18 ms·

Merkel Grants Turkish Request to Prosecute German Satirist

218 points by eloisius 11y ago

mvdwoord 11y ago
I would have had great respect if Merkel had taken a stand on this issue. Regardless of letting the supposedly trustworthy courts of Germany decide on this, this would have been an excellent opportunity to show the world what European values are all about. It comes over as political cowardliness, but this seems to be the norm now more than ever.
- intrasight 11y ago
  Merkel is very pragmatic - hence her long tenure in office. This would have been an excellent opportunity to show the world what European values are all about except for the fact the Europe is currently beholden to Turkey to address the migration crisis.
  - jayess 11y ago
    I'm not sure what European values even are. Europe used to be the land of the enlightenment. That seems to have regressed substantially lately.
    - elcapitan 11y ago
      If I remember it correctly, Europe never was a "land".
  - vidarh 11y ago
    "European values" does not include having the executive stand in the way of putting a case in front of the judiciary. It's a bad law, but having the executive exercise its option to not consent would have been worse.
- Spearchucker 11y ago
  This isn't about values. This is about negotiation. Merkel wants Turkey to retain migrants to Europe, and even divert them elsewhere, so she has to concede somewhere. I believe there were other bargaining points too, something about Turkey's EU membership.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  Rule of Law and independence of the judiciary are also important European values. Which are also under attack in Hungary and Poland. Germany would have forfeited the high ground in those issues if the government interfered with a prosecution, even if legally possible.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  I would have hated it if Merkel ignored the separation of power in Germany. And also it will be extremely funny if the details of the Schmähgedicht are discussed in a german court.
techterrier 11y ago
I'm not sure she could do anything else. However bad the limits on free speech are, applying the law selectively is probably worse.
- duaneb 11y ago
  She could push for repealing a stupid law. Insulting world leaders (especially our own) is a celebrated past time for the western world. This is, after all, the homeland of Martin Luther (warning, visual fart joke): http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jpg http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jp... EDIT: does german law allow for pardons?
  - techterrier 11y ago
    I think that's happening too?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - beberlei 11y ago
    she has actually said that they will work on repealing the law asap and this will likeli go into effect in 2018.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    >does german law allow for pardons No idea. But in this case it's the government itself that gave the ok for prosecution in the first place (it's a very special law...). It doesn't make sense to first say "go ahead, law enforcement" and then pardon Böhmermann.
  - germanier 11y ago
    There is no pardoning that would be relevant. However, they could change the law before the court's verdict. In that case the court needs apply the more lenient version. As far as a I know there is significant push to change the law at the moment.
Kristine1975 11y ago
"In a country under the rule of law, it is not up to the government to decide," Merkel said. "Mutti" is trying to deflect the blame again: In this very special case (§103 StGB), the law mandates that the government authorize the prosecution. Otherwise there is no case.
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  The government may have the right to stop a complaint regarding this law, but that doesn't mean that there is no moral obligation for the government to not stand in the way of law. She's not deflecting blame. For one thing, it's not Merkel that made the decision. Secondly, the blame would have been less if the government stopped the complaint. That would have been the easy way out.
  - bayesian_horse 11y ago
    I tried without "triple negation". Doesn't work as well. There is a moral obligation for the government to honor that law, but that in turn doesn't mean they have to give permission or that they don't have permission. Yes, the issue is that complicated.
    - rndgermandude 11y ago
      StGB §104a explicitly states that the German Federal Government has to consent to any prosecution under StGB §103 (the "libel against foreign head of state" paragraph of the law). §103/104 is very special in that regard. So yes, the government had to give explicit permission to prosecute in this particular case. The gov't could have honored the law by just saying "we don't consent to the prosecution", they did not however, and Merkel as the head of the government has the responsibility for that decision; whether you agree with the decision to prosecute or not. PS: German media is reporting that according to Steinmeier, German Foreign Secretary, the cabinet had a tie when voting on prosecution or not, with Merkel's vote breaking the tie in favor or prosecution.
      - 11y ago
nanoman 11y ago
I think this is the right move, regarding separation of powers. I trust the German jurisdiction to do the right thing here. Plus, she said that the law protecting foreign officials from defamation is obsolete and they will void it.
- kmonad 11y ago
  This is, in my opinion, the correct way to think about the issue.
- martin_henk 11y ago
  Yep, I agree. Most likely the best move.
- Riesling 11y ago
  > Plus, she said that the law protecting foreign officials from defamation is obsolete and they will void it. While, at the same time, allowing one of her citizens to be prosecuted based on it.
  - nanoman 11y ago
    Well, it's current law and they can't just repeal the law in a few days. Sitting it out is not an option with such a publicly visible case. The only thing which bothers me is that it is going to be effective only starting 2018. In the current situation, they'd have a huge majority in the parliament.
    - germanier 11y ago
      They certainly could repeal the law in a few days, four days should be the minimum if I remember correctly. (And yes, there have been laws introduced to parliament and passed that fast before.)
- rmk2 11y ago
  Have a look at this comment, especially: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522 Essentially, this has nothing to do with "regarding separation of powers", since the law in question requires "und die Bundesregierung die Ermächtigung zur Strafverfolgung erteilt", i.e. "that the federal government gives the courts authority to prosecute". Without order to prosecute from the executive, the judiciary would have no legal grounds. It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she would have denied this authority.
bayesian_horse 11y ago
It's a pity that most people don't understand the finer point s of the decision, like that it is only a "permission" to conduct investigations, and that the responsibility for anything else will be in the hands of a court. Or multiple courts, probably.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  And the German government could have told Erdogan to take a hike. But they still need him, to prevent refugees from reaching Europe (wouldn't want to do this themselves, now that they successfully kept their further gutting of German asylum law out of the media).
- gaur 11y ago
  It's a far bigger pity that anyone is trying to conduct an investigation at all.
- sievebrain 11y ago
  I think people understand it OK. Böhmermann very clearly violated that law, on television, deliberately. The law makes no exception for intent. So if he hasn't violated the law then what would? And unfortunately it says, quite clearly, it is punished by a jail sentence. Unless German courts are an absolute joke he is going to rot in jail for a while. The only person who could have stopped that outcome is Merkel. And what has she done? She has said in public, unambiguously that she doesn't want to do this BUT IS DOING IT ANYWAY TO PLEASE ERDOGAN. That's a huge problem for everyone in Europe. Germany is very powerful in the EU. If the German leader is willing to publicly bend over and obey whilst simultaneously protesting then Erdogan is realising that he has Germany (and thus the EU) by the balls. What will he demand next?
  - germanier 11y ago
    Even if he were found guilty (which isn't as certain as you make it seem) jail is not required by this law. A fine is a much more likely outcome.
  - Xylakant 11y ago
phreeza 11y ago
I think this is the way it should be done. Separation of power means the judicial branch needs to make this decision. Looks like the legislative branch will now revoke the law that lead to this, but either way, it should not be up to the executive to make this decision.
- golemotron 11y ago
  That's the 2D view of the situation. The 3D view is that she had a chance to make a strong statement about freedom of political expression and she chose not to.
  - chris_va 11y ago
    Short sighted, I think. She is allowing the court system of Germany to correct its laws in a legal way. She is trusting the German process to get rid of the law, which arguably is an elegant and even more powerful statement on freedom than high handed executive posturing.
    - k__ 11y ago
      She has the fear that she loses her new political friend, so she has chosen to let someone other decide. I think it's right that the judges and not the regime should decide, but it's convenient for her, so she does it, not because it's the right thing.
pilif 11y ago
>In a state of law, it’s not the domain of the government, but rather the prosecutors and the courts, to weigh individual rights, IMHO that's all that needs to be said. This is exactly how it should be. This is a problem for which laws were written and this is something the judges should eventually have the power to decide upon. If we don't like their decision, it's up to us to change the laws.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Than it shouldn't have gotten to her desk at all. But it got - so it is outside of the law system anyway. It is her decision.
- zeveb 11y ago
