German Chancellor Angela Merkel has shown some moxie in trying to make Germany do the humanitarian thing by absorbing many fearful immigrants from the Middle East. Many of her constituents don’t want those immigrants, and so her approval rating has dropped strongly in the last year, particularly after the mass attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.
I’ve supported her stand, but now I want to criticize her about a different matter: her handling of free speech. As many of you probably know, a German comedian, Jan Böhmermann, wrote a scatalogical poem criticizing Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and broadcasst the poem on German television. I haven’t been able to find the poem, or even a transcript, as the clip has been removed. Many, however, found it not that funny, tasteless, and offensive on the grounds of both its nature and its profanity.
Böhmermann’s poem apparently accused Erdogan of being a pedophile and of copulating with animals; Wikipedia gives a bit more detail:
Böhmermann, among other things, called the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan “the man who beats girls”, and said that Erdogan loved to “fuck goats and suppress minorities, kick Kurds, hit Christians, and watch child pornography.” Much of the rest of the poem is devoted to associating Erdogan with various less accepted forms of sexuality. Böhmermann deliberately played with the limits of satire and said several times that this form of abusive criticism was not allowed in Germany.
German law generally favors free speech, but there is a notable exception: it’s against the law to insult foreign leaders. From the BBC:
Here’s article 103 of Germany’s criminal code: Defamation of organs and representatives of foreign states
(1) Whosoever insults a foreign head of state, or, with respect to his position, a member of a foreign government who is in Germany in his official capacity, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission who is accredited in the Federal territory shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine, in case of a slanderous insult to imprisonment from three months to five years.
That’s absurd, and unworthy of a democratic nation. It’s as bad as a blasphemy law prohibiting the mockery of religion.
Erdogan, offended, protested to the German government and demanded through his lawyer that Böhmermann agree to never again recite the poem. Böhmermann refused.
To prosecute Böhmermann for violating the law, Merkel has to give prosecutors the go-ahead to start an investigation. Sadly, bowing to the desire to keep good relationships with Turkey, a crucial country in the immigrant crisis, Merkel did. At the same, time, though, she did this (report from NPR):
Even as she allowed the case to proceed, Merkel announced Friday “that her government will draft a proposal to replace the current law that criminalizes insulting foreign heads of state, making it ‘dispensable in the future,’ ” Deutsche Welle reported.
Well, that’s good, but by allowing prosecution of Böhmermann to go forward, with possible jail time, she’s blatantly violating the freedom of speech that should be part and parcel of German law. She could, without any penalty, have prevented the present investigation.
It’s clear that Merkel holds her relationship with Erdogan—an authoritarian bully who’s in the process of dismantling free speech in his own country—more important than the principle of free and unpunished expression. It’s a severe disappointment, and makes her tenure as Chancellor look increasingly tenuous.
h/t: Christopher
This is a bad law, a stupid law. Heads of state, foreign or domestic, should be offered less protection from ridicule than others, not more.
Germany has some weird laws. I think I’d be in constant trouble there, having grown up in Canada.
No, we don’t. Please name a few.
A couple, very quickly, off the top of my head:
1) Tax deductions for churches.
2) Criminalisation of holocaust denial (this sort of nonsense should be out in the open, so that idiots are exposed to criticism).
No. 1 is hardly unique to Germany. It shouldn’t exist IMO, but that doesn’t make it weird.
No. 2: Why do you think that Holocaust deniers aren’t subject to criticism? The criminal proceedings are just an add-on.
1) I was thinking specifically of the automatic income tax deductions, unless one opts out. Apologies: I should have been clearer.
2) How can you have an authentic discussion if the deniers are not allowed to state what they really think?
“Just an add-on”. Jail for mistaken beliefs and unpopular ideas is “just an add-on.”
Show me how many have gone to jail for the denial of the Holocaust!
– the state collects taxes for the church (10% of your regular income tax if I remember well).
– you pay taxes for you d*g (but not for your cat, I’m sure PCC agrees with this one).
Yes RolandG, you do have weird* laws. I also grew up in Canada and I have lived in Germany. Being Canadian meant that I was unaware that:
1. Photography in public places is problematic. While photography for private use is legal, many people get angry quickly when you try to photograph a street scene such as a public parade. And if you post those pictures on Facebook/Flickr, well then you are violating privacy laws.
2. Insult is a criminal offense. Even showing someone your middle finger can be considered a criminal offense.
3. Recording your bike commute with a GoPro on your helmet is not illegal either, even though many people think it is (and they won’t hesitate to berate you for it). But using the footage to fight a court case will be dismissed due infringement of personal privacy rights.
*weird is a subjective term I grant you. You probably do not find these laws weird at all, but I certainly do!
OMG! I thought Germany LOST WWII.
Also laws around when to hose off your car or water your lawn. We limit watering when in drought but I knew a coworker who lived in Germany and he innocently washed his car in his driveway only to have the police show up at his door and fine him because a neighbour called and complained. That whole thing is weird to me.
We try to keep our water resources clean from oily residues. What is weird about this?
Not weird at all. Here in NZ, Porirua City just made it illegal to wash cars on concrete driveways for the same reason (it’s okay to wash them on grass). And most councils have regulations on the discharge of pollutants including oils and greases to stormwater.
cr
Oh you misunderstand. It was okay to wash the car, just not on the day he washed it.
