5 ms·
This is is a state law, not a federal one. As far as I understand it is limited to 2 months. Just a clarification, not a justification. It was a somewhat contro
by fabian2k 3y ago
This is is a state law, not a federal one. As far as I understand it is limited to 2 months. Just a clarification, not a justification. It was a somewhat controversial law, and I think those cases clearly show why. Those laws always get justified with terrorism, and now they're jailing people that block traffic.
I don't think such laws should exist, and we should do better there. Unfortunately I don't expect that with the Bavarian politic landscape this will happen on the legislative way.
- tfourb 3y agoAlso might be worth mentioning that the Bavarian state police law that these arrests are based on is actively challenged in court and there arrests could become part of that case.
- JAlexoid 3y agoI expect that this law is going to either be restricted by german courts, or ECHR/CJEU.
- tomohawk 3y ago[flagged]
- fabian2k 3y agoThere is a fundamental difference between killing people, placing bombs and gluing yourself to a road. If your definition of terrorism includes all of these, it's useless.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TylerE 3y agoNot really hard to come up with situations where this actually kills people. Someone in an ambulance getting delayed in getting to the hospital, just for a start.
- DoughnutHole 3y agoTrue of infinitely many forms of protest. If the teamsters strike hospitals miss drug shipments and people die. Farming protests can lead to food supply chain disruptions. Transport strikes cause economic disruption which could theoretically lead to deaths. That’s not what terrorism is. Terrorism requires terrorising people through violence and intimidation. Not standing on a highway.
- seoulmetro 3y agoSo you're saying that silently disconnecting all power stations of a country via software is not terrorism? Is it an attack to you at all? Or is it just a protest too? Cyberterrorism is a big thing. Where is the violence or intimidation in manipulating software? Terrorism is a broad term but it is rarely used for its lower end as its also a term used as a tool to scare people. The idea that it mandates violence is outdated. Violence was the means to terrorize but it no longer is.
- DoughnutHole 3y ago> So you're saying that silently disconnecting all power stations of a country via software is not terrorism? This terrorises people. It causes mass fear and panic, and will cause pretty immediate loss of life. All people have good reason fear for the safety of them and their loved ones in the case of a catastrophic grid failure. This is not true of blocking a highway. It’s an economic disruption. The response of those opposed to the action is one of anger and frustration. Society at large does not fear for their safety because people are occasionally blocking highways, unlike in a mass terrorist campaign. Cyberterrorism as a term is applied too liberally, a direct result of governments wanting to expand their powers under the guise of combating terrorism. Software attacks that immediately threaten life and limb (eg attacks on health systems, major damage to critical infrastructure) can be argued to be cyberterrorism. Not every software attack is of that magnitude.
- lobocinza 3y agoIt's the same thing as both make life miserable. Hundreds/thousands may lose hours of their lives. Some may lose a job, a life opportunity, some may die. And all for nothing because this kind of protest is counterproductive as it associates climate change talk with narcissistic clowns.
- mylons 3y agoif your definition excludes people from blocking necessary resources for modern life you are a terrorist
- woodruffw 3y agoYour freedom of movement doesn't entitle you drive a car, and the history of protest is soaked in examples of protestors effectively blocking specific forms of transportation to make a point.
- tomohawk 3y agoIf people want to make a point, they can vote, they can petition their government and representatives, they can run for office, and they can speak. Resorting to kinetic means throws all of that out the window. You want to make a point, and be heard? Stop committing crimes and taking other people's rights away.
- woodruffw 3y agoYou don't have a right to drive a car. It's a privilege, as indicated by your drivers' license. You're entitled to be upset when someone blocks your car. But framing it as a civil rights issue rather than a practical one (and calling someone blocking your car "kinetic") makes you come across as un-serious.
- varjag 3y agoIf you're on a bus you're just as much stuck in the traffic as if you're driving, what kind of outlandish argument is that.
- AndyMcConachie 3y agoDriving cars is so much more than just driving cars. The practice of driving cars is one of the major practices that is leading to the destruction of our planet's ability to support our life.
- ripbongwinkle 3y ago[flagged]
- crooked-v 3y ago> overturning civil society Well, if you define "civil society" to mean "society where everyone is subject to absolute milquetoast civility at all times", then sure.
- anigbrowl 3y agoIt seeks to use kinetic means to achieve political goals. Kinetic means things being in motion. Throwing rocks is kinetic, taking up space or forming a barricade is not.
- justnotworthit 3y agoIt's false imprisonment against civilians to achieve political ends. But good luck trying to convince a comment section of the immorality of that.
- aequitas 3y agoThis is not restricting freedom of movement. Merely inconveniencing. But the bar is pretty low when you see the reaction you get from the driver behind you if you overtake with “only” 130km/h on the autobahn, instead of 150+ km/h like they do.
- munk-a 3y agoThis is a really deep misunderstanding of what freedom of movement means - and if this qualified as interrupting freedom of movement then there'd be violations every time we needed to fill a pothole. There is no right to convenient movement - just to movement at all.
- satellite2 3y agoHasn't Germany ratified the European Convention on Human Rights? Those are definitely breaching the above and could easily be considered as fascist laws. This should be a fairly easy trial.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI can't be alone in thinking that jailing people who obstruct traffic and jailing people who we believe intend to obstruct traffic are two totally different matters.
- c4mpute 3y agoUsually that believe stems from the fact that those people explicitly announced they would do it again. And again. After being sentenced. In front of a judge. https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/kleber-aktivisten-letzte-generation-gefaengnis-strafe-haft-monatelang-rekordstrafe-klima-92217695.html https://www.merkur.de/deutschland/kleber-aktivisten-letzte-g...
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI would still rather have them sentenced for the crimes they’ve committed - even if sentenced harshly due to their unrepentant disposition - than for the crimes they may commit in the future. We are all hypothetical criminals and I would prefer that the state not have that freedom to lock people up.
- somsak2 3y agoI don't think most people have claimed they will commit a crime in the future. Not necessarily for climate protests, but in many cases in the US we do this same thing too. https://www.bostoncriminaldefenselawyers.com/threat-to-commit-crime.html https://www.bostoncriminaldefenselawyers.com/threat-to-commi... https://ravellawfirm.com/blog/can-someone-go-to-jail-for-threatening-to-kill-you/ https://ravellawfirm.com/blog/can-someone-go-to-jail-for-thr... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
- laserdancepony 3y agoI do believe it is reasonable to hold repeat offenders. And I hope this law will be upheld when tried. These people do not understand democratic dialogue and so I have no pity for them.
- satellite2 3y agoYou don't sound very democratic either.