Tevet 5, 5775
Human rights are subject to whether a government finds them opportune. We see that everyday in modern Arab “democracies” and of course we are convinced that we live on an island of bliss. Unfortunately this is an illusion. We have seen a number of isolated incidents on human rights violations in Western countries, but if we take a closer look at the matter, we see that these issues don’t come out of the blue.
Germany had the unique chance to wipe the slate clean on May 23rd 1949. This was the day when it’s basic law¹ – GG (constitution) has been approved. This constitution starts with great words and an even greater first article.
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect
it shall be the duty of all state authority.
The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and
inalienable human rights as the basis of every community,
of peace and of justice in the world.
The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
After what we have seen between 1933 and 1945, this is really a totally new start from scratch and the Western allies helped writing this great text.
But if we look at Article 1 paragraph 3, we already see the first back door. This sentence doesn’t include the the first article but only the following! You may argue, that it is very clear, what the “fathers” (No mothers) of the constitution wanted to say, but at the bottom line it is important what they wrote.
Let’s go one step further, because later in this text I will need it: I hope we agree that the assistant chief constable of a major city like Los Angeles or Frankfurt am Main are distinguished representatives of “state authority” (Art 1 par 1)
In its fairly short existence after its revival from ruins the Federal Republic of Germany managed to create more than 2100 laws which sum up to some 46,000 paragraphs and it created over 3100 legal regulations which sum up to another 41,0000 prescriptions. Lawmakers were really busy during the last few decades. Of course they didn’t create all this new. Many laws were taken over from the Nazi-regime and even before.
Of course I am also interested on other law books. E. g. the Tora and the Talmud, or the Sharia…. These laws are systematically different from Roman law, which doesn’t necessarily mean, that they are worse.
But let me come to the point. I have a few simple questions:
Why mustn’t I beat you?
I mean, there are moments when I would really like to punch you and there probably are moments where I even should. But despite all that, sadly it’s forbidden.
The good German “Michel”² will not let me wait to explain that the German criminal code (StGB) § 223 ff. are clear on the matter and forbid such action.
Okay, but I am not so happy with this. Maybe because I am stupid I continue asking:
- Is this a good law?
- Why do we need this law?
- How is this law (StGB § 223) legitimized?
And of course the “Michel” will again quickly explain that the law is good, of course, that we need it to keep the order and that it was legitimized by GG Art. 2 Par. 2
But I continue asking: How is this legitimized?
Actually, here I am asking for the ultimate source of law. I mean, the German Basic Law doesn’t miss to explain in its preamble:
“Conscious of their responsibility before God and man……”
Well, here is the end for the average German, but a leading German scholar of law, Bernd Rüthers, (and probably others of this breed, too) explains us that the German basic law (constitution) is the source of law. Period! [ ISBN: 978 3 406 60126 2 ]
After Germany had converted a vast majority of indigenous European Jews into respirable particulate matter, they could spare the effort to care for the opinion of minorities like Jews, Romani people, homosexuals, mentally disabled…… all gone! (not to mention the million of Slavs who were killed during this time) The only trouble was the lost war and that a few Jews survived the Holocaust. And from there they took the freedom to claim authority to write a constitution which omitted all the troubles of dealing with the 3rd Reich and the nameless crimes. After a total breakdown of moral, these guys soared up to reinvent the wheel.
This had to fail and it did!
To describe the ultimate failure I begin somewhere in the middle:
Germany has a significant Turkish/Muslim minority. Over all in 2010, some 5,000,000 Muslims live in Germany (compared to some 120,000 Jews)
On November 4th 1020 a Turkish couple brought their son to an urologist to get the boy circumcised. On the same day the boy developed a severe secondary bleeding and had to be brought to the emergency ward of a hospital. The physician there treated the boy AND filed charges of personal injury. The case went up to the regional court where the judges finally decided that the urologist was guilty of bodily injury to the boy. They basically argued³ that
the constitutional right of Freedom of faith was only in Article 4,
while the personal freedom of physical integrity is put into writing
in Article 2. So they explained to the world, that Article 2 describes
the greater good, because it is written before article 4.