It is no longer ok to wash your car on the street or in front of your house because of water pollution. This has nothing to do with Sundays, religion, or freedom.
I never said it did. I said the person I knew being fined for washing his car on the wrong day and having the neighbour call the police (without saying anything to him) is weird to me.
Forget it.
“It was okay to wash the car, just not on the day he washed it.”
Ah. OK. We (here in NZ) have equally curious restrictions (now mostly abolished) on what days which shops can open and what they can sell.
I presume the car-washing was one of a list of things that were prohibited on particular days to maintain the peace of the neighbourhood?
(We could do with that here. Weekends are often made hideous by DIY pests with their noisy power tools. The worst are petrol (gas-) powered handhelds like chainsaws, leaf blowers, line trimmers… I’d ban such in residential areas without a special permit. Get an electric one!)
cr
And in sorry I’ve made the Germans angry. I hate it when I mak the Germans angry.
Hey, so does all of Europe. Sorry but you started it.
Ooh, that was bad!
😀
* Church tax with powers of checking international Catholic Church records to see if someone was baptized and then charging them 8% tax retrospectively (that’s what they tried to do to me).
* No dancing on Good Friday (and other days — all way too complicated to list, as there are different laws for each Bundesland)…
* Cycling laws are also completely and utterly bizarre (when to obey and not obey traffic lights, depending on date and presence of certain signs.
* I could list me getting kicked out of the sauna (while in there alone) for *not* being naked, but I will let that pass because I actually admire that kind of thing…
* Previously people with a PhD from a foreign university were not permitted to identify themselves as “Dr”. (That’s been changed, and I can also more than forgive them for it, because when that Koran-burning Pastor, Terry Jones lived in Cologne, he was fined €4000 for calling himself “Dr” without having a recognized degree. (For that kind of thing, I unconditionally forgive my hosts their apparent bureaucratic zeal!)
Getting kicked out of the sauna for not being naked is funny. This would totally happen to me as well as all the other ones like putting my recycling out at the wrong time.
– Cannot deny a chimney sweep access to your home if she/he demands it
– forbidden to use a drill on sunday, recycle bottles outside of authorised hours, tune a piano at night or tap your head to indicate someone is a bit crazy
– a hefty fine for addressing a policist as “du” instead of “Sie”
nothing weird? oh no!
If the chimney sweep was also a vampire, that would create a strange dilemma. He wants in, but you have to invite him because he’s a vampire but because he’s a vampire he might kill you so it’s an endless loop.
Throwing bottles into the recycling bin is a noisy activity. For maximum convenience, the bins are often sited close to where people live. Simple empathy would dictate that residents not be disturbed at night or at times of day when young children are expected to sleep. To enforce, for the benefit of the insensitive, reasonable restrictions by law is not not utterly unreasonable.
Admittedly, such laws are an example of the typically German attitude that everything must be regulated in detail, with the underlying premise that whatever is not explicitly permitted is illegal.
Oh the “du” and “Sie” – I’d probably screw up there too. I’m even too familiar among Canadians, who tend to be somewhat familiar. I’m horrible to people who are snooty because I don’t think they are better than me so I talk to them like I do everyone else. Those conversations are short.
The rule of “Du” or “Sie” is pretty simple.
Never use “Du” with an adult person unless he/she offers you to do so.
(And let’s hope it’s not your boss who makes this offer.)
See! I’d totally miss that boss part. I’d get in trouble over that too.
Not that different from the French really, “tu” and “vous”.
I suspect the only reason English doesn’t have a similar custom is because we only have the one word for “you”.
cr
The English of Shakespeare, which is considered modern English, did have a formal (also plural) “you”. For whatever reason, it fell out of favour. It would be interesting to know why.
I’m vaguely aware of that. So you’re saying a similar distinction between the familiar and the, umm, generic terms of address operated then?
(In my amateur French, I long ago decided to stick to using ‘vous’ for two reasons: 1. ‘vous’ is never wrong, and 2. the conjugations for ‘vous’ are easy to remember and rarely irregular 😉
cr
Diana, the kinds and amount of legal trouble you are likely to get into in Germany are a joke compared to what awaits you with your USian neighbors, where just being sued by one will ruin you whether you’re right or not…
The US ahas completely tax exempt churches and multimillionaire preachers living tax free. We don’t have anything approaching this kind of madness. The one bishop who tried rlto build a luxury residence for himself a couple of years ago was widely shunned by the population and sent to Rome.
Insulting a (friendly) head of state is also illegal in Holland: http://www.nu.nl/dvn/4247594/vervolging-beledigen-staatshoofd-kan-in-nederland.html
Insulting the king is too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9#Netherlands
So Holland has a bad & stupid law, too.
(Pretty much all countries have bad & stupid laws, of course.)
That’s correct Pietje Puk. And since Hans Teeuwen also insulted Erdogan in a very bad way (was not funny at all), we will see what happens.
Yet gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn who did not toe the standard PC line on multiculturalism, immigration and Islam (calling Islam “a backward culture”) got his speech suppressed permanently when he was murdered by Volkert van der Graaf who said he murdered Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as “scapegoats” and targeting “the weak members of society” in seeking political power endangering society with his controversial statements.