  I disagree: in a free state composed of free citizens, it is every citizen's duty to refuse to do something which he believes wrong: a law can only be enforced because the police arrested someone, the gaolers incarcerated him, the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him, the warden took responsibility for him (and the executioner killed him, in the case of capital crimes). Every one of these has the opportunity and the duty to refuse to enforce an unjust law: the police officer can turn a blind eye; the gaolers can refuse to accept the prisoner; the jury can refuse to convict; the judge can refuse to sentence; the warden can release; the executioner can refuse to work.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    You are basically arguing for vigilante justice. There's a myriad of reasons why this is a bad thing for society. For example, white supremacy groups not being arrested or charged with crimes because all the cops and DAs and judges are also white supremacists. If it's truly within their world-view that a lynching is not wrong, then according to your theory it's their responsibility to not arrest or charge for it. This viewpoint is directly opposed to the rule of law.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      zeveb is arguing for nonviolent civil disobedience, which is a very far cry from vigilante justice. Some of our greatest civil rights heroes are advocates for civil disobedience, including Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, and Emmeline Pankhurst.
13of40 11y ago
"(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship." ...but then... "(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor." So it sounds like their constitution is pretty standard on this point: You have an absolute, indelible right to freedom of speech (unless we decide it's bad speech).
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  The first articles of the german constitution are an exercise in weasel-wording: "Human dignity", "moral law", "may only be restricted by a law"...
  - germanier 11y ago
    The German constitution needs to be interpreted as a document of its time. It places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it. The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still keeping the intent of the constitution. Interpreting the constitution is not an easy task and takes a lot of practice.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      Cognitive dissonance always gets better with practice, regarding law and any other religion
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      >It places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it. Which is why marital rape was legal until 1997 /s >The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still keeping the intent of the constitution. Not really. Otherwise marijuana would be legal, the paragraph making incest illegal would have been abolished in 2008, the paragraph criminalizing gay sex would never have existed etc. P.S: What's with the seemingly random "You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks" message?
techterrier 11y ago
As an aside, I'm really hoping the Streisand effect finally does something useful.
nxzero 11y ago
Appears, though not an expert, that a pardon would be possible, but a pardon would require a conviction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon
interfixus 11y ago
No sinister men with long coats and barking dogs at three o'clock in the morning, but the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion. [edit: typo]
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. Even with a strong taste of racial slur ("goat ..."). The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > Actually, laws against ... insults are very old. So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. That doesn't make them at all legitimate in the modern world.
    - bayesian_horse 11y ago
      Which is why they are being changed. Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        > Which is why they are being changed. Then why cite the age of a law like them as evidence of the law's legitimacy? > Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument. That places you in the very dangerous position of deciding what's a valid political argument and what isn't.
        DanBC 11y ago
        beyseian horse didn't cite old laws like them, you did.
tehwebguy 11y ago
Erdogan is a terrible leader, he's been arresting journalists critical of him. Even Russia has taken shots at him, implying that Turkey is the means by which IS is able to turn oil into cash and continue operations (my money is on the next US president deposing him). I just can't understand why Merkel would care what he thinks?
- DanBC 11y ago
  She may be using this as a tool to persuade politicians to scrap the law.
- iso-8859-1 11y ago
  Why do you assume Merkel cares what he thinks? She is just making the judiciary can do its job. Maybe it is what German voters want?
- wsc981 11y ago
  Because Merkel made a deal with him regarding the refugee crisis. Apparently Europe isn't in control of it's own external borders anymore (in case of Greece this is to be expected of course). And the Schengen treaty removed many internal borders. So now Merkel wants Erdogan to stop refugees on behalf of Europe. Erdogan gained a lot of indirect power in Europe with the agreement and (IMHO) this is not a good thing.
- sakopov 11y ago
  Isn't Germany trying to make a monetary deal with Turkey to provide asylum for "Syrian" immigrants? Considering that nobody else wants to take them I'm sure there is quite a bit of ass-kissing required to get this working.
  - doczoidberg 11y ago
    German here. This is exactly the reason for Merkels decision. A side note to the comedian Böhmermann: he did also the "Varoufakis Gate". He is quite a genious satirist with real political influence.
- 11y ago
venomsnake 11y ago
Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German comedian had committed a “crime against humanity” by insulting the Turkish head of state. “No one has the right to insult” Erdogan, Kurtulmus told reporters. And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a risk I am willing to take.
- rbehrends 11y ago
  > And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a risk I am willing to take. Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact sport. You'll see much cruder and more direct imagery on carnival floats, for example [1, 2, 3]. Warning: several images may be NSFW and/or cannot be unseen. [1] http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of-carnival/a-16589663 http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of-carnival/a-165896... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks-politicians-satirical-parade-floats-photos-709650 http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks-pol... [3] http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political-theme-float-with-an-oversize-figure-depicting-67304248.html http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political-the...
  - spriggan3 11y ago
    > Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact sport. It doesn't mean you can't get sued by the German state for these. Actually i'm pretty sure you can. You couldn't in US (be sued by the federal state for that). That's the difference between actual freedom of speech (USA) and some vague tolerance that could change anytime (Europe). As a french, I can go to prison if I insult the president publicly, a state prosecutor can sue me for that, that's not freedom of speech. Now is it likely ? no, but the risk is enough so that most people don't even attempt to do that, that's the vague tolerance I'm talking about.
    - rbehrends 11y ago
dijit 11y ago
Other discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065
jessegreathouse 11y ago
She should have told Turkey to shove it instead of appeasing them. When this man gets exonerated by the judicial system it's unlikely that Turkey will be satisfied and the result will be the same for relations between Turkey and Germany. Dance with the one you came with, Merkel.
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  "She" (in fact it is her government and not "she" alone) doesn't appease Turkey but rather honors German law.
- edko 11y ago
  I don't think so. She can always say that she did all that was in her power, but the judges, those independent little devils, are beyond what she can control. Everyone knows that nothing will happen to the comedian, otherwise hell will break loose in German public opinion. In terms of foreign relations, she made the best move.
ralfruns 11y ago
If you would publish such a "poem" about anybody in Germany, you could be sued for defamation. Just because you claim it is satire doesn't mean it is protected speech.
- morgante 11y ago
  The fact that it's about a politician is what should make it protected. Western democracies have a long and celebrated history of mocking politicians through satire.
- patall 11y ago
  That is not the point. It was not claimed it is satire, it was claimed by Boehermann (about 3 times in the one minute of the poem) that this is an example of what is not allowed in Germany. He even said that this might get zensored. You cannot take this poem out of context and then judge on it.
nmbr213 11y ago
hums 'Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan'
- iso-8859-1 11y ago
  Aren't you technically just humming Nina then? How does one hum a cover?
the-dude 11y ago
Keep in mind here Erdogan's intented audience is his own people, not the outside world.
venomsnake 11y ago
Once you start paying the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. It was up to her discretion to allow the prosecution to continue if the translations § 104a StGB given here are correct. She should have pissed Erdogan.
dotcoma 11y ago
Never learn a thing from history, Frau Merkel!
marcoperaza 11y ago
No man should be dragged before court in shackles to answer for his mockery of a politician. How pitiful for a great nation like Germany to be bullied into this by Erdogan. This is truly a new low, even for Europe's already troubling record on free speech. Germany desperately needs Turkey to save them from this migrant crisis, but has no real leverage.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
geff82 11y ago
Nobody seems to see how Merkel got this thing very right. 1.) Law says: you may prosecute it. So she "allows prosecution", as she also can't ignore diplomatic implication of doing otherwise. 2.) She also declares that the government will get rid of this law. 3.) She will surely not pressure the justice system in this case... 4.) The case will get dismissed as there is no basis for punishment any more (in Germany, you are entitled to be punished under the lesser harsh law when the law changes, and when the law disappears, there will be no punishment). I think this was an intelligent move. She complied with Erdogans request and in return says a big "F* Y" by eliminating the law and saving the comedian.
- wobbleblob 11y ago
  How is it up to a politician to "allow" a prosecution? Shouldn't that be up to the court?