Short after the verdict, many politically interested Germans got upset about the Jews (not so much about the Muslims). They demanded that the government has to make clear, that circumcision has to be banned for everybody in Germany. It took weeks until the wave of disgust, particularly about Jews, calmed down.
If this was true, this argument should hold water in other cases, too.
2 is heavier than 4, the judges basically said.
This would mean, that Article 1 weights heavier than all the others. At the bottom line an ordinary first-degree murder is not as bad as if I treat my victim like vermin, inhumane and without moral (to remind us to the Nazi-crimes). Jane Doe has the right to ask a few simple questions, doesn’t she?
Let’s see, if this is true, because there is another case, which raises some doubts to this logic:
In 2006 a notoriously underfunded student⁴ of law finds a cure to his problems. I mean, he has an expensive girlfriend and in general he maintained a somewhat lifestyle. So he decides to do something about his scarcity and kidnaps a young boy. Short after he kills the boy and disposes the body in a Dumpster. Then he demands ransom and gets nicked during the handover.
So far this is pretty simple. But now the young man is sitting at the Frankfurt police department to be interrogated, but the young man doesn’t say a word.
At this moment nobody but him knows that the boy is already dead and he doesn’t say a word about the whereabouts. The boy could be suffering from thirst and hunger or worse and as time slips, the assistant chief constable sends everybody (except superintendent) out and then he starts a somewhat tightened interrogation. He doesn’t need to go too far. He just threatens the suspect with torture.
The problem is, that we agree that the threat of torture constitutes the same crime as torture itself, because the accomplished torture “only” adds the criminal assault to the crime against humanity.
The suspect confessed and soon the young boy’s dead body is recovered.
Of course we want to see the killer behind bars and of course we haven’t been disappointed as far as the murderer is concerned,
what about the assistant chief constable? Didn’t he commit the much bigger crime? Didn’t he commit a crime against humanity when he threatened the suspect with torture?
I mean, he violated Article 1 Par. 1 of the German constitution and even worse: Isn’t he a prominent representative of state authority?
The murderer filed charges and to be true, even I first thought “Wow, what an asshole”, but the young man was bloody right to do this.
The assistant chief constable⁵ finally is put on trial and gets away fairly cheap. The court handed down a fine of 10,800,– Euro.
Well, German lawmakers never bothered about adding a law on crimes against humanity to the criminal code. So it can’t be persecuted. The Judges had a really hard time to find a way to persecute this man. Even after this case German lawmakers remained idle.
Of course there is a tiny little law on crimes against humanity, but it’s in the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch ⁶ (The wikipedia-article is in English) But the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch is only applicable for crimes that have been committed abroad
it is only applied when it’s opportune.
This means, if Germany wants to make a few good deals with a barbarian e. g. sell a couple of tanks or thousands of assault rifles ….. or … whatever, nobody in Germany will be able to put such a guy on trial, because the German government would intervene and declare such action as inopportune, thus preventing any investigation and legal proceedings.
So there is still the question, if Article 1 weights heavier than Article 2?
Obviously it doesn’t because it’s inopportune and as far as crimes against humanity inside Germany are concerned lawmakers don’t even give a fuck!
Of course the German constitution doesn’t lack a reference to G-d and I would like to repeat it here:
Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,
Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as…….
If the fathers of the German Grundgesetz (all of them Aryan) even invoke G-d we need to inquire leading scholars of law say that the Grundgesetz was the final source of law and that they exclude more substantial – less arbitrary sources? From where do they take their chutzpah?
Instead of clarifying the legal situation (I am referring to the circumcision cause) the German government only created an exceptional rule for Jews and Muslims. Thus the balancing act between my loyalty towards Germany – the country whose citizen I am – and the Jewish people – the people I feel affiliated with – has become more complicated ever since.
2 is heavier than 4
1 is a lightweight, almost incapable of measurement
5) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daschner-Prozess (sorry, only German)