Van der Graaf is free on parole after 12 years in prison. Meanwhile leading critic of muslim immigration Geert Wilders, just as Ayaan Hirsi Ali during her tenure as Dutch parliamentarian, has an around the clock security detail to protect him from those great purveyors of free speech – the followers of the religion of peace™
The two issues are related in that Merkel needs as much support as she can get from the Turkish government in handling the refugee crisis. She probably decided that Böhmermann had to take one for the team in order to not complicate the organization of refugee streams.
Giving in to jerks (in this case an aggressive pro-Islamic autocrat) can only cause more confusion.
In the long run, I totally agree. If he’d start sulking now, throw a hissy fit and sabotage Angela’s refugee policy some more, that would just be very bad timing for her right now.
In keeping with the Germans’ having coined the term realpolitik.
Ah, I’d always thought it was the Soviets. Thanks for the education.
It was actuality Bismarck who lived Realpolitik.
And thank you for the further enlightenment. In fact I became curious enough to Google Bismarck–Wikipedia has quite the lengthy entry on him.
I’ve heard one explanation of the law: that it’s a relict of 19th-Century lese-majeste laws from an age when most/all European heads of state were highly inbred royals. Therefore criticizing or insulting one of them was insulting to the Kaiser.
Perhaps someone has a better explanation? And yes, sheep should be nervous around Erdogan.
That might explain the Netherlands (as mentioned above) but not Germany, who has had constitutional changes since that sort of thing. Besides, that’s just an origin, not an excuse to have it continue.
It’s my impression that new constitutions do not necessarily, in fact rarely do, imply a completely re-written legal code. In the case of Germany, I’d expect that they used the pre-1933 criminal legal code as a basis when the 3 zones of occupation in western Germany were granted self-government. And much of the 1933 civil and criminal codes would have dated to the Bismarckian era after unification.
Certainly they did not adopt or follow very closely the legal codes of any of their conquerors. Too bad they weren’t forced to choose between English and US, with the proviso that if they wouldn’t make the choice, they’d get French law.
“Certainly they did not adopt or follow very closely the legal codes of any of their conquerors.”
As for your rather arrogant idea of Western superiority: Had Germany taken over American/British/French legal provisions, it would have ended up with electrocutions, gallows or the guillotine (all of which were happily avoided).
As I recall, the gallows were used to good effect in the Nuremburg trials…
…which were not held under German (or any international) procedural or material law.
The Nürnberd gallows were operated by the victorious Allies. Germany has no death penalty.
We actually got French law for most German states in adopting the Code Napoleon while this war monger not only had invaded Germany but nearly all European countries.
French Law isn’t less democratic. It’s used in Quebec to success. It’s differences are nuanced and in some ways better than British law.
It is clear by now that the infamous §103 will be abolished just in time to bail out Böhmermann. If there is no law there is no judgement. This is hoe we shall thumb Erdogan’s nice.
Jerry, you’re quite wrong on this one. I don’t blame you, as you couldn’t possibly know the intricacies of German law. But that’s why legal analysis is best performed by those who have studied the law.
Merkel is not violating freedom of speech, she is enforcing the separation of powers. The public prosecutors investigate and decide whether someone should be accused of an offense, not the government. The courts then decide whether sonemone should be tried for that alleged offense, not the government. It is not Merkel’s place to prevent investigations.
Furthermore, insult and defamation are criminal offenses in Germany regardless of the “victim”. Thus, Sec. 103 can easily be erdicated. Yes, freedom of speech is not without boundaries in the German constitution. As the saying goes, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose”. But there is hardly a significant number of court cases concerning insults. It’s mostly a non-issue. You can say and write almost anything in Germany.
One more thing. “Possible jail time”? Oh please! If this thing should end in a conviction (highly unlikely), there is no way he will do jail time. A fine at most.
Apparently unless you say it about a foreign head of state that the Chancellor wants to stay on the good side of.
+ 1
I’m a German citizen now, but I grew up in the US and have a very different idea of what constitutes freedom of speech. As you say, Roland, “insulting” is a criminal offense in Germany – or it can be. The relevant paragraphs are trotted out rather more frequently than you suggest, however, especially when police officers or other “officials” (Beamte) are the targets of the insults.
Hardly a week passes without a court-ordered retraction printed in the newspaper, paid for by the convicted criminal, reading something like “I hereby retract my insult against Officer Hans Schmidt, uttered on 1 January 2016, with an expression of regret.” (I’ve always enjoyed the syntax of the original German, which leaves ambiguity about what the person regrets: the insult or the retraction.)
I’ve seen your separation of powers argument in the German press, and although I, like Jerry, am not a lawyer, I find it somewhat puzzling. Why is government approval required at all if the government isn’t meant to evaluate the alleged offense and decide whether an investigation is warranted? (To some extent it’s irrelevant because Böhmermann could still be prosecuted for insulting a regular person as opposed to a head of state.) Just as puzzling to me: Sec. 103 refers to visiting heads of state. To my knowledge, Erdogan – the “authoritarian bully”, as Jerry says – wasn’t in Germany at the time.
Even if Sec. 103 is repealed, I will not feel completely free in my freedom of speech until I can call a Beamter an a**hole with impunity.
Why on earth would you even want freedom of speech to extend as far as insulting government officials? Would it give your life some extra degree of fulfilment if you could do so regularly (and with impunity)?
