At least the process is in the open and not in front of some star chamber like those FISA courts …
Quoth the Goofle on Lèse-majesté laws around Europe:
In Germany, Italy, Switzerland,[4] and Poland it is illegal to insult foreign heads of state publicly.
On 5 January 2005, Marxist tabloid publisher Jerzy Urban was sentenced by a Polish court to a fine of 20,000 złoty (about €5000, UK£3384 or US$6,200) for having insulted Pope John Paul II, a visiting head of state.[5]
On 26–27 January 2005, 28 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the Polish authorities for allegedly insulting Vladimir Putin, a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.[6]
I guess it was a kind of professional courtesy among absolute rulers.
1 Like
Yikes! Seems like something that belongs in the dark ages. But not judging Europe. The US is rife with its own contingent determined to return us the dark ages.
The big take-away for me in this story was the idea of a German comedian. Up until now I only knew of two such: Henning Wehn, and the guy in that weird drinking movie everyone in Germany watches on New Years. And I think the latter is actually British, and the former practically so.
The way I have heard it explained is that in basically all of the western world the law used to protect the honor of those i power but not that of the average subject. Later there were two different approaches to rectifying that. The English-speaking world decided to do away with those protections and treat everyone like a commoner while much of continental Europe instead extended those protections to the whole population.
1 Like
They had to dust off some law from the 1800s, I think. Basically Merkel has managed the immigrant crisis poorly, by underestimating how many Germans are racist and paranoid when you scratch the surface, and not engaging meaningfully with how that demographic can be talked round, nor how refugees can be integrated into German society. Don’t get me wrong, the situation is an incredibly difficult one to manage, but in this case she’s to some extent the victim of her own half-measures. So in order to attempt to placate the reactionary right (and increasingly right, too) she’s attempting another half measure, in the negotiated return to Turkey of a portion of migrants from Europe as a whole. For this she is dependent upon the goodwill of Erdogan - and Erdogan is a dickhead.
Frankly I don’t think that sending a trickle of refugees or migrants back to Turkey will be enough to calm the situation in Germany now, anyway - Merkel made the mistake of letting them get their pitchforks out and now the mob is banging on the castle door. There are also a variety of other historical errors made which are contributing to inflaming tensions (such as ignoring the extreme right generally - for example, doing nothing as they cornered the private security market in several states, then contracting these neonazis to guard refugee centres). But now Merkel finds that, having done as little as possible for much of her CHancellorship, she’s now in a catch-22; she finds that the valve by which she hoped to release the pressure of xenophobia in Germany, is controlled by Erdogan, whose demands (and much of his policies, generally) likely to increase xenophobic pressure in Germany.
1 Like
Well there is Monty Python’s Fliegender Zirkus.
2 Likes
I thought this was an interesting piece in der Spiegel.
Merkel apparently sought to take the wind out of Erdogan’s sails by hastily having her spokesperson announce that the Böhmermann poem was “consciously injurious.” She could have thrown her support unmistakably behind Böhmermann, as one might expect from a chancellor charged with defending the German constitution. His poem was very clearly meant as satire; none of the uncomely imputations therein should be taken – nor were they meant – seriously. The chancellor, of course, knows as much. Yet by adopting Erdogan’s viewpoint, she has essentially allowed him to determine what should be viewed as satire in Germany and what not. Now, the chancellor must decide if German prosecutors should be allowed to open a case over the insulting of a foreign head of state – but because she already described the poem as “injurious” via her spokesman, she has very little room for maneuver.
Erdogan, like the trolley that he most certainly is, isn’t satisfied. Rather than wait for Merkel’s decision, he went ahead and filed a criminal complaint against Böhmermann himself. That case will move ahead no matter what Merkel decides.
I listened to a BBC podcast about that one, it is a remarkable story, but it just reinforces the idea that all German comedy is really British. However, thanks to this latest story I’ve now discovered a whole Wikipedia category of German comedy…none of which I’m likely to pursue, given the popularity of (I’ve now looked up the name) Dinner for One.
Is this it?
1 Like
Yeppers.
1 Like
I saw Henning Wehn years ago. Funny guy. I guess he’s about as British as Reg Hunter or Rich Hall, though.
1 Like
I don’t know if you mean “a lot” or “a little”! I don’t know Hunter, but Hall has always seemed to inhabit his own unique country (Snigletovakia?)
1 Like
If you’re trying to appease an absolute ruler intent on invading your country, it really helps to have some law to keep your peasants in line.
Dinner for One is more a ritual than a comedy for most Germans - if it is comedy, it’s as the adoption of the running gag as a lifestyle choice.
Ummm,.I think that is unlikely. There’s a reason it’s called Der Prozess.
3 Likes
Merkel may be twisting in confusion more than usual lately; but, for the sake of fairness, I’d argue that part of her problem arises from the dangers of having laws on the books that are tolerated because cultural norms typically prevent their unbridled use; but which are actually pretty toothy.
If abuse of the local lese majeste provisions were a common problem; they’d have either agreed that Preserving the Dignity of The Head of State is actually worth it; or people would get annoyed and the law would be fighting for its life. If, within the context of German political life, the law is considered mostly an anachronism; not something you’d touch if you wanted to be taken seriously; that makes it seem harmless until someone who absolutely doesn’t share your mores on the matter shows up and requests that the law be applied the way it says on the tin.
Hardly a uniquely German problem, or even unique to speech-related laws: it’s always a good idea to ensure that obsolete laws are appropriately neutralized and sent to processing facilities capable of safely handling them; not just left to ‘discretion’ and sorta-kinda repealed; but probably a bit more of an issue with European speech-related laws since there isn’t the (by no means automatic; but not dependent on the legislature) culling process provided by assorted retro laws getting a first amendment beatdown if anyone actually tries to use them.
In absence of that, even if your own political culture is commendably self-restrained and doesn’t even need judicial beating to keep it in line; you are still open to the first person who has both standing and no interest in what is ‘commonly accepted’.
1 Like
That’s a good point and I would to add a detail that foreign readers may be missing. In Germany it is illegal to insult anyone. Actually there is a separate case revolving around this initiated by Erdogan in his capacity as just some guy and Merkel is not involved in that. That explains why the lèse-majesté aspect has attracted only limited attention in the past. It is an obscure specialization of a largely uncontroversial general concept.
And that ties into what you described. In practice the system operates under the assumption that usually there is more to insult cases. They can be a small part of a larger dispute, e.g. in the workplace or between neighbors, it covers various low-level cases of things like slander, assault, battery or sexual harassment. And sometimes it just means that you pissed off a cop more than was wise. Of course there are possible defenses like a legitimate interest or implied consent.
So it was Erdogan who rocked the boat when he reacted inappropriately to the initial perfectly harmless and legal Extra 3 video. In doing so, like a heckler at a comedy show, he pretty much asked for more. And Böhmermann was more than happy to deliver.
2 Likes
Well, he shouldn’t be convicted. The courts should deem the law to be unacceptable (unconstitutional, against international human rights, whatever) and strike it down. That’s how it would work in Canada or the US anyway.
Of course those laws exist in every country, in every state and province, in every municipality. I agree that it would be better if the law got a regular, thorough cleaning, but it doesn’t. German law is presumably different than English-tradition law that I’m familiar with, and maybe the prosecutors have some kind of obligation to prosecute? Around here a prosecutor would look at that law and say, “Well, that law is obviously unconstitutional, so I’m not wasting my office’s resources taking it to court.”
And that attitude typifies a very precise behavior that infuriates me.
Noticing a problem, and then habitually walking around it each time. Grinds my gears. Especially in a work situation.
Instead of stepping over a broken glass a dozen times, take two minutes and clean the mess up!
If there is a law on the books that wastes brain cells every time it has to be ignored, or can be thrown around mischievously to create threats - FIX THE PROBLEM. And then you never have to make excuses for it again.
