|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 14 2016 21:47 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 21:16 DickMcFanny wrote:On April 14 2016 19:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2016 19:31 xM(Z wrote:https://neurope.eu/article/german-justice-ministry-will-propose-law-ban-sexist-ads/ The German Justice Ministry reportedly wants to introduce a ban on adverts which treat women or men as sexual objects.
The report about the draft law, was made by both the German magazine Der Spiegel and the German public broadcaster, Deutsche Welle (DW). According to the reports, the German Justice Minister, Heiko Maas, wants to eliminate “gender discriminatory advertising,” and stop ads which “reduce women or men to sexual objects.”
Spiegel reported, during the weekend, that the idea behind the regulation was taken after the New Year’s Eve Sexual Attacks in Cologne, as Maas’s party the Social Democrats (SPD) believe that the implementation of a “modern gender image” in Germany will help in reducing the risk of sexual attacks. ... However, the draft law was questioned by many conservative and anti-Islam websites, as they claimed that the draft law is similar with the Islamic laws which forbids women from showing their skin.
The liberal free-market, “Free Democratic Party” (FDP) also accused the German Minister of “heading towards the next step of a nanny state, which doesn’t trust the citizens and deems consumers to be incompetent.”
“His plans to ban nudity and sexual advertising are completely narrow-minded. To demand the veiling of women or taming of men, is something known among radical Islamic religious leaders, but not from the German minister of justice,” the FDP leader Christian Linder told the German Press Agency in Berlin on Monday.
Germany’s Association of Communications Agencies (GWA) also described Maas’ proposal as “completely absurd,” because according to GWA President Wolf Ingomar Faecks, is very difficult for anyone “to clearly decide when advertising is sexist?”
DW reported that a draft amendment of the law relating to advertising is due to be discussed by the German government shortly. they might be confusing sexist with sexually explicit there ... (the later would be easier to define at least). They really are working hard to try and not get re-elected... How is that anything but positive? Taking power away from the hugely destructive propaganda industry (that's what it used to be called before the Nazis gave the term propaganda a bad name, haha), in such a way is absolutely a step in the right direction. American companies won't let that happen, of course, but the sentiment is one I absolutely support. The Australian government tried something similar, trying to force the advertising industry to make fact based ads, but of course the US intervened because the damage to the tobacco industry would be too big. Imagine that, a government trying to protect its people, of course the US can't let that happen. one the smoke ad thing: its uncalled for. smoking in germany, especially among teens, is on the decline for years now. the numbers of smokers in the age group 25 and younger went from ~25% in the year 2000 to ~7% now. drug use overall goes down including alcohol. kids these days dont even drink anymore, pff. no need to make a law for almost nothing.
Hmm, that's something really interesting, because right across the Rhine that's really not the case (iirc it's something like 30% of daily smoking among 17-year-old French), while we have very hard taxations on tobacco, mandatory "Smoking kills you" signs on cigarette packs, and we'll soon get to the standardized cigarette packs that limits branding. Why is it so low in Germany?
|
i have no idea.
i think they have raised the minimum age from 16 to 18, made it harder to buy packs without an ID; something they did with those cigaret vending machines (dont take cash anymore or something like that, dont know) and they print these huge warnings that smoking can cause harm on everything tabaco related. there are also some kind of smoking restrictions for indoor areas. smoking also got a lot more expensive.
other than that, i dont think they have changed much in the last 15 years. cigarettes just arent cool anymore i guess, but drug use in general is on the decline. whats with the alcohol consumption in france, because thats falling down rather quickly here as well. only 45% of the 18-25 years old getting hammered regularly (coming from ~60% in 2000) and only 14% of the 12-17 years old (down from 25%).
maybe the new generation of parents does something right, who knows.
edit: double checked smoking facts:
age group was 12-17 and its 27.5% in 2001 down to 9.6% in 2015
|
On April 14 2016 22:56 hfglgg wrote:
i have no idea.
i think they have raised the minimum age from 16 to 18, made it harder to buy packs without an ID; something they did with those cigaret vending machines (dont take cash anymore or something like that, dont know) and they print these huge warnings that smoking can cause harm on everything tabaco related. there are also some kind of smoking restrictions for indoor areas. smoking also got a lot more expensive.
other than that, i dont think they have changed much in the last 15 years. cigarettes just arent cool anymore i guess, but drug use in general is on the decline. whats with the alcohol consumption in france, because thats falling down rather quickly here as well. only 45% of the 18-25 years old getting hammered regularly (coming from ~60% in 2000) and only 14% of the 12-17 years old (down from 25%).
maybe the new generation of parents does something right, who knows.
edit: double checked smoking facts:
age group was 12-17 and its 27.5% in 2001 down to 9.6% in 2015
I don't have the numbers right now, but iirc the basic summary in France is that young people drink less alcohol (and less often) overall, but get more drunk than before. However, cannabis (and, I assume, other non-tobacco and non-alcohol drugs) is on the rise.
|
ok so the only possible answer than is that the upcoming generation of germans is going to be the most boring ever, they even study more in school.
|
From memory France is the exception not Germany. In The Netherlands smoking is declining as well.
|
On April 14 2016 21:47 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 21:16 DickMcFanny wrote:On April 14 2016 19:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2016 19:31 xM(Z wrote:https://neurope.eu/article/german-justice-ministry-will-propose-law-ban-sexist-ads/ The German Justice Ministry reportedly wants to introduce a ban on adverts which treat women or men as sexual objects.
The report about the draft law, was made by both the German magazine Der Spiegel and the German public broadcaster, Deutsche Welle (DW). According to the reports, the German Justice Minister, Heiko Maas, wants to eliminate “gender discriminatory advertising,” and stop ads which “reduce women or men to sexual objects.”
Spiegel reported, during the weekend, that the idea behind the regulation was taken after the New Year’s Eve Sexual Attacks in Cologne, as Maas’s party the Social Democrats (SPD) believe that the implementation of a “modern gender image” in Germany will help in reducing the risk of sexual attacks. ... However, the draft law was questioned by many conservative and anti-Islam websites, as they claimed that the draft law is similar with the Islamic laws which forbids women from showing their skin.
The liberal free-market, “Free Democratic Party” (FDP) also accused the German Minister of “heading towards the next step of a nanny state, which doesn’t trust the citizens and deems consumers to be incompetent.”
“His plans to ban nudity and sexual advertising are completely narrow-minded. To demand the veiling of women or taming of men, is something known among radical Islamic religious leaders, but not from the German minister of justice,” the FDP leader Christian Linder told the German Press Agency in Berlin on Monday.
Germany’s Association of Communications Agencies (GWA) also described Maas’ proposal as “completely absurd,” because according to GWA President Wolf Ingomar Faecks, is very difficult for anyone “to clearly decide when advertising is sexist?”
DW reported that a draft amendment of the law relating to advertising is due to be discussed by the German government shortly. they might be confusing sexist with sexually explicit there ... (the later would be easier to define at least). They really are working hard to try and not get re-elected... How is that anything but positive? Taking power away from the hugely destructive propaganda industry (that's what it used to be called before the Nazis gave the term propaganda a bad name, haha), in such a way is absolutely a step in the right direction. American companies won't let that happen, of course, but the sentiment is one I absolutely support. The Australian government tried something similar, trying to force the advertising industry to make fact based ads, but of course the US intervened because the damage to the tobacco industry would be too big. Imagine that, a government trying to protect its people, of course the US can't let that happen. one the smoke ad thing: its uncalled for. smoking in germany, especially among teens, is on the decline for years now. the numbers of smokers in the age group 25 and younger went from ~25% in the year 2000 to ~7% now. drug use overall goes down including alcohol. kids these days dont even drink anymore, pff. no need to make a law for almost nothing.
What are you talking about?
Children in one country smoke less so it's legitimate for the advertising industry to promote smoking?
The propaganda industry, which is praised by capitalists but at the same time is the reason real capitalism can't exist, has been given a free pass to abuse and deceive people for long enough now. Any wrench in their gears is appreciated.
|
On April 14 2016 23:24 hfglgg wrote:
ok so the only possible answer than is that the upcoming generation of germans is going to be the most boring ever, they even study more in school.
If that´s what it means to be boring, then I´m pretty glad that I am boring :D
But I´m in my thirties. SoI guess I don´t count.
|
On April 14 2016 23:46 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 21:47 hfglgg wrote:On April 14 2016 21:16 DickMcFanny wrote:On April 14 2016 19:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2016 19:31 xM(Z wrote:https://neurope.eu/article/german-justice-ministry-will-propose-law-ban-sexist-ads/ The German Justice Ministry reportedly wants to introduce a ban on adverts which treat women or men as sexual objects.
The report about the draft law, was made by both the German magazine Der Spiegel and the German public broadcaster, Deutsche Welle (DW). According to the reports, the German Justice Minister, Heiko Maas, wants to eliminate “gender discriminatory advertising,” and stop ads which “reduce women or men to sexual objects.”
Spiegel reported, during the weekend, that the idea behind the regulation was taken after the New Year’s Eve Sexual Attacks in Cologne, as Maas’s party the Social Democrats (SPD) believe that the implementation of a “modern gender image” in Germany will help in reducing the risk of sexual attacks. ... However, the draft law was questioned by many conservative and anti-Islam websites, as they claimed that the draft law is similar with the Islamic laws which forbids women from showing their skin.
The liberal free-market, “Free Democratic Party” (FDP) also accused the German Minister of “heading towards the next step of a nanny state, which doesn’t trust the citizens and deems consumers to be incompetent.”
“His plans to ban nudity and sexual advertising are completely narrow-minded. To demand the veiling of women or taming of men, is something known among radical Islamic religious leaders, but not from the German minister of justice,” the FDP leader Christian Linder told the German Press Agency in Berlin on Monday.
Germany’s Association of Communications Agencies (GWA) also described Maas’ proposal as “completely absurd,” because according to GWA President Wolf Ingomar Faecks, is very difficult for anyone “to clearly decide when advertising is sexist?”
DW reported that a draft amendment of the law relating to advertising is due to be discussed by the German government shortly. they might be confusing sexist with sexually explicit there ... (the later would be easier to define at least). They really are working hard to try and not get re-elected... How is that anything but positive? Taking power away from the hugely destructive propaganda industry (that's what it used to be called before the Nazis gave the term propaganda a bad name, haha), in such a way is absolutely a step in the right direction. American companies won't let that happen, of course, but the sentiment is one I absolutely support. The Australian government tried something similar, trying to force the advertising industry to make fact based ads, but of course the US intervened because the damage to the tobacco industry would be too big. Imagine that, a government trying to protect its people, of course the US can't let that happen. one the smoke ad thing: its uncalled for. smoking in germany, especially among teens, is on the decline for years now. the numbers of smokers in the age group 25 and younger went from ~25% in the year 2000 to ~7% now. drug use overall goes down including alcohol. kids these days dont even drink anymore, pff. no need to make a law for almost nothing. What are you talking about? Children in one country smoke less so it's legitimate for the advertising industry to promote smoking? The propaganda industry, which is praised by capitalists but at the same time is the reason real capitalism can't exist, has been given a free pass to abuse and deceive people for long enough now. Any wrench in their gears is appreciated.
we have reduced smoking without further restrains on ads and i dont think it is neither the purpose nor possible to terminate drug use alltogether. plus companies should by all means be able to advertise their products, regardless of how damaging they are to your health. they shouldnt be allowed to lie, decive or pressure the customer, which they cant in germany, (charity shaming is illegal here for that exact reason) but if they want to advertise their unhealthy addictive product they should be able to.
On April 15 2016 03:30 Elizar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 23:24 hfglgg wrote:
ok so the only possible answer than is that the upcoming generation of germans is going to be the most boring ever, they even study more in school. If that´s what it means to be boring, then I´m pretty glad that I am boring :D But I´m in my thirties. SoI guess I don´t count.
yeah we are old, but we had our share of drugs and hookers. well not so much on the hooker side because they were too expensive and drugs were mostly cheap vodka and terrible weed but it was enough to blast ourself out every weekend. sometimes twice because hangovers only exist when you are turning 20.
|
On April 15 2016 03:30 Elizar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 23:24 hfglgg wrote:
ok so the only possible answer than is that the upcoming generation of germans is going to be the most boring ever, they even study more in school. If that´s what it means to be boring, then I´m pretty glad that I am boring :D But I´m in my thirties. SoI guess I don´t count.
I work with apprentices (15-18 years old), its actually really sad how bland and boring nearly all of them are.
Hell, they feel more "in the System" than I do at 32...
|
Doing "hard" drugs is pretty common in Germany, but you have to look very closely to differentiate.
Smoking definitely has become less popular, mostly due to the high pricing and the raise of the minimum age. Some German states have also prohibited smoking in pubs.
I've got a college degree, so do most of my friends. As I'm 30 right now, we're practically the last generation that grew up in the "golden age of smoking". In my personal peer group, about 50% of the people are smokers, but that's not very representative as I'm pretty much what you call a leftist artsy-fartsy postmodern communist hipster. I have picked up smoking ten years ago on purpose. There was no peer pressure involved, I just wanted to smoke. But I've always liked toying around with self destruction. I do love life and I don't want to die, but on the other hand, I don't think that my life is important. I'm trying to work as hard as I can to reach my goals. To put it bluntly: If I haven't reached them by the age of 60, I don't think I'll reach them by the age of 90. I'm not doing other drugs too regularly, as they are distracting me too much. But smoking is perfect: It's tasty, it's a slow killer and it stinks like hell. 
Some areas in Germany are struggling hard with Crystal Meth. (Saxony, Bavaria) In my hometown, which is about 70 km from the Czech Republic, lots of young people are doing crystal. There are about 20k inhabitants, and I'm pretty sure that at least 100 people are doing meth. Which is a lot.
Drinking is also very common in Germany, especially in Bavaria. We even have lots of events in the summer that openly revolve around getting wasted. But that's something nobody's interested in. Drinking is part of our "culture", I guess.
As for marihuana, there's a certain paradigm shift. Lots of young people have tried the drug, only a small amount is smoking regularly. But most young people between 14 and 30 are against prohibition.
|
So today our government decided that the feelings of a genocidal maniac are more important than freedom of speech and press. Recht und Freiheit my balls.
|
On April 15 2016 20:35 virpi wrote:
Drinking is also very common in Germany, especially in Bavaria. We even have lots of events in the summer that openly revolve around getting wasted. But that's something nobody's interested in. Drinking is part of our "culture", I guess.
As for marihuana, there's a certain paradigm shift. Lots of young people have tried the drug, only a small amount is smoking regularly. But most young people between 14 and 30 are against prohibition.
drinking goes down as well (see one of my posts above). no idea about hard drugs, maybe at least they are on the rise. who wants to be around people not knowing what it feels like to be totally wasted?
|
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s lawyers are about to come face to face with “The Lord of the Rings.”
Six months ago, family doctor Bilgin Ciftci lost his job for posting photographs online that appeared to liken Erdogan to Gollum, one of the most infamous creatures from J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic fantasy novel. The doctor was charged with insulting the president. Now, his freedom hinges on a Turkish court’s reading of an existential question about good and evil: Was Gollum "bad?" Or was he simply corrupted by power?
The affair might seem like a quirky one-off, except it’s one of thousands of cases that Erdogan’s lawyers are pursuing against alleged insults to the president, a crime punishable by more than five years in jail. Like many of them, this one concerns what a private individual can -- and cannot -- say on social media. And with the case drawing more and more publicity, it’s becoming emblematic of a broader debate.
"It’s only the absurd tip of a very large iceberg. There are thousands of insult cases like this being opened up at the moment in Turkey, and often on very shaky ground," said Aykan Erdemir, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington and formerly an opposition member of Turkey’s parliament. "This is not a trivial matter."
Jail Time
Ciftci’s case was opened after he re-posted an image consisting of three pairs of side-by-side photos on Facebook. In two of them, Erdogan and the film character exhibit similar facial expressions; in the third, Erdogan eats a chicken drumstick and the other chews on a live fish. The case is being tried in the city of Aydin and will convene next on May 12. Erdogan’s lawyers are asking the court to punish the defendant with up to two years in jail.
“The Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson and actor Elijah Wood are among those who’ve weighed in on the case. Jackson said the pictures weren’t even of Gollum, but of his alter-ego, Sméagol. "That Bilgin Ciftci faces jail time for comparing Erdogan to Gollum/Smeagol, regardless of wether he’s good or bad, is horrifying," Wood said on Twitter on Dec. 3.