The fact is that civil servants often bring unpleasant news to the citizenry. An eviction notice or serving a court order can evoke strong emotional responses yet the official is only the messenger.
Why should these people not have an extra layer of protection against the outbursts of assholes with whom they otherwise prefer not to associate were it not for their job?
Are you kidding?
How about this… because nobody has a right to not be offended. Least of all government officials who wield power over citizens.
I side with GBJames.
Both of you missed the point.
It’s not about offence. It’s about abuse. Why are you so intent to abuse the person that comes to your door to serve an eviction notice? They are just doing their job.
Bull pucky. Verbal abuse is nothing but offense. Physical abuse is something else, but irrelevant in this situation.
Who gets to decide when the Leader-Who-Must-Not-Be-Offended has been slandered so much that the offender must be punished? I hope it isn’t you.
We’re not talking about public figures. You seem to misunderstand much about the discussion. And understand little about European laws.
I don’t need to understand anything about European laws to hold an opinion about whether it should or should not be illegal to insult a government official. We’re discussing whether it is right, not whether it is legal. I don’t dispute that the law exists.
There’s an old principle we learn as children, or at least that we should learn. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. It is a bad government official who is so threatened by an insult that he/she feels compelled to take action against the speaker of the insult. Ant it is bad public policy to give government leaders a weapon that can be used to subvert the speech of their political opposition.
Erdogan feels abused by someone’s poem. Too bad. Cry me a river.
In a Muslim country, if you insulted a government official you’d be dragged off to jail and beaten to within an inch of your life.
In Europe, especially were many officials are women, some immigrants take advantage of the relative laxity and go out of their way to abuse those in the public service.
Verbal and physical abuse of paramedics, firemen, council inspectors etc is on the rise and uncivilised behaviour needs to be punished to maintain a civilised society.
A fine (and in extreme circumstances some prison time) is preferable to a beating. And it’s preferable to the wholesale abuse of people performing vital services to the population.
You must be kidding.
The fact that Muslim theocracies have even worse and stupider laws regarding free expression its not a legitimate defense of bad laws in European countries.
I suspect you may have hit on a cultural difference with this discussion. At least it seems that way. In the U.S. we are pretty strict with the freedom of speech thing and it does not matter who. Apparently this may not be the case in parts of Europe.
When John Adams threw in the Sedation Act way back when, he paid the price. He thought, as president, it was his right to shut up unwanted press. Not so.
@Randy I think you’re right re: cultural differences. I think also while Americans have a reputation for suing over everything (I don’t think it’s actually as bad as some people make out), Germany has a reputation for codifying way more things into law than Americans (or Canadians). It would be interesting to understand why these differences.
Jan Böhmermann did also only his job; satire is excellent defense against narcissisticly gifted leaders.
Angela Merkel had been warned that she could possibly be blackmailed by Recep Erdohan; she needs him badly to solve her refugee-crisis. Erdohan is killing freedom of speech in his own country, now he is allowed by Merkel to do the same in Germany.
Similar name, completely different views on this subject.
Why should they not be subject to the potential for abuse much like anyone in the public service is (I know, I’ve held lots of these types of jobs)? In other words, what makes them so special? They can’t be criticized as doing something stupid but others can?
Indeed. I *am* currently a public servant, and if some Canadian (or anyone else) wants to insult me, they can go right ahead. Why should I be protected and the guy who sweeps the floors in my apartment building or the teenagers who bag my groceries or my friend the music teacher not?
+1 to your entire argument
“I hereby retract the prolonged extension of the third digit of my left hand, directed at the driver of a jacked-up blue Ford F-250 who cut me off on Highway X, gestured on 2 April 2016, with an expression of regret.”
Love it!
You seriously think having to retract an insult publicly after insulting a police officer on duty is an unusually bad outcome compared to other places?
I’d rather publicly retract some curse words against officers than be roughed up and tasered.
I’ve even poked fun at police officers here in the past (one instance comes to mind when one guy accidentally broke something while on duty), and all I got from them was eye rolls. I would never dare do that in the US.
Well in NZ and several other countries we’re allowed to insult the police in stressful situations and generally they understand why people react that way and are trained not to respond. I would think a published retraction just makes a big deal of a minor incident. Save the law for when someone, anyone, is physically attacked.
In the US one cannot be lawfully prosecuted or punished for making fun of, or insulting, a cop (or any other public official).
Are there lawless cops who might try to extract their own, private revenge for such an insult? Perhaps, but that is an issue completely separate from what the law itself allows.
US free-expression standards forbid the punishment of anyone for insulting any type of public official, petty or high, in part because such a practice would have a “chilling effect” on people’s ability to voice legitimate criticisms of public officials.
I am reminded of a story by (I think) Mark Twain regarding an apology to a public figure, roughly: In my article published last week I said of Congressman Smith that he would not steal a red-hot stove. He has objected to my statement and demanded an apology. I sincerely apologise to Congressman Smith and retract my incorrect assertion. He would steal a red-hot stove.
So, insulting someone is *not* a criminal offense in the US? Interesting. So if I walked up to someone in the US and spewed a stream of insults at him, would that be legally okay, or would it constitute some other offense – coercion or whatever? Would the insulted person have any right to self-defense, or would he have to swallow it silently?
