because they were outside the building when police brought out people it arrested inside. one of the people is investigated for calling a policemen fascist.
See https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/abschiebung-ausweisung-palaestina-aktivisten-rechtswidrig-eugh-freizuegigkeit-berlin for a more neutral description by a legal magazine, which bothers to make proper distinctions:
Die Darstellungen des LKA in den Ausweisungsbescheiden lesen sich weniger brutal, aber immer noch bedrohlich. Hier ist die Rede von 20 Personen, die sich Zugang zum Gebäude verschafft, dort Wände beschmiert und die Technik zerstört hätten. Sie sollen Brecheisen bzw. "Kuhfüße" bei sich geführt haben. Hiermit sollen sie versucht haben, eine Tür zu einem Raum aufzubrechen, in dem sich ein stark verängstigter FU-Mitarbeiter verschanzt hatte. Äxte, Sägen und Knüppel werden nicht erwähnt. Im Anschluss an die Besetzung kam es zu Festnahmen. Zehn Verdächtige – unter ihnen auch die vier Aktivist:innen – sollen versucht haben, dies zu verhindern.
Roughly translates to:
"The description of the events by the LKA (state criminal investigators) used in the deportation notices is reading less brutal but still threatening. It describes 20 people which empowered themselves entry to the building, vandalised walls and destroyed technical equipment. They are alleged to have carried crowbars, with which they (the 20 people who entered the building) tried to open a room, in which a strongly scared FU employee had barricaded himself. Axes, Saws and clubs are not mentioned. Subsequent to the occupation, multiple arrests occured. Ten suspects -among them the four activists- are alleged to tried to prevent the arrests.
So the police investigators are not claiming the people to have participated in the occupation, but rather to try to prevent arrests that were made because of the occupation.
The next Paragraph:
Im Ausweisungsbescheid gegen US-Bürger:in Longbottom ist dies der einzige aufgelistete Sachverhalt. Bei den anderen dreien kommen im Zusammenhang mit anderen Protestaktionen weitere Ermittlungen wegen demonstrationstypischer Delikte hinzu. Das sind etwa Widerstand gegen (§ 113 Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) oder tätlicher Angriff auf Vollstreckungsbeamte (§ 114 StGB) sowie Äußerungsdelikte wie Beleidigung (§ 185 StGB), Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB) oder Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen (§ 86a StGB). Den Befreiungsversuch nach der FU-Besetzung wertet die Polizei als Gefangenenbefreiung (§ 120 StGB).
Translates to:
"The deportation notice against US-Citizen Longbotton only lists this occurence. For the other activists other occurences in relation to different protest actions are mentioned as being under investigation. These are "typical for demonstrations" such as resisting or attacking police officers (§ 113-114) and "Speak-Crime" (sorry for the bad translation) such as insults (§185), hate speech (§130) or using symbols of an unconstitutional organisation (§86a). The attempted freeing of arrests after the FU-occupation is considered by the police as freeing of arrested people (§120).
So none of the people are investigated for violent crime in relation to the FU-occupation.
The article further notes that the "typical for demonstrations" investigations do not warrant a deportation unless convicted and repeated. For the FU-occupation it is noted that this is more serious and could suffice for such a move, however the police reports only provide general descriptions rather than tying specific actions to the activists threatened with deportation.
Long story short: At the time of the deportation notices none of the people were accused for violent crime in regard to the FU occupation. All of this was conjecture made by the interior ministry of the state of Berlin and a willfully or ignorantly complicit press
Thank you for the article with more details.
Calling resisting and attacking policemen and freeing of prisoners non-violent is a bit of a stretch though.
-
All of these are known to be active political activists and at times violent.
That is false. They are not "known to be violent" see my other comment. They are not accused of violence in regards to entering the FU building. They are merely accused for trying to prevent arrests by the police. Something that is already the case if you build a chain and let the cops beat you, but not push through to grab someone they want to grab.
The rest is politically motivated conjecture by the interior ministry.
The courts are working this out now and the authorities are respecting court orders. So, I don’t see where this is disregards the Grundgesetz.
Because repeated attempts to violate the principles of the constitution by the executive are still causing a lot of damage, even if the courts later catch it. For the people threatened with deportation their life was turned upside down for at least two month now. Losing everything you have in one country, your flat, your personal belongings, your work, your education, your social environment... Those are huge impacts on the individuals protected constitutional rights. These go far beyond what a conviction to a fine or even a short prison sentence would cause in damages to the individual. This is also fundamentally different from your example of people not being granted entry into a country. Being deported from where you life is different from not being able to enter another country for a limited time.