Character Analysis
Erdogan, 62, rules Turkey de facto from a 1,150-room palace he had built in Ankara, and is pushing to change the nation’s political system to one governed by the president from the current parliamentary model. Never known for tolerance of criticism during 12 years as prime minister, he’s become increasingly litigious since becoming president in 2014, opening nearly 2,000 insult cases against Turkish citizens, or more than three a day. This month he also asked German authorities to press charges against a comedian who lampooned him.
The verdict of the experts on Gollum is that he was good at core, yet became corrupted after encountering the power of a magical ring, according to a 12-page character analysis submitted to the court and reviewed by Bloomberg. “Good and evil can’t be so clearly distinguished in the film,” according to an academic paper it cites. "Some of the supporting heroes succumb to the desire to have the power pass to them, and become bad characters; that is, they change,” it said.
www.bloomberg.com
|
This is an old news in today's standards  .
We did the jokes and got over it already. Our agenda moves really fast
|
On April 15 2016 20:37 DickMcFanny wrote:
So today our government decided that the feelings of a genocidal maniac are more important than freedom of speech and press. Recht und Freiheit my balls.
Nah, they basically had to allow the investigation. Everything else would have contradicted german law, as stupid as it is. The executive branch must not outlaw the other ones.
The real scandal lies in Merkel's reasoning: "Oh well, we have freedom of speech and what Erdogan does is evil, but we also need Turkey as a partner in the refugee crisis, blah blah."
If she just would have said "Look, the law states that we need to take the "causa Böhmermann" to court, so we do. But the law is stupid, so we'll get rid of it in the near future", it would have been fine.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 15 2016 21:36 virpi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 20:37 DickMcFanny wrote:
So today our government decided that the feelings of a genocidal maniac are more important than freedom of speech and press. Recht und Freiheit my balls. Nah, they basically had to allow the investigation. Everything else would have contradicted german law, as stupid as it is. The executive branch must not outlaw the other ones. The real scandal lies in Merkel's reasoning: "Oh well, we have freedom of speech and what Erdogan does is evil, but we also need Turkey as a partner in the refugee crisis, blah blah." If she just would have said "Look, the law states that we need to take the "causa Böhmermann" to court, so we do. But the law is stupid, so we'll get rid of it in the near future", it would have been fine.
eh no. the paragraph explicitly says that the executive needs to empower the judicative to follow through.
its a terrible paragraph coming from 1871 that for some reason is still active.
what she now did is logically inconclusive. she said they want to abolish the paragraph because its outdated (no shit) but still gave her ok for prosecution.
if it is a stupid law, dont give your ok to use that law. if it isnt a stupid law dont get rid of it.
make up your mind and act accordingly. the hole government is just ridiculously dumb.
|
On April 15 2016 21:48 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 21:36 virpi wrote:On April 15 2016 20:37 DickMcFanny wrote:
So today our government decided that the feelings of a genocidal maniac are more important than freedom of speech and press. Recht und Freiheit my balls. Nah, they basically had to allow the investigation. Everything else would have contradicted german law, as stupid as it is. The executive branch must not outlaw the other ones. The real scandal lies in Merkel's reasoning: "Oh well, we have freedom of speech and what Erdogan does is evil, but we also need Turkey as a partner in the refugee crisis, blah blah." If she just would have said "Look, the law states that we need to take the "causa Böhmermann" to court, so we do. But the law is stupid, so we'll get rid of it in the near future", it would have been fine. eh no. the paragraph explicitly says that the executive needs to empower the judicative to follow through. its a terrible paragraph coming from 1871 that for some reason is still active. what she now did is logically inconclusive. she said they want to abolish the paragraph because its outdated (no shit) but still gave her ok for prosecution. if it is a stupid law, dont give your ok to use that law. if it isnt a stupid law dont get rid of it. make up your mind and act accordingly. the whole government is just ridiculously dumb.
You misunderstood my post. Of course, the executive has to empower the judicative, see §104a StGB for reference. My statement referring to the fact that the executive must not outlaw other branches was supposed to say exactly that. Merkel had no choice but the positivistic one. As long as the law is active, it must be followed. If she had said "Well, there's a law, but we ignore it", there also would have been an outrage. Morally, it might have been the right choice, but it totally would have undermined German jurisdiction.
Abolishing the paragraph is totally fine, it should have happened decades ago.
Merkel's blabbering about freedom of speech was the stupid part. Just stop making deals with people that piss on Europe's values.
|
On April 15 2016 22:09 virpi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 21:48 hfglgg wrote:On April 15 2016 21:36 virpi wrote:On April 15 2016 20:37 DickMcFanny wrote:
So today our government decided that the feelings of a genocidal maniac are more important than freedom of speech and press. Recht und Freiheit my balls. Nah, they basically had to allow the investigation. Everything else would have contradicted german law, as stupid as it is. The executive branch must not outlaw the other ones. The real scandal lies in Merkel's reasoning: "Oh well, we have freedom of speech and what Erdogan does is evil, but we also need Turkey as a partner in the refugee crisis, blah blah." If she just would have said "Look, the law states that we need to take the "causa Böhmermann" to court, so we do. But the law is stupid, so we'll get rid of it in the near future", it would have been fine. eh no. the paragraph explicitly says that the executive needs to empower the judicative to follow through. its a terrible paragraph coming from 1871 that for some reason is still active. what she now did is logically inconclusive. she said they want to abolish the paragraph because its outdated (no shit) but still gave her ok for prosecution. if it is a stupid law, dont give your ok to use that law. if it isnt a stupid law dont get rid of it. make up your mind and act accordingly. the whole government is just ridiculously dumb. You misunderstood my post. Of course, the executive has to empower the judicative, see §104a StGB for reference. My statement referring to the fact that the executive must not outlaw other branches was supposed to say exactly that. Merkel had no choice but the positivistic one. As long as the law is active, it must be followed. If she had said "Well, there's a law, but we ignore it", there also would have been an outrage. Morally, it might have been the right choice, but it totally would have undermined German jurisdiction. Abolishing the paragraph is totally fine, it should have happened decades ago. Merkel's blabbering about freedom of speech was the stupid part. Just stop making deals with people that piss on Europe's values.
Europe would gladly tell Turkey to fuck off and has done so in the past, Sadly they hold a crucial position in the current immigration crisis.
|
On April 15 2016 22:09 virpi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 21:48 hfglgg wrote:On April 15 2016 21:36 virpi wrote:On April 15 2016 20:37 DickMcFanny wrote:
So today our government decided that the feelings of a genocidal maniac are more important than freedom of speech and press. Recht und Freiheit my balls. Nah, they basically had to allow the investigation. Everything else would have contradicted german law, as stupid as it is. The executive branch must not outlaw the other ones. The real scandal lies in Merkel's reasoning: "Oh well, we have freedom of speech and what Erdogan does is evil, but we also need Turkey as a partner in the refugee crisis, blah blah." If she just would have said "Look, the law states that we need to take the "causa Böhmermann" to court, so we do. But the law is stupid, so we'll get rid of it in the near future", it would have been fine. eh no. the paragraph explicitly says that the executive needs to empower the judicative to follow through. its a terrible paragraph coming from 1871 that for some reason is still active. what she now did is logically inconclusive. she said they want to abolish the paragraph because its outdated (no shit) but still gave her ok for prosecution. if it is a stupid law, dont give your ok to use that law. if it isnt a stupid law dont get rid of it. make up your mind and act accordingly. the whole government is just ridiculously dumb. You misunderstood my post. Of course, the executive has to empower the judicative, see §104a StGB for reference. My statement referring to the fact that the executive must not outlaw other branches was supposed to say exactly that. Merkel had no choice but the positivistic one. As long as the law is active, it must be followed. If she had said "Well, there's a law, but we ignore it", there also would have been an outrage. Morally, it might have been the right choice, but it totally would have undermined German jurisdiction. Abolishing the paragraph is totally fine, it should have happened decades ago. Merkel's blabbering about freedom of speech was the stupid part. Just stop making deals with people that piss on Europe's values.
merkel could have easily said that the law is stupid, therefore she wont empower the prosecution and erdogan can use the §185 like everyone else can and he already does anyway.
there was nothing to gain from this move other than a possible higher sentence for bömermann and to piss on our values once more like she really loves to.
she never had the power to save or condemn bömermann regardless of her decision, but with her decision she clearly shows that a deal with a supporter of isis is more important than our values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