(Technically, according to German law, continued insults constitute a violation of one’s rights that justify self-defense. You may have problems convincing the judge that the bitch slap really was the least harmful way to safely stop the insults, though 🙂 )
If the harangue included threats, express or implied, it could constitute an “assault.” If it is part of an ongoing course of conduct directed at a specific individual, it might constitute criminal “stalking” or “menacing.” If it were to take place in public and cause a disturbance, it might constitute an infraction like “disorderly conduct” or “disturbing the peace.”
Beyond this, it would not generally be prosecutable as a criminal offense. The victim might, however, have a private, civil cause of action against the aggressor for “harassment” or possibly even (if the insults were made within earshot of another, were factual in nature and false, and were damaging to the victim’s reputation) for “slander” or “defamation.”
But there is no generally applicable legal right in the US merely to be free from insult or offense. Under our constitution’s First Amendment, the preference is to give broad “breathing space” to the free exchange of ideas and information, even if some find those ideas or information hurtful.
Thanks for the detailed reply, I appreciate it.
I see one crucial point here: “But there is no generally applicable legal right in the US merely to be free from insult or offense.”
I see a difference between “insult” (a statement aimed at one particular person with the intent to hurt) and “offense” (which could be, and often is, caused by a general statement about something held dear by a person). Offense is inevitable in a free discourse about controversial topics. Insults aren’t.
Also, personally I don’t see a big boundary between verbal and physical violence. Whether someone just screams insults at me, or screams insults and and adds a shove and a slap, doesn’t make a huge difference. Both would make me equally livid, both are inacceptable.
“Why is government approval required at all if the government isn’t meant to evaluate the alleged offense and decide whether an investigation is warranted?”
That’s exactly the question. Why this anomaly in the German Penal Code? Well, this anomaly refers to all 3 offences against foreign states and their representatives. It has to do with the special reciprocal protection that is necessary for diplomatic relations. Sec. 104a of the German Penal Code reads: “Offences under this chapter shall only be prosecuted if the Federal Republic of Germany maintains diplomatic relations with the other state, reciprocity is guaranteed and was also guaranteed at the time of the offence, a request to prosecute by the foreign government exists, and the Federal Government authorises the prosecution.”
“Just as puzzling to me: Sec. 103 refers to visiting heads of state. To my knowledge, Erdogan – the “authoritarian bully”, as Jerry says – wasn’t in Germany at the time.”
It doesn’t. It refers to “a foreign head of state, or, with respect to his position, a member of a foreign government who is in Germany in his official capacity, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission who is accredited in the Federal territory”. So, if it’s a member of government, being in Germany is a condition, if it’s a head of state, it’s not.
“Even if Sec. 103 is repealed, I will not feel completely free in my freedom of speech until I can call a Beamter an a**hole with impunity.”
If you define your freedom by the ability to verbally abuse people, more’s the pity. Insults don’t bring anything to the table of a civilised discussion.
It was a diplomatic note that had to be answered. Angela only allowed a court decision to be made. The government is not judge. The separation of power ia well observed in Germany.
Exactly.
Thanks for the clarification, Roland. I do wonder to what degree German heads of state and officials can count on reciprocity, though… I’ve seen way too many caricatures of Chancellor Merkel with a swastika armband.
On the second point, I had to parse the original to verify that you are indeed correct; I had misread it at first go. Perhaps I should have studied Legalese instead of German!
On your third point, I certainly agree that insults do not contribute in a positive way to civil discourse, and I try to avoid them. (The odd expletive may slip out in the heat of the moment, I admit.) My point is not that I want to verbally abuse an official or anyone else. I just don’t like anyone telling me what I can and cannot say. It’s like my preference for living somewhere with easy access to museums, theaters and opera houses. I may not go to them very often, but I want to know they’re there when I want them.
–> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamation
“On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, as of 2005, seventeen states and two territories had criminal defamation laws on the books”
So, it’s not like this concept of criminal defamation is completely alien to the US.
But you have to distinguish between theory and praxis. Insults are a criminal offense in Germany. Insults are hurled at people all the time in every country. That doesn’t mean that many insults end in court.
“You can say and write almost anything in Germany.”
Unless it’s on the topic of Islam and refugees
when we saw a massive concerted blackout engaged in by government, police and media of any mention of unpleasantness associated with those topics. Cologne was merely the tip of a particularly perverse iceberg.
To this day Germany’s leading newsweekly Der Spiegel bans reader’s comments on any articles covering that topic.
Laws against questioning any aspect of the holocaust further betrays the veracity of your claim
What has that got to do with a citizen’s protection of his free speech from government intervention?
If the media voluntarily limit their reporting, then that’s a bad decision by them, but not a governmental ban.
The fact you compare speech to swinging one’s fist does not suggest you support free expression at all. In fact the likening of words to physical violence is virtually a calling card of censors.
Bullshit!
How’s that for freedom of speech?
Your claim doesn’t even hold a drop of water. How dare you even question my view of our Basic Rights? What do know about me? Have you studied German Constutional Law? Yeah, I thought so.
German Basic Rights are not limitless. That doesn’t mean they’re limited in everyday life.
“How dare you even question my view of our Basic Rights?”
as in “How dare you claim that I’m against freedom of speech?”,
not as in
“How dare you doubt my statement?”
So true. What the hack some of the commentators criticise German law? We learned democracy the hard way thanks to our American friends. We are now one of the most liberal society in the world even too liberal to some of my fellow citizens.
The following piece contains a transcript of the relevant parts of the show. Basically Böhmermann explains to Erdogan what is allowed under German law and what is forbidden. And he illustrates what is forbidden with this derogatory poem. The legal question now is, if this pedagogical reason is enough to warrant the publication of an otherwise illeagal personal Insult.
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/tv/jan-boehmermann-das-sind-die-fakten-der-staatsaffaere-a-1086571.html
Here is a translation including a link to the full video: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_b%C3%B6hmermann_said_english_translation/
It’s definitely a redundant and archaic law and everyone hasting now to get it off the books. That’s a good result of it all.
Apart from that – we shouldn’t dramatise this too much. Böhmermann’s intent (I think) was to show Erdogan just where the boundaries of satire are. You didn’t write about this, but before Bohmermanns’s poem, there was a (comparatively mild) satire from some tv station targeting Erdogans suppression of free speech in Turkey. Erdogan asked the German officials to have this removed. Böhmermann’s “poem” was a reaction to that: “Look here Erdogan, THIS far I’d have to go before I step on grounds which the law gets to be involved!”
There will be no jail time for Böhmermann. He might get a fine and he has already gotten international fame (as we can see here). Merkel couldn’t have reacted differently … well she should have ignored the whole affair in the first place, which she didn’t. But now, to declare the poem affair to be settled by court is really the only thing she could’ve done. The law should apply to everyone the same, even Erdogan (who filed the lawsuit, not Merkel) and that mentioned stupid paragraph 103 will be kicked out soon.
But it’s true – the whole affair has raised the question if Europe is about to become blackmail-able.
The other question of course is, why there were death threats against Böhmermann from Turkish nationalists. I sure hope, THOSE will be answered by the law, too!
“Whosoever insults a”, the meaning of “insults” is so nebulous it could be dangerous.
And yet it isn’t. It’s well defined in the literature to the German Penal Code and in precedents.
I have little sympathy.
If you broadcast he is a “goat fucker”, be prepared to produce the goat.
That’s what makes this case interesting: In effect he said “Now if I called you a goat fucker, that would be different.” It’s called non-literal speech.
He can also argue that Erdogan wasn’t even his target. As someone mentioned above, Böhmermann reacted to Erdogan trying to suppress another satire about him on German TV (he even called in the German ambassador) which caused German journalists and politicians, including Merkel, to ostentatiously sing the paean for freedom of speech. Now Böhmermann could say that his message was in fact “People act so smug about Germany’s freedom of speech now, but let’s see how principled they really are.”
The prosecution is going to have a hard time with this.
…and have Erdogan give a live demo?
I think Mr. Böhmermann should be prosecuted. Of course not for insulting Erdogan (who is indeed a dictator and a bully), but for being such a lousy comedian. There is nothing original in what he says and these sort of insults are so worn out.
BTW I think Merkel made a big mistake with inviting al these refugees to Germany and Europe. Now she sees that things got completely out of hand, like our governement here in Sweden. Which was forseeable. The fugitives should of course be helped. But in their own region. Not in Europe where maybe half of them have no future.
The irritating thing with contentions like yours is that the total EU influx of immigrants at ~1 M/year with open borders would be the same as in the earlier decade. (I hear from economists, I haven’t yet checked the statistics.)
So if EU nations pulled together and divided the immigrants fairly, they would be well capable of absorbing the influx.
Would it be as economically beneficial as earlier immigration, largely workers? Not at the outset, but after a longer delay (i.e. more investments), the returns would be much the same.
I don’t understand the idea that “fugitives” should be helped in their own region, whatever that means. Then they wouldn’t be fugitives from the wars. The reality is that 2/3 of them are moving inside their nation, 1/3 is absorbed by the surrounding nations.
There is a little overs pill, last year a substantial amount for the first time, into nations further away. Most war refugees _want_ to get back to their homes. Wouldn’t you?
Meanwhile, some have other hopes or are forced by destruction to move anyway. EU can do the right thing, and at the same time take care of EU’s problems. Say, Sweden is no longer stuck with a diminishing, ageing population, and we have a huge potential work force. We are so much stronger now, while we did the humanitarian thing.
The sad thing is that the majority of Swedes got scared by populist scare mongering, and decided that the nation should start imitate a scared hedgehog. :-/
The difference between you and me might be that I lived in the Middle east for quite a while and know the metality of the people very well. We have alreafy more than enough problems with integrating people from these areas (which is a complete failure). Ask yourself the question what are rich countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states doing? Nothing?
“huge potential workforce”
Your post shows how behind much of this humanitarian posturing lies a cynical neoliberal agenda that can’t imagine any solution to ageing populaces except perpetual growth, an environmentally-unsustainable paradigm.
This article is uncharacteristically weak. It is likely not the case that following the law of the land makes Merkel’s “tenure as Chancellor look increasingly tenuous.” I’m not sure how Germans reacted, but I would think they were divided on the issue. In any case, the evidence supporting the article is not there.
Mind that that there is a EU/US difference in play. Germany [and Sweden] has v”hate speech” constraints on free speech that is more severe than the US “don’t yell fire in a theater”.
It’s usually wrongly reported in the media that Böhmermann wrote the poem to insult Ergogan. He didn’t. He wrote it and read it on TV as “example of what would be illegal under German law, if someone were to do such a thing”. It wasn’t satire, but rather a provocative bit of irony. He very clearly did not accuse Erdogan of pedophilia or having sex with goats.