  - bloat 11y ago
    "Under an obscure paragraph of Germany’s criminal code, prosecution for insults against organs or representatives of foreign states requires both a notification from the offended party and an authorisation from the government." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-a...
    - arrrg 11y ago
      I’ve read that the underlying assumption here is basically that since such insults potentially damage the relationship between Germany and the foreign state, Germany is an injured party and as such involved in the process. But it’s also just an ancient law …
      - patall 11y ago
        and thats why they want to get rid of it
      - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ChrisBland 11y ago
Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against humanity' on a daily basis. My username is real name, I live in the US, please come sue me. If you need to be insulted vs just stating facts, the party leadership are doo-doo heads. For anyone not aware, here is LY HRW report on Turkey. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/turkey https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/turke...
- pmarreck 11y ago
  He should have a Twitter account, then we'd see some real drama
  - untothebreach 11y ago
    He does: https://twitter.com/RT_Erdogan https://twitter.com/RT_Erdogan Plus there is: https://twitter.com/trpresidency https://twitter.com/trpresidency. The trpresidency account has blocked me for tweeting the picture of Erdogan next to Smeagol, haven't been blocked from RT_Erdogan...yet.
- binarray2000 11y ago
  > Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against humanity' on a daily basis. [...] All true. But it doesn't stop the oligarchy [1][2] in your country to still keep it in the NATO, have (at least one) military base there (Incirlik Air Base), not say/do anything about the way it treats minorities, journalists ...its own citizens. (remember the US slogan: "We bring freedom, democracy and human rights to the world") [1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
  - irixusr 11y ago
    Don't forget turkey had the cojones to provoke the Russians by shooting their plane and then commit a war crime by shooting sry the pilots. They'be become a rogue nation more than any other.
ck2 11y ago
I saw Amanpour interview that Turkish president over his prosecution of journalists that were exposing him. He's an insecure little twit isn't he?
NietTim 11y ago
I find this very worrying.
jackcosgrove 11y ago
This is why Germany is still not fully western like the USA, UK, and France. Too much authoritarian hangover from the lack of a modern revolution.
- patall 11y ago
  Why? Just because we do not believe in this "free speech" thingy and trust our judicative? If it has been serious defamation, he (Boehmermann) will get a sentence (which he quite probable won't), if not he will not. Merkel just states that she should not judge this and upholds the law. And honestly, this is the best she can do because else the opposition in turkey will be have an even bigger problem than now, because Erdogan will whine about it forever to get nationalist support. Boehmermann has nothing to lose here, it is just a question how much him market value rises. His only problem are dumb turkish nationalists with their death threads.
- germanier 11y ago
  The UK has probably one of the strictest restrictions on the freedom of speech, especially regarding defamation. France also has defamation laws similar to the German ones.
kyleblarson 11y ago
During Erdogan's recent visit to Washington DC his security personnel attempted to bring their thuggery to American protesters and journalists and that did not work out so well: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish-presidents-arrival-brings-chaos-downtown-washington http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish-presidents-a... edit: fixed typo
agounaris 11y ago
Thats a disgrace for Merkel and Germany! Lets criminalise comedy...
hussong 11y ago
For those interested in some of the finer legal aspects of the situation, here's an interesting article in German (excellent discussion there as well): http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die-verfassungsrechtliche-dimension-der-causa-jan-boehmermann/ http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die-verfass... Böhmermann may have gone a little bit overboard on his exemplary "Schmähgedicht" -- unneccessarily long and nasty just to make a point, other indicators are the music, the flag in the background and subtitles only for the poem (making the example much stronger than the context / introduction) -- but given the context, he should be fine.
- patall 11y ago
  Exactly, this and few other blogs, lawyers of satirical magazines and even Erdogan lawyer have said that they do not expect much from this prosecution. It is just, Erdogan has to go this now, else he loses his face. At some point he will lose in the last instance and then tell his people: "See, these germans hate us". If Boehmermann had to pay something, that would mean he had increased his market value by some millions minus those maybe €5000 fine.
CapitalistCartr 11y ago
Yes, the poen is crass at best. The fight for freedom of speech isn't fought at Michelangelo's "David", it's at Larry Flynt's "Hustler".
mpweiher 11y ago
I am not usually a Merkel fan, but I think this is a brilliant move, as it sends two loud and clear messages: 1. We are a country of laws, not of autocratic presidents. Therefore it is the task of the judiciary, and only the judiciary to decide this matter. I have full confidence in the judiciary to do so and to come to the right conclusion. 2. And I have a pretty clear idea of what the right conclusion is: what the Turkish president demands is ridiculous. In fact, the fact that we have a law that allows him to demand this is ridiculous. We are therefore getting rid of the law. Not allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way to proceed, regardless of which way the decision goes. It also wouldn't have sent as clear a message as to the ridiculousness of the request as getting rid of the law. Again, not usually a fan, but this is damn good.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  It's like ssh-ing into the production server.
- gaur 11y ago
  > Not allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way to proceed As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start. So in this situation, you are a country of laws being mediated by an autocratic president. It is the task of an autocratic president, and possibly the judiciary, to decide this matter. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure-german-law-angela-merkel-recep-tayyip-erdogan http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure-german-...
  - mpweiher 11y ago
    >As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start. Exactly. This is why the law is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. And why using it to get the "right" outcome would be inconsistent with the principle of rule of law that says it needs to be gotten rid of.
pmarreck 11y ago
The speech in question was intentionally provocative/insulting, intentionally illegal (it was even stated as such prior to it), and was barely satire, if at all: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty-not-particularly-funny-poem-just-turned-into-an-international-crisis/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty-not... Worst of all, it wasn't even funny, unlike the video that enraged Erdogan last month.
mabbo 11y ago
She's rolling the dice a bit, but it was her best shot. If she very strongly was in support of his prosecution, she'd be seen as very anti-free speech. If she blocked it entirely, Erdogan would be pissed off and probably stop blocking refugees for her. Her goal here is that the courts decide to throw out the law entirely when it goes to trial (is that a thing in Germany? Can courts do that there?) or they give a tiny slap on the wrist. Then she can say to Erdogan "Well, we tried to stop him". Worst case scenario here is that the comedian actually goes to jail. That would probably end Merkel's career.
- spriggan3 11y ago
  No, it's just shows that Merkel is desperate not to cross Erdogan, for whatever reason and is ready to make Germany look weak to salvage whatever deal she made with Turkey. It says a lot about our euro politicians. Unfortunately there is no strong freedom of speech tradition is Europe, unlike US where you can say almost everything without risking getting prosecuted by the state. And it makes all the difference in my opinion.
- wnkrshm 11y ago
  Concerning German law: It is up to the judges (throughout the instances but hopefully it will be finished witht he first trial) whether or not they see this as satire. There are no binding precedents in Germany, every case is only dealt with on the basis of the legal text (the exception being some judgements by the suppreme court). This of course gives the judges some freedom in this case, as with obscenity/pornography laws. But still, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Böhmermann's intention was to insult Erdogan. He is not responsible for how his performance is interpreted by the public or Erdogan.
brakmic 11y ago
I'm sure this entry will be downvoted very soon, but however, let's try it. :) Well, now almost everyone in Germany talks about the Comedian and the Turkish President ignoring the much bigger scandal popularized by the term "Panama Papers". I'm not from the "conspiracy lunatics" fraction but let's dissect this whole stuff a little bit less emotionally: a) In Germany we have very independent courts. b) and a very stable democracy (which most of us are truly proud of) c) and in fact we do have such a silly paragraph that 'protects foreign diplomats' from being 'insulted verbally'. d) The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure paragraph, which btw. was mostly used by the former Iranian Shah Reza Pahlevi to attack its critics in Germany (that's why we call it 'the Shah Paragraph'). Anyway, I'm very confident that our democracy is stable enough to handle anything, even the childish behaviour of a foreign head of state. By following our laws, no matter how ridiculous the paragraphs may sound, we _protect_ our democracy and dignity. I'm not a fan of Merkel but one thing is clear: Our Chancellor is governing our country while some others prefer to sue comedians. ;) I'm not a very political person nor a member of any of our parties but I always go to vote. That's how we protect our democracy. By letting people vote, the government govern, and courts do jurisprudence. And we'll never ever sue our comedians. In fact, Erdogan helped us clean up our constitution by throwing out a useless paragraph.
