cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388
In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.
In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state’s relation to Israel.
The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be “supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order.”
This article is misrepresenting what happened.
The four people in question were not simply peaceful advocates. They participated in a violent occupation of university offices, destruction of property, breaking open of closets, graffiti. University employees were threatened with violence and barricaded themselves in their offices. Some employees reported being physically assaulted.
State attorneys are prosecuting these crimes against these four. It’s true it hasn’t gone to court yet. All four have formally protested against their deportation and the court has granted them extensions until the verdict.
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/regional/berlin/rbb-innenverwaltung-verteidigt-moegliche-ausweisung-von-aktivisten-nach-protest-an-der-fu-berlin-100.html
The people in question are not convicted of any crime. Also the state attorneys are not prosecuting the people in question for violent crimes at the event in question. Rather they are prosecuted for “freeing prisoners” because they were outside the building when police brought out people it arrested inside. one of the people is investigated for calling a policemen fascist.
See https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/abschiebung-ausweisung-palaestina-aktivisten-rechtswidrig-eugh-freizuegigkeit-berlin for a more neutral description by a legal magazine, which bothers to make proper distinctions:
Roughly translates to:
"The description of the events by the LKA (state criminal investigators) used in the deportation notices is reading less brutal but still threatening. It describes 20 people which empowered themselves entry to the building, vandalised walls and destroyed technical equipment. They are alleged to have carried crowbars, with which they (the 20 people who entered the building) tried to open a room, in which a strongly scared FU employee had barricaded himself. Axes, Saws and clubs are not mentioned. Subsequent to the occupation, multiple arrests occured. Ten suspects -among them the four activists- are alleged to tried to prevent the arrests.
So the police investigators are not claiming the people to have participated in the occupation, but rather to try to prevent arrests that were made because of the occupation.
The next Paragraph:
Translates to:
"The deportation notice against US-Citizen Longbotton only lists this occurence. For the other activists other occurences in relation to different protest actions are mentioned as being under investigation. These are “typical for demonstrations” such as resisting or attacking police officers (§ 113-114) and “Speak-Crime” (sorry for the bad translation) such as insults (§185), hate speech (§130) or using symbols of an unconstitutional organisation (§86a). The attempted prevention of arrests after the FU-occupation is considered by the police as freeing of prisoners (§120).
So none of the people are investigated for violent crime in relation to the FU-occupation.
The article further notes that the “typical for demonstrations” investigations do not warrant a deportation unless convicted and repeated. For the FU-occupation it is noted that this is more serious and could suffice for such a move, however the police reports only provide general descriptions rather than tying specific actions to the activists threatened with deportation.
Long story short: At the time of the deportation notices none of the people were accused for violent crime in regard to the FU occupation. All of this was conjecture made by the interior ministry of the state of Berlin and a willfully or ignorantly complicit press
Thank you for the article with more details.
Calling resisting and attacking policemen and freeing of prisoners non-violent is a bit of a stretch though.
That still doesn’t invalidate that the authorities tried to deport people without a trial, ignoring the presumption of innocence and rule of law in general. That’s at least AfD level disregard for the Grundgesetz.
Everyone involved in this should be forbidden from holding authority until they are able to explain why what they did is the opposite of the values of a Rechtsstaat.
Three of these are EU citizens. The EU wide freedom of movement can be revoked for public order and safety, health, or security reasons.
The corresponding law is Gesetz über die allgemeine Freizügigkeit von Unionsbürgern (Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU - FreizügG/EU) § 6 Verlust des Rechts auf Einreise und Aufenthalt
Known football hooligans and violent political activists are often barred from entry into other EU countries, if they’re likely traveling to a violent protest or big football match.
The law doesn’t say that a court verdict is necessary, it does say it isn’t sufficient though.
The argument is that these people are a danger to public order and safety. That means this is about prevention (Gefahrenabwehr) of future acts. Prevention is always done to the detriment of the innocent, because nobody has actually done anything yet. All of these are known to be active political activists and at times violent. They are likely to continue their activities, some of which endanger public order and safety. That’s sufficient to make a legal argument.
The courts are working this out now and the authorities are respecting court orders. So, I don’t see where this is disregards the Grundgesetz.
That said, I also think this is targeted repression and the crimes aren’t serious enough to warrant immediate revoking of residence.
The ministry of the interior is testing what the courts require as a minimum for losing residence rights.