Against oblivion – The suffering of indigenous Arab Jews

Issue #1

– This article is unfinished –

During the centuries indigenous Arab Jews often enough had hard times. Of course there were Muslim rulers who ruled with sense of proportion and an idea of good governance, but often enough Jews were victims of arbitrary justice, arbitrary taxes and tolls, peonage, rape, torture and mass killings. The suffering of the Yazidi, under the terror regime of the IS, gives an idea how Muslim Arabs treat Kafir. We are talking about mass killings, slavery and mass rape. We are talking about the total denial of human rights. As history and presence show: Arab Muslims can be the worst nihilists. Nitzsche’s  “God is dead” has become folklore even before the philosopher coined the term.

Continue reading →

Did Gustav Radbruch miss the point?

Tevet 8, 5775

Short after WWII Gustav Radbruch published a ground breaking essay:

Resource:
http://www.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/projects/jur-zimmermann/LV_2010_2011/Koll_Radbruch_Aufsatz-SJZ_1946__105.pdf
Translation into English: Yael Schlichting

Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law

Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung 1946, S. 105-108

Positivism with its creed »Law is Law« indeed has made the German booth of Jurists defenceless against laws with arbitrary and criminal content. Though positivism is not able at all to justify the validity of laws out of its own power. It believes, a laws justification was already proofed since it had the power to establish itself. But maybe an obligation can be instituted on such power, but never an intrinsic ought and validity. In fact these two only can be established on the intrinsic value of the law. Of course every positive law carries a value regardless of its content: Still such a law is better than no law, since it creates stability of law.

But stability of law is not the only and not the essential value to be materialized by a law. Besides stability of law two other values come into effect: Practicality and Justice. In their hierarchy of these values, we are to assign practicality of law to common welfare at the lowest position. By no means everything that is considered »to the advantage of the peoples«, but after all only what is lawful, establishes stability of law and strives for justice, will be to the advantage of the peoples. Stability of law, which every positive law posses due to its positivity takes a peculiar middle position between practicality and justice: On the one hand it is demanded by the common welfare, on the other hand also from the cause of justice.

The stability and reliability of law, that it is not today and here the one and tomorrow another interpretation and application, also is a requirement of justice. In case of conflict between stability of law and justice, between a substantially disputable, but positive law and a just but not written law, in truth lies a an inner conflict of justice, a conflict between alleged and true justice. This conflict is brilliantly depicted by the gospel, when it commands: »Be subordinated to the authorities« and contrariwise commands, »to obey to G-d before humans«.

The conflict between justice and stability of law ought to be resolved by prioritizing a positive, through statute and power secured law, even if it is unjust and impractical unless the contradiction of this positive law to justice reaches an unbearable extent, that such law has to give way to justice, as it is a distinguished »incorrect law«. It is impossible to draw a clearer line between the cases of statutory lawlessness and despite incorrect content still ‘applicable law’; though by all its severity a different demarcation shall be taken: where justice is not even intended, where equality, which represents the core of justice intentionally has been denied when the it has been set, in such case, a law not only is »incorrect law«, it lacks every quality of law. For there is no other way to define law, also positive law, but as an order or statute which is intended to serve justice by its sense.

Measured at this criteria, whole batches of National Socialist law never gained the honour to be applicable law. The most outstanding property of Hitlers personality, the trait, he also affixed onto the whole National Socialistic law, was his total deprivation of any sense for truth and justice: Because he lacked every sense for truth, he had the ability to give the accent of truth to anything rhetorically effective without shame and scruple. Because his total deprivation of any sense for justice he had the ability to unscrupulously sign even the most blatant arbitrariness into law. At the beginning of his rule there is that telegram of sympathy addressed to the Potempa-murderers, at the end, the atrocious dishonouring of the martyrs of July 20th 1944. Already on the occasion of the Potempa-Rule, Alfred Rosenbert in »Völkischen Beobachter« furnished the theory, that human does not equal human and murder does not equal murder; The murder of the pacifist Jaurès lawfully has been rated differently, in France than the attempted murder to the nationalist Clemenceau; a perpetrator who failed in dedication for his country, impossibly can subjected to the same punishment as another whose motives (according to National Socialistic anticipation) acted against the peoples.