- schlowmo 11y ago
  > "The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure paragraph [...]" I'm not sure if I would call 2018 (like Merkel announced) soon. At least it's after her current period of governance (which will end September 2017).
  - germanier 11y ago
    The announced plan is to vote it into law this term but having it take effect in 2018. This is not unusual, though I don't know why they would leave such a long gap.
    - _ph_ 11y ago
      My understanding is, that they don't want to interfere in any way with the courts handle this case, but make sure that this law is not invoked again.
halis 11y ago
She's a coward, plain and simple. You don't compromise core principles just to push an agreement through.
chris_wot 11y ago
Here's a translation of what the comedian actually said: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmermann_said_english_translation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmerm... He appears to be telling Erdogan what would be illegal, and making up all sorts of horrible things it is very obvious that Erdogan doesn't do, interspersed with things he may well be guilty of, like beating up minorities. Now should the German court object to Erdogan coopting the German legal system, I wonder if a defence might be that in fact Bohermann was saying a whole bunch of ridiculous things that are obviously untrue but that satirises how sensitive the Turkish president is. Now if the Turkish president says that it wasn't all untrue then he'll need to admit to some malfeasance, which he clearly won't ever want to do. So the Bohmermann can say that it was all absurdity and clearly as none of it was true he proves his point that his criticism of Erdogan is valid and that he is an over sensitive despot who is trying to prevent freedom of expression and criticism. Either way, no matter what the Turkish President does, the comedian wins. The penalty is jail time, but just how long is the minimum and can the comedian be pardoned? And if the comedian goes to jail and the law repealed, then it's open season in Germany and every man and his dog will be throwing even worse insults at Erdogan! I can see a sort of German Streisand Effect occurring where the insults ratchet up incredibly and an entire nation sticks there collective middle finger up at the Turkish President, who as soon as the law is repeated will be powerless to do anything about it! Erdogan just can't win, even if he succeeds in jailing the comedian.
tdaltonc 11y ago
Why does Germany have a law against insulting other countries' heads of state?
- glasz 11y ago
  because we are sheep. nobody cares as long as there's no child porn. i'm so bloody sick of my fellow gelantinous countrymen.
melvinmt 11y ago
Contrary to popular belief there is no real freedom of speech in Europe, as least not in the sense as Americans know it. You can still get up to 2 years of prison time for insulting the King or a friendly Head of State in the Netherlands (and Germany apparently), you can be prosecuted in French for ridiculing the Holocaust (just look at the case for Dieudonné) and the list goes on and on. Erdogan is of course an insecure and manipulative guy who likes to get back at anyone who mocks him, but he's also quite smart to be aware of and to use the legal options that are available to him in Germany as well as in Turkey. If you don't like it, and supposedly uphold liberal values, change the laws. It's as simple as that.
- hospes 11y ago
  >> You can be prosecuted in French for ridiculing the Holocaust. I think that is a good thing, especially with rise of anti-semitism in different parts of the world. Ridiculing the Holocaust or any other Genocide is not a free speech, it is a hate speech.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Hate speech is one kind of free speech, and be very suspicious of anyone who tries to tell you otherwise: They mean to suppress dissent.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>German Chancellor Angela Merkel has cleared the way for the prosecution of German comedian Jan Böhmermann (Wash.Post) // >Chancellor Angela Merkel granted Turkey’s request to prosecute a German satirist who derided President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Bloomberg) // The crucial statement of what Merkel has done to "clear the way" and what action she took to "grant" Turkey's request to start a prosecution appears to be missing from both stories? Can someone fill in this detail because without it it just looks like "Merkel has not attempted to prevent democratic legal processes from continuing in their normal course". What's this really about? Edit: someone on reddit informed that there's a statute protecting foreign heads of state and that it requires the German parliament to 'allow' the prosecution in some sense.
lr4444lr 11y ago
This is one of those times, despite all of the criticisms people on the other side of the Atlantic have about us (some of which are perfectly legitimate) that I am unabashedly proud to be an American, and of our laws and customs.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nikolay 11y ago
This lady has done such huge harm to Germany and to EU - where's the democracy? Why is she still in power? Germany, wake up! You're destroying not just your own country, but EU as a whole as well! She invited the migrants and so caused the whole migrant crisis. This alone costs EU billions, forced countries to start building walls, and made it kneel down before Erdogan! Now, she's doing extra favors to him! Such a disgrace!
- nikolay 11y ago
  https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/ https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/
Jun8 11y ago
Here's a video montage from Der Spiegel of the the program: http://spon.de/vg9uR http://spon.de/vg9uR. In a typical Jon Stewart fashion Böhmermann says things and "check" with his "producer" which ones are illegal to say.
AKifer 11y ago
Anyway, Putin's Russia is always a safe fallback for that guy.
cm3 11y ago
If laws weren't a chaotic accumulation of snapshots of ethics and morals at some point but logical and reasonable instead, we'd have this: Pros: - easy to understand and argue - no room for personal opinion, especially regarding ethics Cons: - less income for crime+punishment system that has a whole industry around it and in some countries even prisons operated as public companies - emotional views on penal system would go ignored Precedent law is also highly questionable and dangerous. It's hard to understand why laws do not apply to many, especially those mucking around and making laws. It could be very simple, but as long as there's no Vulkan (Star Trek) like approach to these things, I'm afraid we'll always have laws that favor some and punish others, regardless if the actions harmed anybody.
tobltobs 11y ago
This decision and the year long coverage of the now coming law suit will make sure that 'Erdowahn goatfucker gangbang' will be in the google index for decades. Maybe Erdogan will be even the number one result for 'goatfucker' or 'gangbang party' after this all settled down. I don't know how this could be called a victory for Erdowahn. Apart of this I really look forward to the process. This will be the best satire ever, worldwide, at primetime. I believe Böhmermann wanted just that and it would have been sad if Merkel would have destroyed his evil genius plan.
krylon 11y ago
In Germany, we have a saying, "Getroffene Hunde bellen" (A dog, when hit, will bark). If the poem had been directed at, say, Obama, he probably would have been like, "whatever, I don't give a four-letter-word", and the whole thing would have been properly ignored by pretty much everyone. The fact that Erdogan goes apoplectic instead and is all like "off with his head" is really telling more about Erdogan's ego problem than about the German legal system or the media. I think I learnt in elementary school to not let somebody else provoke me like that. I have been told time and again that I am kind of naive, but I had somehow assumed that a head of state would have managed that. It seems that people never learn that the best way to deal with this would have been the line Jeff Bridges gave in the Big Lebowski, when a character named Jesus essentiallly goes on a rant: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man".
blubb-fish 11y ago
The "poem" was insulting - and Germany has that law. And with respect to that it will be a German court which decides upon whether a punishment is needed. I think that is fine.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
I don't get why people go wild about this. Imagine I sue you for hate speech against me... does the Chancellor get to decide to throw the case out? No. You let it go to court. The judge looks at the case and judges, according to, ya know, the law? Who are you to deny me that case? If the law is sound, and it is, the case will get thrown out. But it'll be done by a judge, not by a politician a priori. It's a very simple separations of power story for me. Further, the comedian will be protected under free speech laws. Case closed?
alt_rox_haxer 11y ago
"Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German comedian had committed a “crime against humanity” by insulting the Turkish head of state." A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. ARE YOU JOKING. This is what we have come to, folks.
mercer 11y ago
I rather like the outrageous and ballsy response from one of Holland's biggest comedians, especially considering that we have a similar law here (if I understand correctly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos (Dutch) For those who don't speak Dutch: Teeuwen is expressing his outrage over the fact that when Erdogan used to be a 'boy whore' in Istanbul, he was paid by Teeuwen for sex. And even though Teeuwen 'stimulated' Erdogan, the latter didn't return the favor (and do what he was paid for). He also says that many other people have the same complaint, including our prime minister. When the interviewer tries to clarify and explain to the viewer that this is a satirical bit to make a point, Teeuwen insists over and over again that this is the literal truth and that it's not satire. Crass, but effective. In an interview a few days earlier Teeuwen actually argued that this is what people should do en masse, especially in places with such a law, and despite the risk. If you consider that he is not an idiot and knows that there's a real risk in doing these kinds of things, and that a good friend of his (Theo van Gogh) was actually murdered over insulting islam, it's an incredibly courageous thing to do.