I will try to find a copy of it…
This is from the same show, after the poem was read out — great song parodying Rammstein, and praising modern Germany’s tolerance and general sensibleness.
It’s in English, with subtitles, and well worth watching.
I’m disappointed in Merkel for this. It’s the first completely wrong thing she’s done. Otherwise, she’s been the best leader I’ve experienced anywhere in my lifetime.
Ha! I like the Fanta and Fahrvergnuegen references.
Yes, most people seem to miss this point.
This was a response to your first post.
A German colleague explained to me that Mrs Merkel would like to get rid of the article in the criminal code, but as in other democracies she has no authority to simply remove it.
Mr Erdogan via his ambassador filed a complaint with the German court and it is rather normal in democracies that have implemented the Trias Politica for a member of the governement not to comment in any way on a case that is sub judice. Many germans and perhaps Mrs Merkel herself too would like her to take a stand in favor of Jan Böhmermann but I think she did the right thing.
From some of the news reports it seems that the European Court of Human Rights has already held that a similar law in France breached the European Convention on Human Rights. If there was a conviction in this current case it will almost certainly end up in the same court.
I do recall a sign somewhere in Northern Germany to the effect that “Considerate people do not ride their bikes in the square. For everyone else it is forbidden”
To be precise:
“The European Court of Human Rights ruled that a man should not have been convicted of a criminal offence for waving a placard at (as he was then) President Sarkozy reading “Casse toi pov’con” (“Get lost, you sad prick”). He was prosecuted for insulting the president, an offence under an 1881 Act, even though the phrase was one of Sarkozy’s own, uttered a few months previously. The Court rightly found a violation of the applicant’s rights to free expression protected under Article 10 ECHR, stating that satire, including satirical impertinence: “is a form of artistic expression and social commentary, by exaggeration and distortion of reality which naturally aims to provoke and agitate.That is is why it is necessary to examine with special attention any interference with the right of an artist – or anyone else – to express themselves through it.”
Since ‘Mother’ Merkel is machiavellian to the max, she’ll be just fine.
+ 1
Jan Böhmermann is a fantastic comic whose show is currently the best on German TV right now, precisely because his satire and political activism is thought-provoking.
Not too long ago, he made international news for example with the ‘reverse fake’ idea about the middle-finger of Yanis Varoufakis. They basically produced footage how they allegedly faked it, with “behind the scenes” video editing, a man in suit in front of a green screen and the likes, except that the non-middle-finger version they leaked was fake.
You can never approach what he does in a straightforward manner. Most of his high profile actions have several layers, incorporate a media-savvy audience, comment on the commentary and subverts current discussions to lay bare interesting points. As the BBC article pointed out: “In true Boehmermann fashion, the poem was more complicated than simply a string of obscenities.” Exactly.
The obscenities are deliberately childish and over-the-top, because they should not matter. He’s saying: I should be able to say ANYTHING and Erdogan has no business in deciding what goes and what doesn’t.
Merkel doesn’t try to do anything. It was a bad idea to comment on it at all, but I guess it was a calculated “bad idea”. I don’t believe her comment was by accident, but was well-placed as a gesture towards Erdogan that cost her little. It’s now converted into a demonstration how democracies deal with such matters: courts do, not politicians.
Nobody believes much will come of it, and Böhmermann will laugh even more since Erdogan now experiences the Streisand Effect, which could perhaps be renamed Erdogan Effect.
Very well put, Aneris.
The only right thing Merkel could have done is to immediately decide to let the authorities open up investigations. Her commenting on it and then letting the whole thing hang in the air was a stupid move.
If push comes to shove, I can see this whole kerfuffle going before the european court of human rights. It’s nice that the ZDF has already announced it will support Böhmermann in his legal troubles.
From my reading of German newspapers I believe it’s more nuanced than that. On the one hand, Merkel could have refused authorization to proceed. She justified it by referring to the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary (and used it to point out the importance of such things to the budding dictator Erdogan) but in fact law provides for the government role in deciding whether to prosecute. Furthermore, Erdogan filed a suit for “insult” as a private citizen, so the matter would have come before the court independently of Merkel’s decision anyway. On the other hand, I can see how showing Erdogan what the rule of law means can be useful.
On the balance of things, I’m leaning to the view that she made a mistake given that a big component in this is about perception and it seems that she buckled under Erdogan’s pressure. I don’t think Erdogan will be impressed by her legalistic appeals to the rule of law, he’ll just think he can continue to press his advantage arising from the migrant issue.
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
It pains me to have defend Dr. Merkel here, but that she is “trying to suppress free speech” doesn’t do the legal complexities justice. If she doesn’t give agreement to launch the investigation, she would effectively limit the powers of the the judiciary branch and thus unduly interfere with its independence. If she gives the agreement, she respects the power and independence of the judiciary branch. She did the right thing. That the law itself is outdated an outdated relic is without question. By the way, the disclaimer at the start of the poem is only a smokescreen, if it was that simple all manner of litigious utterances could be made under the pretext of “I just want to show you what I cannot say…”
I agree. That was a clickbaity, sensationalist and misleading headline that would be worthy of the Torygraph or the Daily Fail.
On the facts related in PCC’s post itself, Merkel did not initiate this. Further, she is looking to have the offending law modified or repealed. How is this ‘trying to suppress free speech’?
Quite aside from the question of international relations with Turkey – which in the current situation are probably far more significant than the rights of one comedian – there’s the point that Bohmermann was deliberately skirting the limits of the law to make a point. Prosecuting him (and he’s unlikely to see jail time) may well be the necessary cause celebre to garner the poiltical support to repeal the law. (This has happened innumerable times in free-speech debates, from the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ to Lady Chatterley’s Lover).
I think that neither Erdogan nor ordinary Turks nor, most importantly, ordinary Germans and other Europeans will dig deep into the technicalities of Merkel respecting the division of power while allegedly wishing to repeal the law.
What they will see is: Merkel giving a green light for the prosecution of a German over insulting Erdogan, whom that same Merkel is courting to save her from her self-inflicted troubles with the migrants. And taking into account the earlier acts of censorship against migrant-related comments in German media and social media, I do not think the title is wrong or misleading in any way.
I will be very happy if this Böhmermann affair leads to abolition of the law, as you suppose. However, I am skeptical because I see a general declining trend for democracy and freedom in Germany (and, to my opinion, this democracy and freedom was insufficient to begin with).
Good to remember sometimes that this country was founded in large part on a rejection of European governance, including established churches, censorship, and legally enforced social hierarchy.
Yes! The USA must continue to learn from Europe’s mistakes and avoid them.
What makes you think the USA has ever learnt from its own mistakes, let alone anyone else’s?
cr
I see a “pendulum” pattern of learning. See child care. Not so long ago, pediatricians recommended babies to be bottle-fed and positioned on their stomachs. Now, the policy is “breastfed even if malnourished, on the back even if the head becomes flat”. In racial policy, blacks used to be deprived of civil rights, now there is affirmative action; moreover, judging from my experience, some blacks apparently think that whites must never disagree with them. In drug control, excessive punishments were given to potheads, now there is a process of legalization of marijuana.
Sometimes the pendulum swings too far.
But re learning from mistakes – no. They correct mistakes, eventually, then go on to make exactly the same mistakes all over again.
Drug use for example. Prohibition was a complete disaster so they eventually repealed it, then immediately followed it with the ‘war on drugs’. (Some say, at the instigation of Hoover, who could see the FBI losing its importance unless it had a new ‘menace’ to pursue).
What’s worse from my point of view is, the US exported its ‘war’ like a disease or a religion to other countries which, due to the inertia of such things, still have savage penalties even now for the most trivial drug offences.
(Of course the US is not alone in failing to learn from mistakes. I just can’t think of any European mistakes the US has learnt from).
cr
Thalidomide.
Taking on more than 800,000 unvetted immigrants without any real plan to process them, with nowhere near the necessary resources to properly accommodate them, with nowhere near the necessary police force to maintain order and provide protections even within the makeshift migrant camps (let alone throughout the general population), and without any attempt at a democratic appeal to the majority that elected you, is not “moxie”. It is hubris of the highest order. It is self-congratulatory do-goodism at the expense of the nation you claim to be the “leader” of.
The fact that Merkel is now bullying social media outlets into doing her bidding, and openly and actively silencing critics and detractors, is no great surprise given this context.
The self-flagellating leftist leadership in Europe is producing for itself, precisely the thing they claim they’re trying to avoid: the rebirth of right-wing reactionary politics. Mark my words, Europe is heading into another very dark period in it’s history, and triumphant idiots like Angela Merkel are at the front of that line, marching it proudly into chaos.
+ 1
Yeah, far better to let them all die of exposure or drown them in the Mediterranean. Or maybe just ignore them for long enough in the hope that they’ll magically go away…
(that was sarcasm, that was)
Of course, they could always build a wall and make the Mexicans – oops, Syrians pay for it…
It’s a hell of a problem and there are no easy answers.
cr
Here is some information in English to keep the discussion going:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-green-lights-legal-case-against-erdogan-critical-comic-a-1087445.html#ref=nl-international
German law seems to be very similar to Da Roolz. Especially #8.
The Spectator has launched ‘The President Erdogan Offensive Poetry Competition’:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/introducing-the-president-erdogan-offensive-poetry-competition/
…A Spectator reader has offered £1000 as a prize now.
this is the text, hope you speak some german to enjoy it !!!
Sein Gelöt stinkt schlimm nach Döner,
selbst ein Schweinefurz riecht schöner.
Er ist der Mann, der Mädchen schlägt
und dabei Gummimasken trägt.
Am liebsten mag er Ziegen ficken
und Minderheiten unterdrücken,
Kurden treten, Christen hauen
und dabei Kinderpornos schauen.
Und selbst abends heißts statt schlafen,
Fellatio mit hundert Schafen.
Ja, Erdogan ist voll und ganz,
ein Präsident mit kleinem Schwanz.
Jeden Türken hört man flöten,
die dumme Sau hat Schrumpelklöten.
Von Ankara bis Istanbul
weiß jeder, dieser Mann ist schwul,
pervers, verlaust und zoophil Recep
Sein Kopf so leer wie seine Eier,
der Star auf jeder GangbangFeier.
Bis der Schwanz beim Pinkeln brennt,
das ist Recep Erdogan, der türkische Präsident.
sub