Germany To Prosecute Comedian For The Crime Of Making Fun Of Turkish PM Erdogan

[epeeist]

Reading the article it appears there is an actual German law against insulting heads of state. Merkel is quite correct to say it should be the courts and not her that decide if someone has broken the law.

She also said she was going to work to repeal the law in question.

I can't see how she can be criticised at all for this?

She is not correct, it's typical politician behaviour, mislead the public.

There are some (rare) laws where the local prosecutor doesn't just get to decide to proceed, there has to be a higher-up authorization. It doesn't surprise me that a law relating to insulting foreign heads of state would be such a law, because of political overtones.

"...Under a section of Germany's criminal code, the government has to authorize prosecutors to pursue a case against the comedian.

The code, known as Paragraph 103, concerns insults against organs or representatives of foreign states. However, it is so rarely used that many German politicians and lawyers were previously unaware of its existence...." [emphasis added]

https://www.rt.com/news/339710-germany-turkey-comedian-prosecution/

So this is the rare law that requires government approval to prosecute, and they gave it. So Merkel is totally to blame (you may argue that because of Turkey's role re refugees etc. she effectively had to, but she had a choice).

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well, given it clealry has nothing to do with the UK....

Didn't you know? All of Europe is the same.
We're all a bunch of smelly lewd effeminate fascist communists with a love for government regulation.

 

[Belz...]

An absolutely disgusting development:

I'm not sure what personal rights can exist at all when a person can be prosecuted for insulting a politician.

This is reminiscent of the DDR. What next for Germany, bringing back the Stasi?

If Europe once again descends into fascism and/or totalitarianism it will be under the guise of protecting the "right" to not be offended.

Guilty of insulting a foreign politician?

Goebbels would be proud!

 

[Belz...]

Reading the article it appears there is an actual German law against insulting heads of state. Merkel is quite correct to say it should be the courts and not her that decide if someone has broken the law.

It's one of those laws that should be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

 

[Giz]

So this is the rare law that requires government approval to prosecute, and they gave it. So Merkel is totally to blame (you may argue that because of Turkey's role re refugees etc. she effectively had to, but she had a choice).

Yeah, that agrees with the Guardians reporting:

"The foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Social Democrat ministers, including himself and the justice minister Heiko Maas, had been overruled by Merkel in allowing the prosecution to proceed. “It is our view that the prosecution should not have been authorised,” Steinmeier said. “Freedom of the press, freedom of expression and artistic freedom are the highest goods requiring protection in our constitution.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem

 

[Belz...]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content and responses to same

Didn't you know? All of Europe is the same.
We're all a bunch of smelly lewd effeminate fascist communists with a love for government regulation.

And none of you shave your armpits.

 

[Giz]

You're the one that offered the bet. I was just investigating the terms to check if it was worth the value.

I'd need to do some investigation into the German legal system before I was able to make any bold pronouncements. You seem to already have that info, given your offer of a wager.

To be clear, I'm not actually going to put any money down, even if you gave me a 10 century window, I was just wondering how certain you were in your bet - how you'd assessed the odds and if you'd, perhaps, got it wrong.

The amount of verbiage spewed by various posters, in an attempt to avoid constructively engaging with the topic, is rather sad.

 

[3point14]

The amount of verbiage spewed by various posters, in an attempt to avoid constructively engaging with the topic, is rather sad.

I was simply interested in Wildcat's seeming certainty, or level of certainty with the 'I bet that...' comment. I still haven't found out. And Wildcat seemed so certain at the time - I haven't been given odds yet.

How would you like me to constructively engage with the topic? by condemning the action - sure, no trouble. By taking any responsibility for the legal action? **** off, it has no more to do with me than Guantanamo bay has to do with a Mexican or the treatment of indigenous Australians has to do with a Malaysian.

You seem to think I should be taking to the streets of Sussex with a placard? I'm not sure what you want from me here to meet your exacting moral standards of suitable outrage.

 

[Childlike Empress]

So Merkel is totally to blame (you may argue that because of Turkey's role re refugees etc. she effectively had to, but she had a choice).

She's also to blame for the escalation of what started relatively harmeless (I covered the lead-up to this over in the Turkey thread as it hadn't been worth a thread of its own in the beginning). Had she shown some minor guts back then, she wouldn't be in that embarrassing mess now.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I suggest German comedians all start making jokes about Erdogan and see if Merkel is willing to embarrass herself by having them all prosecuted.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I suggest German comedians all start making jokes about Erdogan and see if Merkel is willing to embarrass herself by having them all prosecuted.

Already happening, f.e. a very well known old joker named Hallervorden came up with a song "Erdogan, sue me", and Matthias Döpfner, the head of powerful publishing house Alex Springer Verlag embraced every single sentence of the poem "preemptively" with all legal consequences.

And Böhmermann's poem itself was already a follow-up as you can see at my link above.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Free speech is doing fine in the UK. I have no idea about Germany, but hopefully this will be a high profile case in both Germany and Turkey, and will be laughed out of court. This would have the merit of keeping German/ Turkish relations stable at a seriously important time due to the fact of having taken the case forward in the first place, but showing that the freedom to mock politicians is one which is well respected in the West. I haven't the foggiest why Germany would have such a stupid law on its books in the first place.

Insulting foreign heads of state has lead to wars in the past. It seems stupid given the present day situation but...

 

[Arcade22]

I'm not sure what personal rights can exist at all when a person can be prosecuted for insulting a politician.

If you take your time and think for more than two seconds I'm sure you can come up with something.

This is reminiscent of the DDR. What next for Germany, bringing back the Stasi?

If Europe once again descends into fascism and/or totalitarianism it will be under the guise of protecting the "right" to not be offended.

Yeah because censorship of speeches that are explicitly and intentionally defamatory only ever happen in totalitarian countries. Hell the person in question even explained that what he was about to was illegal unlike an earlier video that made fun of Erdogan which was legal.

 

[Arcade22]

I suggest German comedians all start making jokes about Erdogan and see if Merkel is willing to embarrass herself by having them all prosecuted.

Considering just about all politicians that care want the offense repelled to avoid any future incidents like this it's highly unlikely that the German government would allow it.

This specific offense is special in that it requires the explicit authorization from the federal German government for prosecution to be allowed. So Merkel would be fully within her right to block any potential prosecution.

 

[icerat]

So this is the rare law that requires government approval to prosecute, and they gave it. So Merkel is totally to blame (you may argue that because of Turkey's role re refugees
etc. she effectively had to, but she had a choice).

Guardian has a few more details

I wouldn't quite say she's "totally to blame", and it seems the only politically palatable choice at the moment. Personally I probably would have told Edrogan to buzz off, but then I would have shot down the russian jets too, so I'm apparently feeling a little irritable this week ....

 

[Aepervius]

What half-truth or lie was presented in the OP? Germany is prosecuting a comedian because he insulted the Turkish PM in a poem. Do you deny that?

Remind me when was the last sodomy law repelled in the US ? Can't you just say "it is a jsut stupid law" and it disappear ? And those adultery laws ? Or the you-can't-be-atheist-to-work-tehre laws ?

No ? Fancy that and I thought stupid law could be repelled jsut because wildcat says it.

In all democracy there is a process. Whether that is clunky or quick is really up to the history of the local court. But i doubt such laws would be allowed to stand if it comes to german highest court.

 

[Giz]

I was simply interested in Wildcat's seeming certainty, or level of certainty with the 'I bet that...' comment. I still haven't found out. And Wildcat seemed so certain at the time - I haven't been given odds yet.

How would you like me to constructively engage with the topic? by condemning the action - sure, no trouble. By taking any responsibility for the legal action? **** off, it has no more to do with me than Guantanamo bay has to do with a Mexican or the treatment of indigenous Australians has to do with a Malaysian.

You seem to think I should be taking to the streets of Sussex with a placard? I'm not sure what you want from me here to meet your exacting moral standards of suitable outrage.

Who asked you to take any responsibility? I just pointed out that you (and others) were playing the man, not the ball.

Thanks for taking a position. I agree that it's a bad decision.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The law dates back to the penal code drafted when the German Empire was formed in 1871,
Last time it was used was when the Shah of Persia successfully brought a case against a Cologne newspaper in 1964.

 

[WildCat]

Yeah because censorship of speeches that are explicitly and intentionally defamatory only ever happen in totalitarian countries. Hell the person in question even explained that what he was about to was illegal unlike an earlier video that made fun of Erdogan which was legal.

"Defamatory" and "insulting" are not synonyms. And btw defamation is not even a crime in the USA.

It's amusing how quick some people here are to defend laws which normally are found only in such places as China and North Korea. And one which is explicitly used for political purposes!

 

[GlennB]

The 17 strangest laws in America.

Now I find it hard to believe that a self-professed atheist is barred, in Texas and some other states, from running for office, so somebody might be able to debunk that one. If true it's a hideous restriction on personal freedom that the USA should be mightily ashamed of.