218 points by eloisius 11y ago

I would have had great respect if Merkel had taken a stand on this issue. Regardless of letting the supposedly trustworthy courts of Germany decide on this, this would have been an excellent opportunity to show the world what European values are all about. It comes over as political cowardliness, but this seems to be the norm now more than ever.

intrasight 11y ago
Merkel is very pragmatic - hence her long tenure in office. This would have been an excellent opportunity to show the world what European values are all about except for the fact the Europe is currently beholden to Turkey to address the migration crisis.
- jayess 11y ago
  I'm not sure what European values even are. Europe used to be the land of the enlightenment. That seems to have regressed substantially lately.
  - elcapitan 11y ago
    If I remember it correctly, Europe never was a "land".
- vidarh 11y ago
  "European values" does not include having the executive stand in the way of putting a case in front of the judiciary. It's a bad law, but having the executive exercise its option to not consent would have been worse.
Spearchucker 11y ago
This isn't about values. This is about negotiation. Merkel wants Turkey to retain migrants to Europe, and even divert them elsewhere, so she has to concede somewhere. I believe there were other bargaining points too, something about Turkey's EU membership.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bayesian_horse 11y ago
Rule of Law and independence of the judiciary are also important European values. Which are also under attack in Hungary and Poland. Germany would have forfeited the high ground in those issues if the government interfered with a prosecution, even if legally possible.
tobltobs 11y ago
I would have hated it if Merkel ignored the separation of power in Germany. And also it will be extremely funny if the details of the Schmähgedicht are discussed in a german court.

techterrier 11y ago

I'm not sure she could do anything else. However bad the limits on free speech are, applying the law selectively is probably worse.

duaneb 11y ago
She could push for repealing a stupid law. Insulting world leaders (especially our own) is a celebrated past time for the western world. This is, after all, the homeland of Martin Luther (warning, visual fart joke): http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jpg http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jp... EDIT: does german law allow for pardons?
- techterrier 11y ago
  I think that's happening too?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- beberlei 11y ago
  she has actually said that they will work on repealing the law asap and this will likeli go into effect in 2018.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  >does german law allow for pardons No idea. But in this case it's the government itself that gave the ok for prosecution in the first place (it's a very special law...). It doesn't make sense to first say "go ahead, law enforcement" and then pardon Böhmermann.
- germanier 11y ago
  There is no pardoning that would be relevant. However, they could change the law before the court's verdict. In that case the court needs apply the more lenient version. As far as a I know there is significant push to change the law at the moment.

Kristine1975 11y ago

"In a country under the rule of law, it is not up to the government to decide," Merkel said. "Mutti" is trying to deflect the blame again: In this very special case (§103 StGB), the law mandates that the government authorize the prosecution. Otherwise there is no case.

bayesian_horse 11y ago
The government may have the right to stop a complaint regarding this law, but that doesn't mean that there is no moral obligation for the government to not stand in the way of law. She's not deflecting blame. For one thing, it's not Merkel that made the decision. Secondly, the blame would have been less if the government stopped the complaint. That would have been the easy way out.
- bayesian_horse 11y ago
  I tried without "triple negation". Doesn't work as well. There is a moral obligation for the government to honor that law, but that in turn doesn't mean they have to give permission or that they don't have permission. Yes, the issue is that complicated.
  - rndgermandude 11y ago
    StGB §104a explicitly states that the German Federal Government has to consent to any prosecution under StGB §103 (the "libel against foreign head of state" paragraph of the law). §103/104 is very special in that regard. So yes, the government had to give explicit permission to prosecute in this particular case. The gov't could have honored the law by just saying "we don't consent to the prosecution", they did not however, and Merkel as the head of the government has the responsibility for that decision; whether you agree with the decision to prosecute or not. PS: German media is reporting that according to Steinmeier, German Foreign Secretary, the cabinet had a tie when voting on prosecution or not, with Merkel's vote breaking the tie in favor or prosecution.
    - 11y ago

nanoman 11y ago

I think this is the right move, regarding separation of powers. I trust the German jurisdiction to do the right thing here. Plus, she said that the law protecting foreign officials from defamation is obsolete and they will void it.

kmonad 11y ago
This is, in my opinion, the correct way to think about the issue.
martin_henk 11y ago
Yep, I agree. Most likely the best move.
Riesling 11y ago
> Plus, she said that the law protecting foreign officials from defamation is obsolete and they will void it. While, at the same time, allowing one of her citizens to be prosecuted based on it.
- nanoman 11y ago
  Well, it's current law and they can't just repeal the law in a few days. Sitting it out is not an option with such a publicly visible case. The only thing which bothers me is that it is going to be effective only starting 2018. In the current situation, they'd have a huge majority in the parliament.
  - germanier 11y ago
    They certainly could repeal the law in a few days, four days should be the minimum if I remember correctly. (And yes, there have been laws introduced to parliament and passed that fast before.)
rmk2 11y ago
Have a look at this comment, especially: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522 Essentially, this has nothing to do with "regarding separation of powers", since the law in question requires "und die Bundesregierung die Ermächtigung zur Strafverfolgung erteilt", i.e. "that the federal government gives the courts authority to prosecute". Without order to prosecute from the executive, the judiciary would have no legal grounds. It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she would have denied this authority.

bayesian_horse 11y ago

It's a pity that most people don't understand the finer point s of the decision, like that it is only a "permission" to conduct investigations, and that the responsibility for anything else will be in the hands of a court. Or multiple courts, probably.

Kristine1975 11y ago
And the German government could have told Erdogan to take a hike. But they still need him, to prevent refugees from reaching Europe (wouldn't want to do this themselves, now that they successfully kept their further gutting of German asylum law out of the media).
gaur 11y ago
It's a far bigger pity that anyone is trying to conduct an investigation at all.
sievebrain 11y ago
I think people understand it OK. Böhmermann very clearly violated that law, on television, deliberately. The law makes no exception for intent. So if he hasn't violated the law then what would? And unfortunately it says, quite clearly, it is punished by a jail sentence. Unless German courts are an absolute joke he is going to rot in jail for a while. The only person who could have stopped that outcome is Merkel. And what has she done? She has said in public, unambiguously that she doesn't want to do this BUT IS DOING IT ANYWAY TO PLEASE ERDOGAN. That's a huge problem for everyone in Europe. Germany is very powerful in the EU. If the German leader is willing to publicly bend over and obey whilst simultaneously protesting then Erdogan is realising that he has Germany (and thus the EU) by the balls. What will he demand next?
- germanier 11y ago
  Even if he were found guilty (which isn't as certain as you make it seem) jail is not required by this law. A fine is a much more likely outcome.
- Xylakant 11y ago

phreeza 11y ago

I think this is the way it should be done. Separation of power means the judicial branch needs to make this decision. Looks like the legislative branch will now revoke the law that lead to this, but either way, it should not be up to the executive to make this decision.

golemotron 11y ago
That's the 2D view of the situation. The 3D view is that she had a chance to make a strong statement about freedom of political expression and she chose not to.
- chris_va 11y ago
  Short sighted, I think. She is allowing the court system of Germany to correct its laws in a legal way. She is trusting the German process to get rid of the law, which arguably is an elegant and even more powerful statement on freedom than high handed executive posturing.
  - k__ 11y ago
    She has the fear that she loses her new political friend, so she has chosen to let someone other decide. I think it's right that the judges and not the regime should decide, but it's convenient for her, so she does it, not because it's the right thing.

pilif 11y ago

>In a state of law, it’s not the domain of the government, but rather the prosecutors and the courts, to weigh individual rights, IMHO that's all that needs to be said. This is exactly how it should be. This is a problem for which laws were written and this is something the judges should eventually have the power to decide upon. If we don't like their decision, it's up to us to change the laws.

venomsnake 11y ago
Than it shouldn't have gotten to her desk at all. But it got - so it is outside of the law system anyway. It is her decision.
zeveb 11y ago
I disagree: in a free state composed of free citizens, it is every citizen's duty to refuse to do something which he believes wrong: a law can only be enforced because the police arrested someone, the gaolers incarcerated him, the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him, the warden took responsibility for him (and the executioner killed him, in the case of capital crimes). Every one of these has the opportunity and the duty to refuse to enforce an unjust law: the police officer can turn a blind eye; the gaolers can refuse to accept the prisoner; the jury can refuse to convict; the judge can refuse to sentence; the warden can release; the executioner can refuse to work.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  You are basically arguing for vigilante justice. There's a myriad of reasons why this is a bad thing for society. For example, white supremacy groups not being arrested or charged with crimes because all the cops and DAs and judges are also white supremacists. If it's truly within their world-view that a lynching is not wrong, then according to your theory it's their responsibility to not arrest or charge for it. This viewpoint is directly opposed to the rule of law.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    zeveb is arguing for nonviolent civil disobedience, which is a very far cry from vigilante justice. Some of our greatest civil rights heroes are advocates for civil disobedience, including Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

13of40 11y ago

"(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship." ...but then... "(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor." So it sounds like their constitution is pretty standard on this point: You have an absolute, indelible right to freedom of speech (unless we decide it's bad speech).

