For a long time, faith in the rule of law remained virtually unshakeable in large segments of German society. The judiciary was considered independent, and state repression was curbed by the Federal Constitutional Court, for example through the 1985 Brokdorf ruling, which to this day protects the freedom of assembly from blanket bans.
This trust has been eroding ever since the government began restricting fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and responding to political protest with criminal penalties rather than through public debate. Activists in solidarity with Palestine have been particularly affected, but the climate movement has also experienced preventive measures, chilling effects, and political and media delegitimization.
Demonstrations, rallies, and sit-ins are banned outright; administrative offenses are reclassified as criminal offenses; and home searches and digital surveillance are carried out. Activists are repeatedly or preemptively taken into custody and portrayed as a threat to national security—some as “climate terrorists,” others as “terrorist sympathizers.”
The public prosecutor’s office regularly brings charges such as “use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations,” “approval of criminal offenses,” and “incitement to hatred” without sufficient examination of the context. Human rights organizations criticize the use of Section 129 of the Criminal Code, which is actually intended to combat organized crime. Those who use it for political protest criminalize civil society engagement and restrict democratic freedoms.
People who are committed to the cause of Palestine or the climate are therefore increasingly viewing the state as an enemy. Even to outsiders, the behavior of politicians, the police, and the judiciary is often no longer understandable. The extent of police violence, the exploitation of the domestic intelligence services, political interference in the judiciary, and the criminalization of legitimate forms of protest increasingly appear to be harbingers of an authoritarian state from which more and more citizens are becoming estranged.
The panel discusses how to prevent politically motivated or blanket use of certain criminal offenses and restore trust in the judiciary. Who decides when a heart on Instagram constitutes approval of a criminal offense? How can the treatment of the defendants in the trial against the Ulm5 activists in Stuttgart-Stammheim be explained? And is a revoked naturalization an isolated case or an indication of what legal mechanisms the AfD could use for its remigration plans?
Mit Benjamin Düsberg, Tim Kaufmann, Gerwin Moldenhaue und Nadija Samour. Moderiert von Kristin Helberg
