The activists say all their protests were open, accountable and non-violent, and contested the use of such a draconian law against them.
“This is the first time in German history that a climate protest group that uses measures of peaceful civil disobedience is charged as a criminal organisation,” Herrman said.
“This charge is especially dangerous for democracy and the right to peaceful protest because the charge turns the constitutional right of protest, freedom of speech and political assembly into a crime simply because some laws were broken in course of civil disobedient protest.
“This charge is meant for mafia and organised crime. This charge criminalises every act of support towards the group Letzte Generation. This creates an immense chilling effect on all climate protests in Germany.”
Uh, yeah?
Civil disobedience can be illegal, and engaging in it can land you in jail. Many famous activists did end up in jail at one point or another for doing illegal things. It’s a risk you have to accept if you want to engage in those protests, and if a little bit of jail-time is sufficient to deter folks from the movement, then they probably aren’t particularly invested in the cause.
Yes, but then you charge and convict for civil disobedience, not for forming a criminal organisation.
“Yeah, that guy who jaywalked SHOULD be charged with murder, jaywalking is a CRIME, PEOPLE!”
Civil disobedience is not inherently criminal in the western world (that would be horrible) - criminal acts are. In this case, the civil disobedience involves crime, and the organization explicitly plans illegal action, fitting the bill of what that law prohibits.
If them being convicted based on those laws are a problem -change them. That’s often part of the purpose of civil disobedience, highlighting problematic laws, swaying public opinion and getting lawmakers to change them.
“Forming a criminal organisation” is a charge they specifically invented to counter RAF terrorism in the 60s and 70s. Equating people who glue themselves to roads with that is just idiotic.
That’s always the case with laws (they can and will have unintended consequences). My personal opinion is that laws should expire unless explicitly renewed.
Anyway, if the law as it is written is a problem, it should be changed - not selectively applied. I really have a problem with the american legal system where law is primarily made in court and not in parliament.