Kristine1975 11y ago
The first articles of the german constitution are an exercise in weasel-wording: "Human dignity", "moral law", "may only be restricted by a law"...
- germanier 11y ago
  The German constitution needs to be interpreted as a document of its time. It places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it. The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still keeping the intent of the constitution. Interpreting the constitution is not an easy task and takes a lot of practice.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    Cognitive dissonance always gets better with practice, regarding law and any other religion
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    >It places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it. Which is why marital rape was legal until 1997 /s >The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still keeping the intent of the constitution. Not really. Otherwise marijuana would be legal, the paragraph making incest illegal would have been abolished in 2008, the paragraph criminalizing gay sex would never have existed etc. P.S: What's with the seemingly random "You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks" message?

techterrier 11y ago

As an aside, I'm really hoping the Streisand effect finally does something useful.

nxzero 11y ago

Appears, though not an expert, that a pardon would be possible, but a pardon would require a conviction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

interfixus 11y ago

No sinister men with long coats and barking dogs at three o'clock in the morning, but the screws are being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion. [edit: typo]

bayesian_horse 11y ago
Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. Even with a strong taste of racial slur ("goat ..."). The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > Actually, laws against ... insults are very old. So are laws against blasphemy, witchcraft, etc. That doesn't make them at all legitimate in the modern world.
  - bayesian_horse 11y ago
    Which is why they are being changed. Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > Which is why they are being changed. Then why cite the age of a law like them as evidence of the law's legitimacy? > Though I still see no value in allowing people to call other people "goat f*rs" for sake of a political argument. That places you in the very dangerous position of deciding what's a valid political argument and what isn't.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        beyseian horse didn't cite old laws like them, you did.

tehwebguy 11y ago

Erdogan is a terrible leader, he's been arresting journalists critical of him. Even Russia has taken shots at him, implying that Turkey is the means by which IS is able to turn oil into cash and continue operations (my money is on the next US president deposing him). I just can't understand why Merkel would care what he thinks?

DanBC 11y ago
She may be using this as a tool to persuade politicians to scrap the law.
iso-8859-1 11y ago
Why do you assume Merkel cares what he thinks? She is just making the judiciary can do its job. Maybe it is what German voters want?
wsc981 11y ago
Because Merkel made a deal with him regarding the refugee crisis. Apparently Europe isn't in control of it's own external borders anymore (in case of Greece this is to be expected of course). And the Schengen treaty removed many internal borders. So now Merkel wants Erdogan to stop refugees on behalf of Europe. Erdogan gained a lot of indirect power in Europe with the agreement and (IMHO) this is not a good thing.
sakopov 11y ago
Isn't Germany trying to make a monetary deal with Turkey to provide asylum for "Syrian" immigrants? Considering that nobody else wants to take them I'm sure there is quite a bit of ass-kissing required to get this working.
- doczoidberg 11y ago
  German here. This is exactly the reason for Merkels decision. A side note to the comedian Böhmermann: he did also the "Varoufakis Gate". He is quite a genious satirist with real political influence.
11y ago

venomsnake 11y ago

Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German comedian had committed a “crime against humanity” by insulting the Turkish head of state. “No one has the right to insult” Erdogan, Kurtulmus told reporters. And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a risk I am willing to take.

rbehrends 11y ago
> And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a risk I am willing to take. Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact sport. You'll see much cruder and more direct imagery on carnival floats, for example [1, 2, 3]. Warning: several images may be NSFW and/or cannot be unseen. [1] http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of-carnival/a-16589663 http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of-carnival/a-165896... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks-politicians-satirical-parade-floats-photos-709650 http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks-pol... [3] http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political-theme-float-with-an-oversize-figure-depicting-67304248.html http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political-the...
- spriggan3 11y ago
  > Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact sport. It doesn't mean you can't get sued by the German state for these. Actually i'm pretty sure you can. You couldn't in US (be sued by the federal state for that). That's the difference between actual freedom of speech (USA) and some vague tolerance that could change anytime (Europe). As a french, I can go to prison if I insult the president publicly, a state prosecutor can sue me for that, that's not freedom of speech. Now is it likely ? no, but the risk is enough so that most people don't even attempt to do that, that's the vague tolerance I'm talking about.
  - rbehrends 11y ago

dijit 11y ago

Other discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065

jessegreathouse 11y ago

She should have told Turkey to shove it instead of appeasing them. When this man gets exonerated by the judicial system it's unlikely that Turkey will be satisfied and the result will be the same for relations between Turkey and Germany. Dance with the one you came with, Merkel.

bayesian_horse 11y ago
"She" (in fact it is her government and not "she" alone) doesn't appease Turkey but rather honors German law.
edko 11y ago
I don't think so. She can always say that she did all that was in her power, but the judges, those independent little devils, are beyond what she can control. Everyone knows that nothing will happen to the comedian, otherwise hell will break loose in German public opinion. In terms of foreign relations, she made the best move.

ralfruns 11y ago

If you would publish such a "poem" about anybody in Germany, you could be sued for defamation. Just because you claim it is satire doesn't mean it is protected speech.

morgante 11y ago
The fact that it's about a politician is what should make it protected. Western democracies have a long and celebrated history of mocking politicians through satire.
patall 11y ago
That is not the point. It was not claimed it is satire, it was claimed by Boehermann (about 3 times in the one minute of the poem) that this is an example of what is not allowed in Germany. He even said that this might get zensored. You cannot take this poem out of context and then judge on it.

nmbr213 11y ago

hums 'Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan'

iso-8859-1 11y ago
Aren't you technically just humming Nina then? How does one hum a cover?

the-dude 11y ago

Keep in mind here Erdogan's intented audience is his own people, not the outside world.

venomsnake 11y ago

Once you start paying the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. It was up to her discretion to allow the prosecution to continue if the translations § 104a StGB given here are correct. She should have pissed Erdogan.

dotcoma 11y ago

Never learn a thing from history, Frau Merkel!

marcoperaza 11y ago

No man should be dragged before court in shackles to answer for his mockery of a politician. How pitiful for a great nation like Germany to be bullied into this by Erdogan. This is truly a new low, even for Europe's already troubling record on free speech. Germany desperately needs Turkey to save them from this migrant crisis, but has no real leverage.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

geff82 11y ago

Nobody seems to see how Merkel got this thing very right. 1.) Law says: you may prosecute it. So she "allows prosecution", as she also can't ignore diplomatic implication of doing otherwise. 2.) She also declares that the government will get rid of this law. 3.) She will surely not pressure the justice system in this case... 4.) The case will get dismissed as there is no basis for punishment any more (in Germany, you are entitled to be punished under the lesser harsh law when the law changes, and when the law disappears, there will be no punishment). I think this was an intelligent move. She complied with Erdogans request and in return says a big "F* Y" by eliminating the law and saving the comedian.

wobbleblob 11y ago
How is it up to a politician to "allow" a prosecution? Shouldn't that be up to the court?
- bloat 11y ago
  "Under an obscure paragraph of Germany’s criminal code, prosecution for insults against organs or representatives of foreign states requires both a notification from the offended party and an authorisation from the government." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-a...
  - arrrg 11y ago
    I’ve read that the underlying assumption here is basically that since such insults potentially damage the relationship between Germany and the foreign state, Germany is an injured party and as such involved in the process. But it’s also just an ancient law …
    - patall 11y ago
      and thats why they want to get rid of it
    - 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ChrisBland 11y ago

Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against humanity' on a daily basis. My username is real name, I live in the US, please come sue me. If you need to be insulted vs just stating facts, the party leadership are doo-doo heads. For anyone not aware, here is LY HRW report on Turkey. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/turkey https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/turke...

pmarreck 11y ago
He should have a Twitter account, then we'd see some real drama
- untothebreach 11y ago
  He does: https://twitter.com/RT_Erdogan https://twitter.com/RT_Erdogan Plus there is: https://twitter.com/trpresidency https://twitter.com/trpresidency. The trpresidency account has blocked me for tweeting the picture of Erdogan next to Smeagol, haven't been blocked from RT_Erdogan...yet.
binarray2000 11y ago
> Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against humanity' on a daily basis. [...] All true. But it doesn't stop the oligarchy [1][2] in your country to still keep it in the NATO, have (at least one) military base there (Incirlik Air Base), not say/do anything about the way it treats minorities, journalists ...its own citizens. (remember the US slogan: "We bring freedom, democracy and human rights to the world") [1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
- irixusr 11y ago
  Don't forget turkey had the cojones to provoke the Russians by shooting their plane and then commit a war crime by shooting sry the pilots. They'be become a rogue nation more than any other.

ck2 11y ago

I saw Amanpour interview that Turkish president over his prosecution of journalists that were exposing him. He's an insecure little twit isn't he?

NietTim 11y ago

I find this very worrying.

jackcosgrove 11y ago

This is why Germany is still not fully western like the USA, UK, and France. Too much authoritarian hangover from the lack of a modern revolution.

patall 11y ago
Why? Just because we do not believe in this "free speech" thingy and trust our judicative? If it has been serious defamation, he (Boehmermann) will get a sentence (which he quite probable won't), if not he will not. Merkel just states that she should not judge this and upholds the law. And honestly, this is the best she can do because else the opposition in turkey will be have an even bigger problem than now, because Erdogan will whine about it forever to get nationalist support. Boehmermann has nothing to lose here, it is just a question how much him market value rises. His only problem are dumb turkish nationalists with their death threads.
germanier 11y ago
The UK has probably one of the strictest restrictions on the freedom of speech, especially regarding defamation. France also has defamation laws similar to the German ones.

kyleblarson 11y ago

During Erdogan's recent visit to Washington DC his security personnel attempted to bring their thuggery to American protesters and journalists and that did not work out so well: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish-presidents-arrival-brings-chaos-downtown-washington http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish-presidents-a... edit: fixed typo

agounaris 11y ago

Thats a disgrace for Merkel and Germany! Lets criminalise comedy...

hussong 11y ago

For those interested in some of the finer legal aspects of the situation, here's an interesting article in German (excellent discussion there as well): http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die-verfassungsrechtliche-dimension-der-causa-jan-boehmermann/ http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die-verfass... Böhmermann may have gone a little bit overboard on his exemplary "Schmähgedicht" -- unneccessarily long and nasty just to make a point, other indicators are the music, the flag in the background and subtitles only for the poem (making the example much stronger than the context / introduction) -- but given the context, he should be fine.

patall 11y ago
Exactly, this and few other blogs, lawyers of satirical magazines and even Erdogan lawyer have said that they do not expect much from this prosecution. It is just, Erdogan has to go this now, else he loses his face. At some point he will lose in the last instance and then tell his people: "See, these germans hate us". If Boehmermann had to pay something, that would mean he had increased his market value by some millions minus those maybe €5000 fine.

CapitalistCartr 11y ago

Yes, the poen is crass at best. The fight for freedom of speech isn't fought at Michelangelo's "David", it's at Larry Flynt's "Hustler".

mpweiher 11y ago

I am not usually a Merkel fan, but I think this is a brilliant move, as it sends two loud and clear messages: 1. We are a country of laws, not of autocratic presidents. Therefore it is the task of the judiciary, and only the judiciary to decide this matter. I have full confidence in the judiciary to do so and to come to the right conclusion. 2. And I have a pretty clear idea of what the right conclusion is: what the Turkish president demands is ridiculous. In fact, the fact that we have a law that allows him to demand this is ridiculous. We are therefore getting rid of the law. Not allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way to proceed, regardless of which way the decision goes. It also wouldn't have sent as clear a message as to the ridiculousness of the request as getting rid of the law. Again, not usually a fan, but this is damn good.

RodericDay 11y ago
It's like ssh-ing into the production server.
gaur 11y ago
> Not allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way to proceed As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start. So in this situation, you are a country of laws being mediated by an autocratic president. It is the task of an autocratic president, and possibly the judiciary, to decide this matter. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure-german-law-angela-merkel-recep-tayyip-erdogan http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure-german-...
- mpweiher 11y ago
  >As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start. Exactly. This is why the law is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. And why using it to get the "right" outcome would be inconsistent with the principle of rule of law that says it needs to be gotten rid of.

pmarreck 11y ago

The speech in question was intentionally provocative/insulting, intentionally illegal (it was even stated as such prior to it), and was barely satire, if at all: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty-not-particularly-funny-poem-just-turned-into-an-international-crisis/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty-not... Worst of all, it wasn't even funny, unlike the video that enraged Erdogan last month.

mabbo 11y ago

She's rolling the dice a bit, but it was her best shot. If she very strongly was in support of his prosecution, she'd be seen as very anti-free speech. If she blocked it entirely, Erdogan would be pissed off and probably stop blocking refugees for her. Her goal here is that the courts decide to throw out the law entirely when it goes to trial (is that a thing in Germany? Can courts do that there?) or they give a tiny slap on the wrist. Then she can say to Erdogan "Well, we tried to stop him". Worst case scenario here is that the comedian actually goes to jail. That would probably end Merkel's career.

spriggan3 11y ago
No, it's just shows that Merkel is desperate not to cross Erdogan, for whatever reason and is ready to make Germany look weak to salvage whatever deal she made with Turkey. It says a lot about our euro politicians. Unfortunately there is no strong freedom of speech tradition is Europe, unlike US where you can say almost everything without risking getting prosecuted by the state. And it makes all the difference in my opinion.
wnkrshm 11y ago
Concerning German law: It is up to the judges (throughout the instances but hopefully it will be finished witht he first trial) whether or not they see this as satire. There are no binding precedents in Germany, every case is only dealt with on the basis of the legal text (the exception being some judgements by the suppreme court). This of course gives the judges some freedom in this case, as with obscenity/pornography laws. But still, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Böhmermann's intention was to insult Erdogan. He is not responsible for how his performance is interpreted by the public or Erdogan.

brakmic 11y ago

I'm sure this entry will be downvoted very soon, but however, let's try it. :) Well, now almost everyone in Germany talks about the Comedian and the Turkish President ignoring the much bigger scandal popularized by the term "Panama Papers". I'm not from the "conspiracy lunatics" fraction but let's dissect this whole stuff a little bit less emotionally: a) In Germany we have very independent courts. b) and a very stable democracy (which most of us are truly proud of) c) and in fact we do have such a silly paragraph that 'protects foreign diplomats' from being 'insulted verbally'. d) The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure paragraph, which btw. was mostly used by the former Iranian Shah Reza Pahlevi to attack its critics in Germany (that's why we call it 'the Shah Paragraph'). Anyway, I'm very confident that our democracy is stable enough to handle anything, even the childish behaviour of a foreign head of state. By following our laws, no matter how ridiculous the paragraphs may sound, we _protect_ our democracy and dignity. I'm not a fan of Merkel but one thing is clear: Our Chancellor is governing our country while some others prefer to sue comedians. ;) I'm not a very political person nor a member of any of our parties but I always go to vote. That's how we protect our democracy. By letting people vote, the government govern, and courts do jurisprudence. And we'll never ever sue our comedians. In fact, Erdogan helped us clean up our constitution by throwing out a useless paragraph.