Therewith it was pronounced from the first, that National Socialistic »law« was intended to abscond from the constituting requirements of Justice and equal treatment of equals. Consequently insofar it generally lacks quality of law, not even incorrect law, but no law at all. In particular this is effective for those regulations, in which the National Socialistic party which, in contradiction to the particulate character of every political party, claimed totality of state for itself. Furthermore the quality of law is absent in all laws which treat humans as subhuman beings and deny human rights. Also without quality of law, are those threats of punishments which are made irrespectively of the severity of a crime, only guided by the desideratum to deter crimes of most different severity with the same threat of punishment, mostly with capital punishment. All these are only examples of statutory lawlessness.

It must not be misconceived – particularly after the experiences of that twelve years – what terrible dangers to stability of law can be brought about through the concept of »statutory lawlessness«, the denial of quality of law of positive laws. We must hope, that such lawlessness, remains a unique confusion and confusion of the German peoples, but for all possible cases we have to be prepared against the return of such a lawless state, by on principle overcoming positivism, which is disabling all defence against abuse of National Socialistic legislation.

 My trouble with this otherwise good writing text is that Radbruch accepts an otherwise defective law for the sake of stability of law. Justice – one of the core values upon which we have built our societies for many millennia – is by far not so important for him, and generations of modern lawyers and law scholars, than stability of law and practicality. If you watch today’s lawmakers, judges and lawyers doing their work, you can’t avoid the impression, that they are doing their law-business for the sake of law-business and not for the good the whole society. Conclusiveness is pursued at any price inside the court rooms even though everybody knows if things go wrong. There are enough cases, where a judge should run out of the court room crying out loud, “NO! I can’t do this!” when they see, that lie and wickedness revailing.

But laws are dead things. Laws do not care, if they are abused. Laws have no dignity. But lawmakers? Do lawmakers have dignity? I look at Germany again and I see a parliaments and governments passing one bad law after the other and waiting for the constitutional court to cancel these laws one by one. Until this happens, statutory lawlessness prevails and even worse. Only a few days ago, in Germany the constitutional court cancelled the legacy tax in its current form for giving unfair privileges to the rich (those who own a company – even those who own really big companies) Already in advance Germany’s finance minister promised, that he basically will keep these privileges for the rich intact. Of course he will reform the law and he promised to be quick, but he will do this in a way, that on the one side he meets the courts demands to the letter and on the other the problem of legacy tax in Germany injustice will prevail.

No mercy with the weak – MRSA on a disabled girl

Tevet 7, 5775

Whenever we see our society being confronted with chronic infections they react with archaic behavioural patterns: Rejection This gave leprosy its German name »Aussatz« ( [de] Aussetzen – [en] exposure ). Highly contagious infections are handled on the basis of national infection protection acts like the Infektionsschutzgesetz IFG in Germany. Lighter infections are handled by society itself. Infected people are met with relentlessness.Continue reading →

Moraly incompatible adversaries – A touch of Amalek

Tevet 7, 5775

During the last few decades we have seen significant changes to warfare. After Israel’s Arab neighbours have lost their last great war against Israel (Yom Kippur October 6–25, 1973) they totally changed their approach to fighting Israel. The so called Palestinians started exercising this with the fedayeen, the approach of Arab terrorism gradually evolved. Today we see terrorist organizations to have become fairly independent combat units which don’t agree with any of our achievements to ease the consequences of war to the civil population. [http://yael.schlichting.net]Continue reading →

Germany – Human Rights in Western Countries

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.

Article 1
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of
basic rights]
(1)
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect
it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2)
The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and
inalienable human rights as the basis of every community,
of peace and of justice in the world.
(3)
The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

Wow!

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,
BUT
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.

How that?
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
AND
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

BUT

1 is a lightweight, almost incapable of measurement

Awesome!
________________
1) https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf
2) http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9904E5D7103BEE3ABC4850DFB0668383609EDE
3) http://openjur.de/u/429887.html
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_G%C3%A4fgen
5) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daschner-Prozess (sorry, only German)
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkerstrafgesetzbuch