More Erdogan madness

[Aimless]

If a bad law such as this--one which isn't even unique to Germany--is on the books then it may be a good thing that it's allowed to go to court under these circumstances, not to appease Erdogan so much as to send an even stronger and more useful signal through the judiciary. Germany follows its laws and can let you have your day in court when it's reasonable--as it is in a case where a person's dignity is so clearly attacked through the use of sexual insults that it may very well be illegal--but Germany isn't Turkey and the only thing to be gained from pressing this kind of matter is an ultimately hollow victory.

It's becoming increasingly clear that these laws are not okay in EU member states. Hope it's appealed all the way to the highest instance so that there can be no remaining doubt on Turkey's part that it'll have to change its stance on freedom of expression if it wants to play with everyone else.

Some background on the enforcement of these laws in the EU: http://www.ejiltalk.org/thou-shalt-n...head-of-state/

[LittleFuzzy]

If a bad law such as this--one which isn't even unique to Germany--is on the books then it may be a good thing that it's allowed to go to court under these circumstances, not to appease Erdogan so much as to send an even stronger and more useful signal through the judiciary. Germany follows its laws and can let you have your day in court when it's reasonable--as it is in a case where a person's dignity is so clearly attacked through the use of sexual insults that it may very well be illegal--but Germany isn't Turkey and the only thing to be gained from pressing this kind of matter is an ultimately hollow victory.

It's becoming increasingly clear that these laws are not okay in EU member states. Hope it's appealed all the way to the highest instance so that there can be no remaining doubt on Turkey's part that it'll have to change its stance on freedom of expression if it wants to play with everyone else.

Some background on the enforcement of these laws in the EU: http://www.ejiltalk.org/thou-shalt-n...head-of-state/

Is it, in fact, the case that normal citizens receive protection from such "attack" under criminal law in Germany or other countries? If this were a lawsuit, a civil case claiming Erdogan or his reputation had been damaged by the comedian and seeking redress from him in the courts, I wouldn't have any objections. But this law invokes the police power of the federal state. I could maybe see that if we were talking about speech which itself officially represents the offending state, certainly I'd understand where the ICJ was coming from in talking about protecting the dignity of heads of state as personifications of their country in that sort of context. But a private citizen?

[Hazir]

Is it, in fact, the case that normal citizens receive protection from such "attack" under criminal law in Germany or other countries? If this were a lawsuit, a civil case claiming Erdogan or his reputation had been damaged by the comedian and seeking redress from him in the courts, I wouldn't have any objections. But this law invokes the police power of the federal state. I could maybe see that if we were talking about speech which itself officially represents the offending state, certainly I'd understand where the ICJ was coming from in talking about protecting the dignity of heads of state as personifications of their country in that sort of context. But a private citizen?

In Germany it seems to be the case that any citizen could report slander on the basis of the Penal Code. The state will not automatically prosecute. How often people actually do that I do not know.

[Hazir]

If it is either tolerable or reasonable to prosecute a comedian for making fun of/insulting a foreign executive in order to make sure that executive doesn't renege wrt the German government's foreign policy goals, then that democratic republic has far bigger problems than worries about refugees or Schengen, Hazir.

I can assure you that in Europe only bleeding heart leftists would agree with your last statement. People, including several members of this forum are fuming at Merkel's suggestion that we could deal with it.

[Hazir]

If a bad law such as this--one which isn't even unique to Germany--is on the books then it may be a good thing that it's allowed to go to court under these circumstances, not to appease Erdogan so much as to send an even stronger and more useful signal through the judiciary. Germany follows its laws and can let you have your day in court when it's reasonable--as it is in a case where a person's dignity is so clearly attacked through the use of sexual insults that it may very well be illegal--but Germany isn't Turkey and the only thing to be gained from pressing this kind of matter is an ultimately hollow victory.

It's becoming increasingly clear that these laws are not okay in EU member states. Hope it's appealed all the way to the highest instance so that there can be no remaining doubt on Turkey's part that it'll have to change its stance on freedom of expression if it wants to play with everyone else.

Some background on the enforcement of these laws in the EU: http://www.ejiltalk.org/thou-shalt-n...head-of-state/

Actually, if the law already has slander on the books for ecerybody, the right way to look at this might very well be a restriction on the general rule by giving the government discretion to prosecute or not.

There have been a limited number of cases; from the one I looked into it seems that making a foreign leader ridiculous in itself is not enough reason for a conviction. The insult should be obvious and personal.

[Aimless]

Is it, in fact, the case that normal citizens receive protection from such "attack" under criminal law in Germany or other countries? If this were a lawsuit, a civil case claiming Erdogan or his reputation had been damaged by the comedian and seeking redress from him in the courts, I wouldn't have any objections. But this law invokes the police power of the federal state. I could maybe see that if we were talking about speech which itself officially represents the offending state, certainly I'd understand where the ICJ was coming from in talking about protecting the dignity of heads of state as personifications of their country in that sort of context. But a private citizen?

Private citizens in Sweden are afforded some legal protection against some forms of severe attacks on their personal dignity and I wouldn't be surprised if similar laws were on the books in Germany as well. These laws are, for good reasons, difficult to enforce and rarely lead to harsh punishments.

[Hazir]

Private citizens in Sweden are afforded some legal protection against some forms of severe attacks on their personal dignity and I wouldn't be surprised if similar laws were on the books in Germany as well. These laws are, for good reasons, difficult to enforce and rarely lead to harsh punishments.

Appearantly showing someone your middlefinger in traffic can result in a fine in Germany.

A long time ago I stayed at a German Gasthof. The owner had forgotten to put a towel in my room. I used my own and didn't think anything of it. The next morning she accused me of having stolen her towel. When I got angry and told her I would report her to the police she immediately backed off.

[RandBlade]

I can assure you that in Europe only bleeding heart leftists would agree with your last statement. People, including several members of this forum are fuming at Merkel's suggestion that we could deal with it.

Speak for yourself. I and every countryman I know would heartily agree with LittleFuzzy there and I'm no bleeding heart leftist.

To provide a British parallel the BBC and the Times embarrassed FIFA years ago when England with the backing of the UK government was in the running for hosting the World Cup. My response was not to fume at the idea of free speech jeopardising the national interest, it was pride that free speech trumped the so-called national interest and that the free media could publish what it wants.

For free speech to mean anything it has to include the right to say that which the government does not want you to say.

[Hazir]

Speak for yourself. I and every countryman I know would heartily agree with LittleFuzzy there and I'm no bleeding heart leftist.

To provide a British parallel the BBC and the Times embarrassed FIFA years ago when England with the backing of the UK government was in the running for hosting the World Cup. My response was not to fume at the idea of free speech jeopardising the national interest, it was pride that free speech trumped the so-called national interest and that the free media could publish what it wants.

For free speech to mean anything it has to include the right to say that which the government does not want you to say.

You know what? That thing I said about your opinions about the EU? You can read Europe for where I previously said EU. Try a bit harder and I'll be willing to extend it to every subject concerning anything and anywhere.

[RandBlade]

That you're so proud of being so narrow-minded that you want the state to prosecute unpopular opinions and that you're unwilling to hear anyone agree with Fuzzy is sad. Really tragic.

You certainly are no intellectual heir of Voltaire.

[LittleFuzzy]

Actually, if the law already has slander on the books for ecerybody, the right way to look at this might very well be a restriction on the general rule by giving the government discretion to prosecute or not.

It would be. . . if this weren't an offense separate and distinct from slander which the guy could also conceiveably be charged with.

[Hazir]

It would be. . . if this weren't an offense separate and distinct from slander which the guy could also conceiveably be charged with.

Both insult and slander are there. The article about foreign dignitaries is limited to insult. The last time anybody was convicted was in the 1970s for hanging up a poster with the word moerderbande (gang of murderers) in front of the Chilean embassy.

[Aimless]

Speak for yourself. I and every countryman I know would heartily agree with LittleFuzzy there and I'm no bleeding heart leftist.

Odd, the only way Hazir's response to Fuzzy's post makes sense to me is if I assume Hazir's saying that only a bleeding heart leftist would trivialise the challenge presented by the refugee crisis and Schengen.

[RandBlade]

The refugee crisis and Schengen are major problems yes but the solution is not to sacrifice free speech on the altar of Erdogan.

[Hazir]

Odd, the only way Hazir's response to Fuzzy's post makes sense to me is if I assume Hazir's saying that only a bleeding heart leftist would trivialise the challenge presented by the refugee crisis and Schengen.

That would be pretty much what I said.

[LittleFuzzy]

Odd, the only way Hazir's response to Fuzzy's post makes sense to me is if I assume Hazir's saying that only a bleeding heart leftist would trivialise the challenge presented by the refugee crisis and Schengen.

I'm not trivializing anything wrt to the crisis and Schengen. I'm launching an attack on the idea of sacrificing western democracy's high free speech standards for the sake of securing Erdogan's cooperation in dealing with the crisis Merkel's way.

[earthJoker]

The problem is, that both Merkel and Hazir want to make us to believe that the only solution of the problems of Schengen is to be found in Turkey. Once she decided that Turkey is the more important partner than Austria she got herself into a corner that is almost impossible to get out from. Austria made it pretty clear that they don't care about any critics from Germany. Not only did Austria close the west Balkan route, it also frankly told the Germans to shut the fuck up.
The idea that Merkel saved Schengen by allowing the prosecution of Böhmermann is beyond ridiculous. Her plan (if you can call this a plan) to handle this crisis was flawed from the start.

[RandBlade]

The problem is, that both Merkel and Hazir want to make us to believe that the only solution of the problems of Schengen is to be found in Turkey. Once she decided that Turkey is the more important partner than Austria she got herself into a corner that is almost impossible to get out from. Austria made it pretty clear that they don't care about any critics from Germany. Not only did Austria close the west Balkan route, it also frankly told the Germans to shut the fuck up.
The idea that Merkel saved Schengen by allowing the prosecution of Böhmermann is beyond ridiculous. Her plan (if you can call this a plan) to handle this crisis was flawed from the start.

Exactly.

Sacrificing free speech wouldn't be acceptable even if it was the only option, to do so when it wasn't even the best option is beyond crazy.

[Hazir]

The problem is, that both Merkel and Hazir want to make us to believe that the only solution of the problems of Schengen is to be found in Turkey. Once she decided that Turkey is the more important partner than Austria she got herself into a corner that is almost impossible to get out from. Austria made it pretty clear that they don't care about any critics from Germany. Not only did Austria close the west Balkan route, it also frankly told the Germans to shut the fuck up.
The idea that Merkel saved Schengen by allowing the prosecution of Böhmermann is beyond ridiculous. Her plan (if you can call this a plan) to handle this crisis was flawed from the start.

I would like you to do the following. Open Google Maps and look up the islands Kastellorizo, Lesbos, Chios and Lesbos. Then remember that both Greece and Turkey claim a 12 miles exclusive zone in the sea surrounding those islands. Then consider that ever since the islands came under Greek sovereignty Turkey and Greece have not agreed on a demarcation line.

After that I would like you to explain to me how you would stop the crisis from resuming if the Turks stop stopping the refugees and illegal immigrants from leaving their shores. If you have a feasible solution I'd consider it.

What Austria and Hungary did works out great for everyone North of their southern border. I am not so convinced it works out very nicely for the Greeks.

[earthJoker]

Finally admit that Greece shouldn't be in neither Schengen nor the Eurozone. They are not able to cope with either.

[Hazir]

Finally admit that Greece shouldn't be in neither Schengen nor the Eurozone. They are not able to cope with either.

You're almost right, except for the feasible part.

[earthJoker]

Greece is de facto not in Schengen anymore.

[Hazir]

Greece is de facto not in Schengen anymore.

That statement is both legally and factually wrong. What's more : it's not a solution.

[RandBlade]

Greece being in Schengen always struck me as a little redundant anyway since it shares no land borders with any other Schengen nations.

[earthJoker]

That statement is both legally and factually wrong. What's more : it's not a solution.

My statement can't be legally wrong as I explicitly wrote de facto.

As for the other two, I disagree. If you can really board a ferry from Greece without a passport today I doubt this would last very long a soon as the Brenner would be closed.

[Hazir]

My statement can't be legally wrong as I explicitly wrote de facto.

As for the other two, I disagree. If you can really board a ferry from Greece without a passport today I doubt this would last very long a soon as the Brenner would be closed.

As it happens Schengen works alongside other legislation: the reality is that you can only board a ferry or plane to another part of the Schengen area if the transportation provider is satisfied you have the proper documents. Those would include the visa stamp in the case of people from outside the EEA. Strictly enforced I can tell you because the fines are huge.

That's why all those Syrians (and others) got stuck in Greece.

[earthJoker]

do you suddenly agree with me?

[Aimless]

The refugee crisis and Schengen are major problems yes but the solution is not to sacrifice free speech on the altar of Erdogan.

I'm not trivializing anything wrt to the crisis and Schengen. I'm launching an attack on the idea of sacrificing western democracy's high free speech standards for the sake of securing Erdogan's cooperation in dealing with the crisis Merkel's way.

The expected impact on feedom of speech in Germany from Merkel's authorisation is either negligible or net positive (negligible because no real change from status quo, net positive if it gets tossed out or the court gives a strong negative opinion or if it gets appealed to higher instances including at the European level, certainly positive because this case has reminded the Germans they need to repeal the law asap).

The case fulfils all the major requirements of the law which in itself is largely consistent with German law as it pertains to regular German citizens (in other words if a private German citizen would have been the target of the "poem" and accused on TV of eg. "slapping Christians while watching child-porn," he may have been able to press charges on similar grounds).

If Merkel were to use her discretionary power to deny authorisation, she'd find herself in the extremely awkward position of explaining/justifying her decision on shaky and unsatisfying grounds. This way, the matter was handed over to higher authorities.

If she'd denied authorisation it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect Erdogan, who'd be negotiating from a comparatively strong position on the refugee issue, would become uncooperative. Merkel would then have risked something of extremely great immediate importance in order to obtain something trivial.

Whether you worship at the altar of realpolitik or that of the rule of law Merkel's decision is understandable from her perspective--meaningful immediate risk to the management of the refugee crisis trumps non-existant risk to freedom of speech in Germany--and the outcome is more likely to be positive than if she'd declined to authorise the prosecution. Perhaps with hindsight we'll be able to say whether or not it was the right way to manage the refugee crisis. Undoubtedly this will weaken Merkel's position at home but perhaps that's something she's willing to risk.

Either way, the sky isn't going to fall because of this, to borrow one of RB's favourite tropes. I'm far more worried about the shenanigans of British lawmakers and judges esp. in the domain of celeb indiscretions.

[Hazir]

do you suddenly agree with me?

No, the facts will not let me. Schengen isn't a rule free zone. I actually learned what I wrote over the time people I know were making the trek from Turkey to the EU. You and I never noticed that but airlines won't transport you to another Schengen country if you don't have the right to travel there. And neither do ferry services.

[earthJoker]

So you agree with my point. Greece can - de facto - not participate in the key part of Schengen. You can't travel from Greece to anywhere without papers.

On the other hand, I just accidentally made holidays in South Tirol without my ID. Well, it could have been a bit complicated if I hadn't had my drivers licence with me.