I agree that this is politically motivated and these folks don’t deserve losing their residence.
-
Also the state attorneys are not prosecuting the people in question for violent crimes at the event in question.
Are you sure? (German) source::
Ob das Geschehen im Innern den Tatbestand des Landfriedensbruchs erfüllt, ist ebenfalls nicht gesichert. Die Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin teilte auf LTO-Anfrage jedoch mit, auch bei ihnen sei dieses Delikt vermerkt. Ein Ende der Ermittlungen sei aber noch nicht absehbar.
Translation
It is also not certain whether what happened inside the building constitutes a breach of the public peace [Landfriedensbruch]. However, the Berlin public prosecutor's office informed LTO that this offense had also been recorded. However, an end to the investigation is not yet in sight. [deepl]
As it explains further in your article in the next paragraph:
Erforderlich ist für die §§ 125, 125a StGB, dass "Gewalttätigkeiten gegen Menschen oder Sachen" oder entsprechende Drohungen "aus einer Menschenmenge heraus mit vereinten Kräften" begangen werden, und zwar in einer die öffentliche Sicherheit gefährdenden Weise. Im Fall der Besetzung der Humboldt-Universität im Mai 2024 sei dieses Delikt nicht einmal angeklagt worden, sagt O'Briens Rechtsanwalt Benjamin Düsberg. Auch im Fall der Belagerung eines Fähranlegers zum Nachteil von Wirtschaftsminister Robert Habeck im Januar 2024 verneinte die Staatsanwaltschaft ein organisiertes Vorgehen.
For the crimes of §§ 125, 125a StGB is is required that "acts of violence against people or property" or respective threats are made "from a crowd of people, working with unified/united force", in such a way that it endangers public security. In regards to an occupation of the Humboldt-University in May 2024 this delict was not even accused, said O'Briens lawyer. In another case of people "besieging" a fairy carrier to the disadvantage of the federal minister of the economy Rober Habeck in January 2024 the state attorneys denied an organized action.
For clarity for non Germans, the event mentioned regarding the minister occurred in a different state in Germany and was in relation to farmer protests against reducing subsidies on diesel fuel.
So the question of "Landfriedensbruch" is in regards to the entirety of the events, by which then an individual participation could be claimed on the basis of being present. It does not require the individuals charged to actually have been violent or threatening violence. If they were part of an organized crowd from which violence was enacted or threatened that is considered enough.
These kind of charges are often politically motivated, such as with charges and convictions surrounding the G20 summit and protests in Hamburg in 2017:
https://www.dw.com/en/hamburg-g20-riots-polish-man-becomes-first-charged/a-40028143
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/30/prot-a30.html
https://taz.de/Urteil-im-G20-Rondenbarg-Prozess/!6032364/ -
Thank you for the article with more details.
Calling resisting and attacking policemen and freeing of prisoners non-violent is a bit of a stretch though.
If you go into fetal position or "make yourself heavy" as police is arresting you, this is "resisting" policemen in Germany. So if a policemen beats you into your stomach and you fall to the ground, making yourself round as a result of the pain in your stomach, you will be charged as a violent offender.
-
The people in question are not convicted of any crime. Also the state attorneys are not prosecuting the people in question for violent crimes at the even in question. Rather they are prosecuted for "obstruction of police work" because they were outside the building when police brought out people it arrested inside. one of the people is investigated for calling a policemen fascist.
See https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/abschiebung-ausweisung-palaestina-aktivisten-rechtswidrig-eugh-freizuegigkeit-berlin for a more neutral description by a legal magazine, which bothers to make proper distinctions:
Die Darstellungen des LKA in den Ausweisungsbescheiden lesen sich weniger brutal, aber immer noch bedrohlich. Hier ist die Rede von 20 Personen, die sich Zugang zum Gebäude verschafft, dort Wände beschmiert und die Technik zerstört hätten. Sie sollen Brecheisen bzw. "Kuhfüße" bei sich geführt haben. Hiermit sollen sie versucht haben, eine Tür zu einem Raum aufzubrechen, in dem sich ein stark verängstigter FU-Mitarbeiter verschanzt hatte. Äxte, Sägen und Knüppel werden nicht erwähnt. Im Anschluss an die Besetzung kam es zu Festnahmen. Zehn Verdächtige – unter ihnen auch die vier Aktivist:innen – sollen versucht haben, dies zu verhindern.
Roughly translates to:
"The description of the events by the LKA (state criminal investigators) used in the deportation notices is reading less brutal but still threatening. It describes 20 people which empowered themselves entry to the building, vandalised walls and destroyed technical equipment. They are alleged to have carried crowbars, with which they (the 20 people who entered the building) tried to open a room, in which a strongly scared FU employee had barricaded himself. Axes, Saws and clubs are not mentioned. Subsequent to the occupation, multiple arrests occured. Ten suspects -among them the four activists- are alleged to tried to prevent the arrests.
So the police investigators are not claiming the people to have participated in the occupation, but rather to try to prevent arrests that were made because of the occupation.
The next Paragraph:
Im Ausweisungsbescheid gegen US-Bürger:in Longbottom ist dies der einzige aufgelistete Sachverhalt. Bei den anderen dreien kommen im Zusammenhang mit anderen Protestaktionen weitere Ermittlungen wegen demonstrationstypischer Delikte hinzu. Das sind etwa Widerstand gegen (§ 113 Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) oder tätlicher Angriff auf Vollstreckungsbeamte (§ 114 StGB) sowie Äußerungsdelikte wie Beleidigung (§ 185 StGB), Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB) oder Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen (§ 86a StGB). Den Befreiungsversuch nach der FU-Besetzung wertet die Polizei als Gefangenenbefreiung (§ 120 StGB).
Translates to:
"The deportation notice against US-Citizen Longbotton only lists this occurence. For the other activists other occurences in relation to different protest actions are mentioned as being under investigation. These are "typical for demonstrations" such as resisting or attacking police officers (§ 113-114) and "Speak-Crime" (sorry for the bad translation) such as insults (§185), hate speech (§130) or using symbols of an unconstitutional organisation (§86a). The attempted freeing of arrests after the FU-occupation is considered by the police as freeing of arrested people (§120).
So none of the people are investigated for violent crime in relation to the FU-occupation.
The article further notes that the "typical for demonstrations" investigations do not warrant a deportation unless convicted and repeated. For the FU-occupation it is noted that this is more serious and could suffice for such a move, however the police reports only provide general descriptions rather than tying specific actions to the activists threatened with deportation.
Long story short: At the time of the deportation notices none of the people were accused for violent crime in regard to the FU occupation. All of this was conjecture made by the interior ministry of the state of Berlin and a willfully or ignorantly complicit press
I really, really don't understand why we are getting bombarded with posts about those 4 people here. This is the 5th? 8th? 10th article that was posted in /c/europe about this? And it's infuriating stupid. Germany "has to save its democracy and respect the Holocaust" by letting random people destroy their university buildings? Meanwhile there were some Palestinians in Gaza protesting against Hamas, with a great risk for themselves and their lives. Nobody here did care about this. Nothing those "activists" did will help in any way to solve the conflict. Nothing, absolutley nothing. Let's not talk about stupid people doing stupid things for stupid reasons and let's really not smear the history of the Holocaust by doing a comparison here. Kicking out some foreigners doing crimes is not the same as fucking murdering million people on an industrial scale.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388
In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.
In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state's relation to Israel.
The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be "supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order."
What we are seeing with those "palestine protestors" is the rise of a militant, extremist group that is commiting serious crimes. Today they were trying to occupy another Berlin university. Did massive property damage, showed Hamas symbols, showed antisemitic banners, sprayed antisemitic graffiti and so on. This is not the first act like this
There are attacks on cafés:
They are seriously threatening journalists. In this case they put posters up with his picture, a Hamas symbol and are threatening to murder him.
Those are only the news from today. If you search on local news sites, you will find more serious crimes and terrorism. Nothing of that will help anybody in Gaza.
I personally do not believe anything they are saying. They have lied about their case before in their Guardian article and there really is a big legal difference between protesting and showing support for a terrorist organisation like Hamas.
-
As it explains further in your article in the next paragraph:
Erforderlich ist für die §§ 125, 125a StGB, dass "Gewalttätigkeiten gegen Menschen oder Sachen" oder entsprechende Drohungen "aus einer Menschenmenge heraus mit vereinten Kräften" begangen werden, und zwar in einer die öffentliche Sicherheit gefährdenden Weise. Im Fall der Besetzung der Humboldt-Universität im Mai 2024 sei dieses Delikt nicht einmal angeklagt worden, sagt O'Briens Rechtsanwalt Benjamin Düsberg. Auch im Fall der Belagerung eines Fähranlegers zum Nachteil von Wirtschaftsminister Robert Habeck im Januar 2024 verneinte die Staatsanwaltschaft ein organisiertes Vorgehen.
For the crimes of §§ 125, 125a StGB is is required that "acts of violence against people or property" or respective threats are made "from a crowd of people, working with unified/united force", in such a way that it endangers public security. In regards to an occupation of the Humboldt-University in May 2024 this delict was not even accused, said O'Briens lawyer. In another case of people "besieging" a fairy carrier to the disadvantage of the federal minister of the economy Rober Habeck in January 2024 the state attorneys denied an organized action.
For clarity for non Germans, the event mentioned regarding the minister occurred in a different state in Germany and was in relation to farmer protests against reducing subsidies on diesel fuel.
So the question of "Landfriedensbruch" is in regards to the entirety of the events, by which then an individual participation could be claimed on the basis of being present. It does not require the individuals charged to actually have been violent or threatening violence. If they were part of an organized crowd from which violence was enacted or threatened that is considered enough.
These kind of charges are often politically motivated, such as with charges and convictions surrounding the G20 summit and protests in Hamburg in 2017:
https://www.dw.com/en/hamburg-g20-riots-polish-man-becomes-first-charged/a-40028143
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/30/prot-a30.html
https://taz.de/Urteil-im-G20-Rondenbarg-Prozess/!6032364/Note that the lawyer specifically talks about an occupation of the FU in May, not the famously violent one in October that is discussed in the rest of the article.
Also, the article states that it is currently still investigated by the public prosecutor, outcome unknown.
Therefore, I find it difficult to claim that none of these persons is 'investigated for violent crime in relation to the FU occupation', Even if they should decide against 'Landfriedensbruch' specifically, something we don't know, who's to say it won't be something else instead?
-
What we are seeing with those "palestine protestors" is the rise of a militant, extremist group that is commiting serious crimes. Today they were trying to occupy another Berlin university. Did massive property damage, showed Hamas symbols, showed antisemitic banners, sprayed antisemitic graffiti and so on. This is not the first act like this
There are attacks on cafés:
They are seriously threatening journalists. In this case they put posters up with his picture, a Hamas symbol and are threatening to murder him.
Those are only the news from today. If you search on local news sites, you will find more serious crimes and terrorism. Nothing of that will help anybody in Gaza.
I personally do not believe anything they are saying. They have lied about their case before in their Guardian article and there really is a big legal difference between protesting and showing support for a terrorist organisation like Hamas.
Der Tagesspiegel is not a good source for anything remotely based in reality regarding Palestine or Israel. The newspaper is owned by the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group,
which was founded by an actual nazi (not hyperbole), and it's still run by his sons, who are some of the richest men in the world.The editor in chief, Stephan Andreas Cassdorff, has also written articles for partisan pro-israeli organizations which are full throated in their support of the IDF.
If you can find another source for any of that, please do.
-
What we are seeing with those "palestine protestors" is the rise of a militant, extremist group that is commiting serious crimes. Today they were trying to occupy another Berlin university. Did massive property damage, showed Hamas symbols, showed antisemitic banners, sprayed antisemitic graffiti and so on. This is not the first act like this
There are attacks on cafés:
They are seriously threatening journalists. In this case they put posters up with his picture, a Hamas symbol and are threatening to murder him.
Those are only the news from today. If you search on local news sites, you will find more serious crimes and terrorism. Nothing of that will help anybody in Gaza.
I personally do not believe anything they are saying. They have lied about their case before in their Guardian article and there really is a big legal difference between protesting and showing support for a terrorist organisation like Hamas.
To be honest, I am completely lost on why the focus is on universities. Germany has factories that make actual weapons used to kill Palestinians. They can sell those weapons because the government allows it. In fact the German government could easily force universities to stop working with their Israel counterparts as they have done with institutions from e.g. Iran or NK. Why focus your efforts on people that try to learn and people that try to teach? It’s really baffling to me.
-
Der Tagesspiegel is not a good source for anything remotely based in reality regarding Palestine or Israel. The newspaper is owned by the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group,
which was founded by an actual nazi (not hyperbole), and it's still run by his sons, who are some of the richest men in the world.The editor in chief, Stephan Andreas Cassdorff, has also written articles for partisan pro-israeli organizations which are full throated in their support of the IDF.
If you can find another source for any of that, please do.
That's a bunch of nonsense.
- Holtzbrinck is in general, a center-left publishing house, as you could see from their papers Zeit, Tagesspiegel, and to some degree also the finance-focused Handelsblatt.
- Almost every single German company that's over 80 years old has a Nazi past. I can also give you the example of my two grandfathers: the older one as a 15-year-old (almost) grabbed a gun to defend the city against allied troops but became a decent person; the younger one was around 7 at the time and never fought, but became a lifelong racist and misogynist.
- What's that argument about Nazi past of the founder and thus not being able to trust Israel?
- The photos they published aren't fake:
