Germany has banned protests during Bush's visit

[Robbien]

German authorities have barred all open-air public gatherings and protest marches in the old part of the town. The ban will take effect on the evening of July 12 and will last until one hour after Bush's departure on July 13.

German pacifist and leftist groups are planning to stage a major demonstration during the Bush visit -- titled 'Not Welcome, Mr. President'. Thousands of protestors are expected to attend the demo from all over Germany.

A court in the northeast Germany has upheld a partial demonstration ban for the duration of the upcoming two-day visit by US President George W. Bush, DPA reported Tuesday.

The administrative court in the town of Greifswald stated in its decision that the gathering ban was 'basically legal'.

How do you like that. Illegal acts are being described as basically legal to accomodate BushCo.

[Poll_Blind]

1. Does anyone know what "F**k that noise" is, in German? n/t

PB

[Botany]

13. God bless google

Bumsen Sie diese Geräusche

[Poll_Blind]

20. LOL! Thanks! n/t

PB

[saltpoint]

2. Yep. We can't have democracy at a tyrant's picnic.

It spoils the mood.

[LeftCoast]

3. I'm not an expert on German Constitutional law, but I don't see how this

is legal there. Germany has very strong protections on free speech (with a few minor, Nazi-related exceptions).

[Robbien]

9. It is not legal in Germany

that is why there is a now a new category called 'basically legal'.

[LeftCoast]

14. Do you have a link for this by any chance?

I'm going to see if I can find something in the German press regarding this.

[Robbien]

15. Yes. sorry, I forgot

here
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0607113817182844.htm

[LeftCoast]

16. Thanks!

:hi:

[izzie]

30. Sounds like a Bush thing . Specially since he signed a thing

he does not have to follow the law even when he just sign red the bill. Crazy and I wonder if the Germans will take this?

[Kellanved]

33. My guess would be: they have declared another demonstration/event

Two demonstrations can't be at the same place and time. This is done on a first-come-first-serve base.
Also the police has to state that they're able to maintain security at a given place, otherwise demonstrations can be moved to other locations.

[smirkymonkey]

4. Deutchland, Duetchland, Uber Alles......

Global Fascism is what we are looking at.

[LeftCoast]

6. That's pretty offensive

[smirkymonkey]

28. "with a few minor, Nazi related exceptions"

It was a reference, nothing more.

[Swamp Rat]

5. Sieg heil mutherfuckers!

[LeftCoast]

10. Also very offensive

I think it's very hurtful for you to call modern Germans Nazis.

[Swamp Rat]

17. You want to point out where I called "modern Germans Nazis?"

Ich warte Ihre Antwort. Btw, lebte ich dort und meine Familie ist deutsch. Und dir?

[LeftCoast]

21. The article is about Germany and your title is an offensive phrase

I'm glad you didn't mean to imply what I thought you did.

Freut mich dass du auch Deutsch sprechen kannst. :)

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. It seems to me that the article is about

How Germany is forsaking its democratic principles and returning to fascism for the sake of Bush's visit.

[Easy]

44. I wouldn't call it fascism

The thing is, this is just another aspect of today's "absolute security" fetish, added by Bush's desire for his own comfort bubble. And since Merkel would never, ever risk anything with her beloved authority figure, she implements whatever is decreed.

Inter arma enim silent leges, and Bush carries the spirit of war wherever he goes.

~Easy

[Kellanved]

46. Well,

For once, there's hardly anything special about it. During protocoll events a certain distance between protests and event is required. It's the standard procedure in all countries and with all events.
Protestors attending the queens birthday? won't happen.
Protetstors attending a presidential inauguration? won't happpen.
300 meters away? no problem.

The wannabe protestors are right to point out the breach of free speech, but it is hardly special, nor difficult to understand why it's done. Also, there's a ton of precedence.

[sui generis]

7. who would have thought that the next president to get a blow job

in office would be getting it from the new German chancellor. If I were her I'd also ban blue dresses during the visit.:shrug:

[Spazito]

8. Hmmm, I wonder if bush is gonna give Merkel the same lecture

on the right to dissent and press freedom that he has been giving Putin? Ummmm......don't think so.

[AX10]

11. Going back to their facsist roots I see.

:eyes:

[long_green]

12. Why do they love America?

:sarcasm:

Seriously, what a bunch of goddamn pussies. Not the Germans, even though I'm surprised at this action, but Bush and his entourage. Must...shelter...Golden Boy...from...criticism.

[jerry611]

18. Apparently it is because of the violence

Protests in Europe become extremely violent at times. These people will start a full-blown riot over a World Cup match.

I am all for free speech. But I don't support the use of violence in protesting a war. That is the king of hypocrisy right there.

We bash the government for using murder to prove that murder is wrong. Yet we go out into the streets and use violence to try to convince the government that war is wrong. It just doesn't work.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. yeah, those protesters need to stop using cluster bombs, chain guns,

white phosphorus....stuff like that, damn them to hell

great analogy!

[jerry611]

24. Rocks, Molotov Cocktails, etc...

You start using those things, you give the government a perfect excuse to shut your protest down.

In America, you have no right to start a riot under any circumstance...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jerry611]

32. And it must be the police that light the tires on fire and flip cars?

Remember the protests at the RNC convention in 2004? Who was it that was setting tires on fire? The police?

In New York after the Iraq war began, protesters pulled police down from their horses and started beating them. People started throwing rocks at the UN buildings for passing Res 1441.

Come on, dude. You are trying to blame the police for every violent act that occurs in a riot? Both sides CAN be blamed for any violence that occurs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. In any given protest...

it's usually police that trigger violence by attacking non-violent protestors.

[SammyBlue]

40. Ask my father, he was beaten by police in Chicago, 1968.

Ask the protesters in Oakland who were peaceful. . .the Freepers got happy when they saw the wounds the police laid on peaceful protesters.

You want to ban because of what MIGHT happen, not what is happening! On that, you are wrong, so is the German government and so is anyone who agrees with the actions of the German government.

[gratuitous]

22. Where's the violence?

The right of the citizens to gather and protest is pretty well-established. I don't see "violence" inherent in a gathering of citizens, yet you seem to be pretty confident that violence will erupt. Do you know for a fact that the gathering will use violence? Or is that just a guess? Should the rights of the citizenry be curtailed on a guess?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

45. LOL! Do you have proof that I have used violence to try to change people's

minds?" - That's quite an allegation.

"But people who start violence deserves to go to jail." - Show us the DUers who claim otherwise.

"And if you think you need violence in order for people to listen, then you obviously have never heard of people like Ghandi or MLK Jr. They were able to provoke change without violence. If you feel you need to hurt people or property to get your point across, then you are not very intelligent and obviously a poor debater." - Here you go:



"And in my opinion, you are no worse than the fascist government you claim to be against." - I am certainly "no worse," but I cannot say the same about you.

"You are using violence to try to change people's minds." - Prove it! Show us where I have acted out violently.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jerry611]

31. That's a bunch of BS right there...

I have a friend who is a cop and he told all about how riots begin and spread. It is part of their training.

95% of the people at a protest are there for peacefully purposes. However that 5% are determined to cause trouble. Police are trained to detain those 5% whenever they are found. Because if they start making trouble, it quickly goes out of control. All the people protesting peacefully end up running home scared. The people that remain join the trouble-makers and all of a sudden, you have a riot...not a protest.

And you have no right to start a riot. Read the constitution, Pal. It gives you the right to assemble peacefully. But if you start using the violence, the constitution doesn't protect your free speech anymore. And that's how the supreme court interprets it as well. Why is this? Because you are putting innocent people in danger and destroying public and private property.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Police are trained to begin & start riots?

That explains a lot.

[SammyBlue]

39. To reply, what you said is BS

Fear of what might happen isn't an excuse to stop protesting and ban it. . .if you think that, you hate freedom, America and everything the Constitution stands for!

[jerry611]

43. I never said I agree with the ban

All I stated was that violence in past protests is the reason they banned it. And I stated also that protesters are sometimes to blame for the violence.

However, there seems to be people here who think either violence never happens in a protest, OR think that the police causes all of it. Both arguments are entirely false.

And even if the police start it, it gives you no right to escalate the situation. That destroys any moral high ground you are trying to achieve. Because when people see a riot on TV, guess who they are going to sympathize with??? The police. And they are going to think YOU are nutty ones.

[Bridget Burke]

37. The World Cup was just played in Germany....

I don't recall even one riot.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

50. Kick

[SammyBlue]

23. Ah. . .and that funny little name with the box mustache smiles on Germany

once again. . .what was his name? Had a bad haircut. . .killed 6 million Jews.

Oh yes. . .here he is!

[spanone]

41. Isn't Democracy a nice thing?

:sarcasm:

[malaise]

42. Merkel

will soon watch her government fall. One more East German fascist will be kicked out of power.

[earth mom]

47. Unreal! So * & Co is in charge of what other people in other countries

can or can not do?!

:wtf:

This shit gets more ridiculous, irritating and yes, frightening every day! :crazy:

[Amonester]

49. Well, BushCo *dominate* the world now, don't they?

Is it not what the war criminals at the PNAC, led *in part* by Herr Rumsfeld and Darth Cheney wanted? (And got, thanks to EE&S+Diebold&Co?)

What more proof is needed? :shrug:

[Vidar]

48. Merkel's a disgrace, though nothing compared to Bush.