" The law of Germany (German: Recht Deutschlands), that being the modern German legal system (German: deutsches Rechtssystem), is a system of civil law which is founded on the principles laid out by the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, though many of the most important laws, for example most regulations of the civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, or BGB) were developed prior to the 1949 constitution. It is composed of public law (öffentliches Recht), which regulates the relations between a citizen/person and the state (including criminal law) or two bodies of the state, and the private law, (Privatrecht) which regulates the relations between two people or companies. It has been subject to a wide array of influences from Roman law, such as the Justinian Code the Corpus Juris Civilis, and a to a lesser extent the Napoleonic Code. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Germany)
Is what Wikipedia, quite neutrally so, says about the origins of the German judicial system.
On a recent audition on the novelty offensive weapon act that is currently pushed forward by "centre left" political forces in Germany, Association Of National Criminal Investigators interns stated a connection of the current judicial system with the Third Reich. (https://www.bdk.de/der-bdk/was-wir-tun/aktuelles/brauchen-wir-ein-schaerferes-waffengesetz), which I had to learn that it is quite a historical commonplace.
Mr. Winkelsdorf also declared the entire offensive weapon act a failure and implied responsibility of diverse political agendas for the fact.
That said, given the Nazi regime was, by international law and consensus, declared and, categorically speaking, righteously so, defined as criminal, and given its judicial system was still not evaluated and defined as keeping its validity, there have to be reasons for it.
Let us not get too much over the top about it and keep some realism: Of course it would be a bit impractical to overturn every single law just because the villains also used it. Murder is still murder, in every single human society and culture worldwide. There are nuances, of course, but the young Republic of Germany had a lot of other pressing issues to tend to at the time.
The other aspect, however, is a really dark thing that lies at the core of the many problems we are faced with today. The rise of nationalism worldwide is a symptom of it.
Relating to the works of Professor Dr. (PhD) Eckart Conze, Marburg 2024, concerning the biography of Alfried Krupp, a German Entrepreneur and Nazi, it becomes evident that the Nuremberg courts might have missed something. Alfried Krupp, who was sentenced for his role as a sponsor of the SS even in the Republic of Weimar, actively sponsored and promoted former SS officials into the judicial system and political positions even after his time in prison (Conze 2024). And that was just one example of heads of big corporations and high finance with a more or less Nazi background influencing political forces in the Federal Republic of Germany. To check my own bias, I also looked up other areas of the judicial system. Another example of a symptom of Nazi ideology still in effect was the institutional discrimination of people of diverse gender and homosexual persons. As late as 1990, homosexuality in Germany was criminalized.
Another example were the racist attacks on migrants in 1984, where another form of institutional discrimination of the victims took effect. In context of the contemporary DVU murders, Minister of Homeland Security Hessia, Peter Beuth, played a dubious role in concealing evidence about the case.
Herbert Reul, Minister Of Homeland Security in North-Rhine-Westfalia ordered the clearing of the protest camp of deforestation protesters in the Hambach forest, which led to the death of a journalist. According to NGO Campact e.V., he then was member of the board of RWE corporation then, without his salary being able to be deduced from a concrete business-related activity. (Campact et al). RWE is an energy provider that claimed the Hambach forest in order to mine for surface coal.
Boris Pistorius, now Minister Of Defence, is said to have played a crucial role in the so-called BAMF-Scandal (Federal bureau of immigrant affairs).(Campact, global witness, Anonymous et al).
Please do not get me wrong, I am not claiming that all this is true. I obviously cannot investigate all these political rumours, and of course one would need such an investigation from a neutral position, and I do not claim to be in such a position in the first, and would, secondly, be very, very relieved if all this were just some conspiracy nut's raving. Really, I would give a lot for that.
What do these gentlemen, however, have in common apart from their dubious possible part in these latter events?
All of them tried to push through an even more restrictive offensive weapon act, and have done so for a good decade. In itself, that would be perfectly in line with the democratic obligation of every citizen to promote the freedom of every citizen, even if that means to accept restrictions on your personal freedom. And let me be totally clear about this: In no way do I want to illegitimate this obligation. As I said, I grew up as the son of a deputy law enforcement officer. Obeying the law is second nature to me and I have an intrinsic motivation to do so. And because of that, I would of course accept any restrictions if they secure the democratic rights of my fellow citizens.
But there is one democratic right that is the highest value of democracy: The assumption of innocence by the authorities towards any suspect. It means, every citizen is assumed innocent in case of suspicion. You are not obliged to prove that you are innocent of a crime by default, but the authorities of law enforcement must investigate whether or not you are guilty.
Now these aforementioned gentlemen were crucial in the establishment of so-called "weapon restriction areas", mainly around railway stations and in inner cities. I perfectly understand why someone gets the idea, but there is a very grave problem.
For utility knives, as is the case even in the UK, are exempt from the Offensive Weapon act. Not just that, but they are defined as "useful tools " in the very text of the law and the administrative order for law enforcement personnel. These utility knives, however, are defined as weapons in the weapon restriction areas, therefore supposing a criminal intent for every citizen that carried a pocket knife in a weapon restriction area. The fact is made worse by introducing the possibility to prove your reliability (read: innocence) by buying (!) a "small " weapon license. Thusly indicating criminal intent in law-abiding citizens, an original custom from the Third Reich. Not my idea, but investigated and evaluated by several German Courts of Administration (OGV Berlin, Leipzig, Düsseldorf et al).
The selfsame parameters of the weapon restriction areas (which have been evaluated as antidemocratic by several courts) now should become institutional, and would then no longer be an upturning of the assumption of innocence, or rather, you needed to appeal to the High Court of Constitutional Justice to make any such claim valid, which is neigh on impossible for any citizen of medium or low income.
Plus, law enforcement and political forces actually and explicitly state that it would be desireable to be able to do full body searches without judicial suspicion, which is the original wording of Third Reich officials. Means, you travel through Germany as a businessman, maybe a POC, some huge copper slams you into the wall, while another holds a gun to your neck and strips you naked, and if he finds anything, from a manicure set to a small pen knife, can either put you in the box or leave you be on a whim. We had that already in Germany, we tried that, and it tickled a bit too much for my liking, no thank you.
The fun part comes in when you inquire with political forces about this. You immediately get framed as antidemocratic.
Which is ridiculous, of course, but it comes as no surprise.
If you talk to law enforcement personnel about your reservations and worries about the enforcement of these practices(I do and did), you often get the answer " but it will not affect you, you are not a target person "( quote). What is a target person then? Young people and people of colour or otherwise an obvious migration background is the simple and devastating answer.
Please do not get me wrong. There is the elephant in the room, and it is that a lot of migrants in Germany are not necessarily what they seem to be. Some are violent, some are even terrorists. But I have worked with migrants from many nations. They are, for the most part, just people, neither good nor bad. Their cultural influence can be a really great contribution for a society to stay healthy, when in moderation. For the most part. But of course, they need to learn how things work in another culture. It is not even easy to live in Germany and stay sane in the process for a German. But without someone taking you by the hand and showing you the inner workings, it is neigh on impossible.
In the Third Reich, my grandparents, my mother and father reported, that they were affirmed, the restrictions on Jews and the deportations were none of their concern, because they were not a target person. Until my father, as a "Pimpf " unit leader ripped his rank badge and Cord from his uniform because he refused pointless military exercises as chicanery for his unit and awaited punishment for insubordination. Actually he came out lucky, but only at hair's breadth. He was eleven years old at that point.
This might sound a bit over the top, and hopefully it is not the same thing. I still think that we are very privileged to live in a democratic system where I can say these things. I do not assume that this is all due to some Nazi conspiracy. But if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck, and you have looked it up in the great book of ducks and checked and counterchecked it by comparing it to grouse and goose and eagle, there is a certain probability that it is a duck. This situation looks a lot like a duck.
The solution to less crime is social welfare, housing programs, social responsibility, education, violence prevention programs, integration offers for migrants (I worked voluntarily because the project I worked for had no funding, and was living off the woods and collecting bottle refunds, just so you get the picture).
Plus, while I do not want to state a criminal altright background of several political forces in charge, which by the way were a bit... well... let us call it counterintuitive, because a lot of these politicians are rather known for centre-left agendas. But discrimination by law is systemic in Germany, historically speaking, for the reasons e.g. Eckart Conze evaluated. It is a bit of a beacon of hope that it was the Alfried Krupp foundation that actually funded the current research and explicitly states the will to take responsibility for the past. Not every business is fascist or fascistoid, not every politician is a liar. And we still are very privileged to live in a democratic country. But then not every migrant is a criminal, neither is every citizen, and neither is every user of knives or even collector.
What we desparately need is a better culture of community and communication, of solidarity and democracy. We need trustworthy heads of state and less lobbyism and we must realize that neo-colonialism lies at the core of the great many problems we are currently facing.
Phew, not a nice post again, and I have to admit, a bit wanting for decent quotations. Actually it is just a personal view of the topic, which is rather complex, and I would be very relieved, were it all gibberish. But fact is, that unfortunately doesn't look very probable at the moment. It is, to disclaim any political intent, an opinion based upon informed personal evaluation and therefore protected by the first article of German constitution (Grundgesetz).
I really wished I could trust our government again, no irony intended. At the moment, it looks like a matter of survival not to.
If you come from Germany, you can still sign this petition: https://www.change.org/p/petition-gegen-die-versch%C3%A4rfung-des-waffengesetzes-f%C3%BCr-mehr-freiheit-und-sicherheit
