Author:
Alie
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: Tuesday, January 14 2003, 10:07:36 GMT ( - 8 )
This report is a mixture of fact and ignorance. Somebody who obviously doesn't have much knowledge of German laws interpreted something along British or US laws and made an ass of himself. That wouldn't be that bad if he didn't spread this nonsense all around the world and suddenly Germany looks like a faschist country again (which actually is a hobby of the British press - some of them just didn't catch up with the last 58 years).
Basically German citizens (or citizens of the European Union, as the various country laws are synchronized to a vast degree and the constitutions all observe the European Human Rights Convention) enjoy all the freedoms US citizens enjoy, and post 9/11 and Ashcroft, I daresay some freedoms more. The only freedom we do not have in Germany (and most European countries) is the right to bear arms, but we do not consider this right as a freedom but as a nuisance and a disturbance of public safety. We rather conceive the lack of guns - just the other way round - as the right to survive without the risk of running into a shoot-out on every other streetcorner or grocery store. Of course there are hold-ups here too, but usually they are less violent, the thugs often don't have guns or are less prepared to shoot at everything that moves as they know store owner and patrons will most likely not shoot back, or maybe even shoot first. Different from most US states Germany is a very densely populated country, considerably less game to hunt and therefore considerably less hunters. Most of us wouldn't even know what to do with a gun, but then, Germans don't need guns, we have cars (statement by an American colleague from Rhode Island who came to work with us for a while, rented a car and headed out to the Autobahn on his way to us. He claimed he didn't have this mop of gray hair on his head two hours before he arrived at our research institute).
Back to the freedom of speech. It is guaranteed in quite an all-encompassing way in our constitution which btw is not called a constitution but a fundamental law. This dates back to 1948 when the Federal Republic of Germany was founded. We could not have a constitution in the traditional sense as we did not have peace treaties with all the countries we have been at war. The last peace treaties were signed only with the reunification in 1990, and by then we found that we did better with the preliminary fundamental law than with any constitution we had since the political construct of Germany came into existence in 1871 (before, Germany was a jumble of about 300 kingdoms, duchies, principalities etc. on a territory about half the size of Texas). Therefore, we decided to keep the name of fundamental law. But I digress again.
I looked for an English copy of the fundamental law online but didn't find one, and my English is not good enough to correctly translate laws and constitutions. So I just try and hope I make some sense.
The freedom of speech is limited, or better, regulated, by three provisos and by these I think we are years ahead of some of the US states. The provisos are glorification of violence (not glorification of criminal acts which would be quite a different kettle of fish and doesn't exist in German legislation), racism, and protection of children. The law against the glorification of violence and the law against racism are very effective laws against hate crimes of which many US states still think they are not necessary, and - in my personal opinion - the protection of children leaves a bit to be desired in the US.
The law against glorification of violence and the law against racism are direct results of the Third Reich which I don't think I need to explain. It is forbidden by the law to spread Nazi content through the Internet or any other media IF (and only if) this content is meant to glorify the Nazi philosophy or to instigate violent crimes including racism. It's also forbidden by the law to claim that Auschwitz and other death camps didn't exist and the Holocaust never happened. All dyed in the wool and aggressive Nazi websites that target Germany are based in the US or Canada (you may know Nazi white trash like Gary Laux, Ernst Zuendel, or Fred Leuchter). It is not forbidden to publish Nazi content for scientific or historical reasons, again provided it isn't just content disguised as science but in reality spreads racism and hate crimes (eg., the "science" of the inferiority of certain races, genders, orientations which allows or even instigates hate crimes from harrassment up to ethnic cleansing as a result of "scientific" results).
Over the years, the concept of glorification of violence expanded to a wider range than only Nazi content and covers fundamentalism of many colors. Of course there is quite a variety of opinions what is covered by the law and what is not, sometimes it even looks like the "flavor of the month" depending on the latest events, but so far no permanent damage has been done to the law.
Now, on to the case of Mr. Voss. The German law also knows the offense of approving of criminal acts, but that has nothing to do with the freedom of speech or constitutional rights. What happened in this report is a mix-up of glorification of violence and approving of criminal acts. I have no idea though who mixed them up, the court spokesman (if he did he should be fired because he doesn't know his business), more likely the journalist or the translator.
The 16 German Laender - which would be states in the US, but we think of Germany of the state and the Laender of the countries - are quite different, among other, in their judiciary habits. In Laender under conservative administration it's a bit more likely to be dragged to court for "offenses" like that of Mr. Voss than in Laender under social-democratic administration, and a little bit more likely that a court accepts the case. Usually cases like this one are not even accepted for trial. If they are tried end end with a conviction, the sentence usually will be revoked in the appellate proceeding. Actually, the trial in question here was already the appellate proceeding. Before that, Mr. Voss was ordered to a fine of $1500 against which he submitted an objection.
The case of Mr. Voss is much ado about nothing, period. Maybe one of the more peculiar events of election campaigns in current Germany. Lower Saxony, where Muenster is located, elects their government in February, and for the first time in decades the social-democrat party may lose the election. The conservatives are campaigning, among other, on the law & order ticket. Maybe the social-democrats are trying to convince undecided voters with a taste for law & order that they don't need the conservatives for that, and therefore Mr. Voss was taken to court, I don't know. And before I forget, Mr. Voss was fully acquitted two days ago with the explicit approval of the district attorney. He shouldn't have been fined to begin with.
That leaves freedom of speech and privacy on the internet - I will look into this tomorrow or whenever my feaver is down again. Hehehe, looks like I'm getting duckier by the minute......
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
|
Feedback: 