schlowmo 11y ago
> "The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure paragraph [...]" I'm not sure if I would call 2018 (like Merkel announced) soon. At least it's after her current period of governance (which will end September 2017).
- germanier 11y ago
  The announced plan is to vote it into law this term but having it take effect in 2018. This is not unusual, though I don't know why they would leave such a long gap.
  - _ph_ 11y ago
    My understanding is, that they don't want to interfere in any way with the courts handle this case, but make sure that this law is not invoked again.

halis 11y ago

She's a coward, plain and simple. You don't compromise core principles just to push an agreement through.

chris_wot 11y ago

Here's a translation of what the comedian actually said: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmermann_said_english_translation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmerm... He appears to be telling Erdogan what would be illegal, and making up all sorts of horrible things it is very obvious that Erdogan doesn't do, interspersed with things he may well be guilty of, like beating up minorities. Now should the German court object to Erdogan coopting the German legal system, I wonder if a defence might be that in fact Bohermann was saying a whole bunch of ridiculous things that are obviously untrue but that satirises how sensitive the Turkish president is. Now if the Turkish president says that it wasn't all untrue then he'll need to admit to some malfeasance, which he clearly won't ever want to do. So the Bohmermann can say that it was all absurdity and clearly as none of it was true he proves his point that his criticism of Erdogan is valid and that he is an over sensitive despot who is trying to prevent freedom of expression and criticism. Either way, no matter what the Turkish President does, the comedian wins. The penalty is jail time, but just how long is the minimum and can the comedian be pardoned? And if the comedian goes to jail and the law repealed, then it's open season in Germany and every man and his dog will be throwing even worse insults at Erdogan! I can see a sort of German Streisand Effect occurring where the insults ratchet up incredibly and an entire nation sticks there collective middle finger up at the Turkish President, who as soon as the law is repeated will be powerless to do anything about it! Erdogan just can't win, even if he succeeds in jailing the comedian.

tdaltonc 11y ago

Why does Germany have a law against insulting other countries' heads of state?

glasz 11y ago
because we are sheep. nobody cares as long as there's no child porn. i'm so bloody sick of my fellow gelantinous countrymen.

melvinmt 11y ago

Contrary to popular belief there is no real freedom of speech in Europe, as least not in the sense as Americans know it. You can still get up to 2 years of prison time for insulting the King or a friendly Head of State in the Netherlands (and Germany apparently), you can be prosecuted in French for ridiculing the Holocaust (just look at the case for Dieudonné) and the list goes on and on. Erdogan is of course an insecure and manipulative guy who likes to get back at anyone who mocks him, but he's also quite smart to be aware of and to use the legal options that are available to him in Germany as well as in Turkey. If you don't like it, and supposedly uphold liberal values, change the laws. It's as simple as that.

hospes 11y ago
>> You can be prosecuted in French for ridiculing the Holocaust. I think that is a good thing, especially with rise of anti-semitism in different parts of the world. Ridiculing the Holocaust or any other Genocide is not a free speech, it is a hate speech.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Hate speech is one kind of free speech, and be very suspicious of anyone who tries to tell you otherwise: They mean to suppress dissent.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>German Chancellor Angela Merkel has cleared the way for the prosecution of German comedian Jan Böhmermann (Wash.Post) // >Chancellor Angela Merkel granted Turkey’s request to prosecute a German satirist who derided President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Bloomberg) // The crucial statement of what Merkel has done to "clear the way" and what action she took to "grant" Turkey's request to start a prosecution appears to be missing from both stories? Can someone fill in this detail because without it it just looks like "Merkel has not attempted to prevent democratic legal processes from continuing in their normal course". What's this really about? Edit: someone on reddit informed that there's a statute protecting foreign heads of state and that it requires the German parliament to 'allow' the prosecution in some sense.

lr4444lr 11y ago

This is one of those times, despite all of the criticisms people on the other side of the Atlantic have about us (some of which are perfectly legitimate) that I am unabashedly proud to be an American, and of our laws and customs.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nikolay 11y ago

This lady has done such huge harm to Germany and to EU - where's the democracy? Why is she still in power? Germany, wake up! You're destroying not just your own country, but EU as a whole as well! She invited the migrants and so caused the whole migrant crisis. This alone costs EU billions, forced countries to start building walls, and made it kneel down before Erdogan! Now, she's doing extra favors to him! Such a disgrace!

nikolay 11y ago
https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/ https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/

Jun8 11y ago

Here's a video montage from Der Spiegel of the the program: http://spon.de/vg9uR http://spon.de/vg9uR. In a typical Jon Stewart fashion Böhmermann says things and "check" with his "producer" which ones are illegal to say.

AKifer 11y ago

Anyway, Putin's Russia is always a safe fallback for that guy.

cm3 11y ago

If laws weren't a chaotic accumulation of snapshots of ethics and morals at some point but logical and reasonable instead, we'd have this: Pros: - easy to understand and argue - no room for personal opinion, especially regarding ethics Cons: - less income for crime+punishment system that has a whole industry around it and in some countries even prisons operated as public companies - emotional views on penal system would go ignored Precedent law is also highly questionable and dangerous. It's hard to understand why laws do not apply to many, especially those mucking around and making laws. It could be very simple, but as long as there's no Vulkan (Star Trek) like approach to these things, I'm afraid we'll always have laws that favor some and punish others, regardless if the actions harmed anybody.

tobltobs 11y ago

This decision and the year long coverage of the now coming law suit will make sure that 'Erdowahn goatfucker gangbang' will be in the google index for decades. Maybe Erdogan will be even the number one result for 'goatfucker' or 'gangbang party' after this all settled down. I don't know how this could be called a victory for Erdowahn. Apart of this I really look forward to the process. This will be the best satire ever, worldwide, at primetime. I believe Böhmermann wanted just that and it would have been sad if Merkel would have destroyed his evil genius plan.

krylon 11y ago

In Germany, we have a saying, "Getroffene Hunde bellen" (A dog, when hit, will bark). If the poem had been directed at, say, Obama, he probably would have been like, "whatever, I don't give a four-letter-word", and the whole thing would have been properly ignored by pretty much everyone. The fact that Erdogan goes apoplectic instead and is all like "off with his head" is really telling more about Erdogan's ego problem than about the German legal system or the media. I think I learnt in elementary school to not let somebody else provoke me like that. I have been told time and again that I am kind of naive, but I had somehow assumed that a head of state would have managed that. It seems that people never learn that the best way to deal with this would have been the line Jeff Bridges gave in the Big Lebowski, when a character named Jesus essentiallly goes on a rant: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man".

blubb-fish 11y ago

The "poem" was insulting - and Germany has that law. And with respect to that it will be a German court which decides upon whether a punishment is needed. I think that is fine.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

I don't get why people go wild about this. Imagine I sue you for hate speech against me... does the Chancellor get to decide to throw the case out? No. You let it go to court. The judge looks at the case and judges, according to, ya know, the law? Who are you to deny me that case? If the law is sound, and it is, the case will get thrown out. But it'll be done by a judge, not by a politician a priori. It's a very simple separations of power story for me. Further, the comedian will be protected under free speech laws. Case closed?

alt_rox_haxer 11y ago

"Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German comedian had committed a “crime against humanity” by insulting the Turkish head of state." A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. ARE YOU JOKING. This is what we have come to, folks.

mercer 11y ago

I rather like the outrageous and ballsy response from one of Holland's biggest comedians, especially considering that we have a similar law here (if I understand correctly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos (Dutch) For those who don't speak Dutch: Teeuwen is expressing his outrage over the fact that when Erdogan used to be a 'boy whore' in Istanbul, he was paid by Teeuwen for sex. And even though Teeuwen 'stimulated' Erdogan, the latter didn't return the favor (and do what he was paid for). He also says that many other people have the same complaint, including our prime minister. When the interviewer tries to clarify and explain to the viewer that this is a satirical bit to make a point, Teeuwen insists over and over again that this is the literal truth and that it's not satire. Crass, but effective. In an interview a few days earlier Teeuwen actually argued that this is what people should do en masse, especially in places with such a law, and despite the risk. If you consider that he is not an idiot and knows that there's a real risk in doing these kinds of things, and that a good friend of his (Theo van Gogh) was actually murdered over insulting islam, it's an incredibly courageous thing to do.