Calling for djihad now officially allowed in Germany

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article897355/Aufruf_zum_Dschihad_ist_nicht_mehr_strafbar.html

The German High Court BGH has ruled that from now on calling for djihad is no longer under penalty. You can call and demand djihad in public or in demonstrations, you can demand the submission and killing of infidels, you only are not allowed to practice djihad. You are allowed to propagate and publicly support terroristic ideas and organisations, you are just not allowed the membership in and material support for them.

Hä...? :huh:

The subtle differences seen by a superior German mind. This will surely earn us more Islamic sympathies, and they will reward us with greater Islamic willingness to fit in and integrate themelf. Vive l'Allemagne!

as I said so often: Western constitutions are totally vulnerable and defenseless to Islam exploiting this thing called "freedom of religion". Western constitutions base on the principle of separating religion and politics - a difference that Islam does not know, but actively denies. By calling for religious freedom, Islam can push it's political agenda and prevent any political resistance to that by demanding the constitutional protection for "free religious practice"! I wonder why a Neonazi organisaion so far has not been clever enough to label Nazism a religion, and being freed from all restrictions that way. Maybe because Nazis are not said to be smart, who knows...

currently we have a debate in Germany on wether Islam should be given the accepted satus of being an officially recognized religion, which would give Islam certain rights to influence public schools, to raise Islamic taxes, being freed from certain other taxes and benefit from financial contributions which has to be payed for by all others, no matter if they are Islamic or not, like it or not, want it or not. I could start yelling about this new demonstration of how unlimited our stupidity is! For long time now I argue that we should instead add an amandement to our constitution that makes it clear that systems and traditions that do not strictly differ between religion and politics, are not allowed to claim the constitutional protection for practicing religion freely, and that Islam must be listed in that amandement by name.

germany has seen the raise and fall of totalitarianism once. Especially the Germans should know it better, they should know it better than anyone else. Instead of having learned that under no costs you shall ever tolerate what doesn't tolerate you, we are tolerating ourselves to death.

Das Volk der Dichter und Denker? Daß ich nicht lache. Make that "das Volk der Deppen und Träumer."

The one word that makes me feel bad and sick with disgust and fury, the one word that has caused so much evil and tragedy being allowed to take place, the word that brought so much shame and disgrace over some, suffering over others: this single damn word called appeasement.

[Chock]

Ironically enough, someone got deported from the UK back to their place of origin (Jamaica) today for doing just that same thing. I think the charge was something along the lines of insightment, didn't catch all of the story, just heard it briefly on the radio as I was leaving my house.

Something of a turnaround from the 'unofficial policy' of recent years in the UK, which worked along the lines of: 'yes you can come to the UK and spout that kind of crap, as long as you don't start bombing here', which needless to say was a rather short-sighted approach to the problem. I guess they'll all be migrating to Germany now from the UK. And you are welcome to them.

:D Chock

[Frau_Phillips]

It sucks arse, but thats what freedom of speech is. If we start allowing the government to draw a line wherever it wants to, we'll be having liberals censoring conservatives, and vice versa.

I forget which case, but remember the Nazis who wanted to march through a predominately Jewish town? They were allowed, because denying them their rights would mean that, to be fair, we should be denied rallies for peace, or things like that.

C'est la vie!

[Oberon]

:doh:

Ok...but is it legal to call for the removal of all Muslims from Germany?

No?

Surprise, surprise... :damn:

[Polak]

Are the members of the German High Court Mohammedans? This is Crazy...:o

germany has seen the raise and fall of totalitarianism once. Especially the Germans should know it better, they should know it better than anyone else. Instead of having learned that under no costs you shall ever tolerate what doesn't tolerate you, we are tolerating ourselves to death.
I think that cases like this one with jihad being legal and other simillar ones, exist because Germany is still living through the aftermath of the fall of totalitarianism.
It's as you say Skybird, Germany is tolerating itself do destruction. As an observer standing on the side I am getting really worried. First of all Germany is a neighbor to Poland, secondly we are in the EU together and other wester EU countries also seem to be tolerating themselves into destruction. :-?:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Ahh, are they stupid? You can't say those things in the US even - nothing threatening is allowed.

[Skybird]

It sucks arse, but thats what freedom of speech is. If we start allowing the government to draw a line wherever it wants to, we'll be having liberals censoring conservatives, and vice versa.

I forget which case, but remember the Nazis who wanted to march through a predominately Jewish town? They were allowed, because denying them their rights would mean that, to be fair, we should be denied rallies for peace, or things like that.

C'est la vie!

C'est ne pas la vie en Allemagne:

The German constitution prohibits acts and deeds hostile towards the constitutional order and the constitution itself (Article 2,1):

Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code.



Loyalty to the constitution is again stressed in Article 5,3:

Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution.



It also explicitly grants every German the right to resist (even by the use of force) to everybody trying to put these in danger, or tries to overcome them (Article 20,4):

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible.



And finally, often overseen or willingly ignored, article 18 rules that everybody who abuses one of the listed guaranteed freedoms to offend agaimnst the constitutional order, shall loose these rights and freedoms:

Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10), property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.

[TteFAboB]

Oh really?

My brothers and sisters, the time has come. They infiltrate our schools, our army and our cities, they pressure the government and blackmail our politicians to submission. They build and expand like the plague and every single one of them and every space they walk through is desecrated by their perverted self. From head to toe they are the most insulting abberation to Allah. I call for a Jihad against the infidel to stop them before it's too late.

Forget about the Nazis, why aren't YOU turning this against them? Sue them before they sue you, use all the instruments before they do.

[Frau_Phillips]

*totally lays the smackdown on what I said*

Wow, so that really really sucks.

Sounds like Germany doesnt want to get their butts bombed when the Middle East goes on the offensive.

[LuftWolf]

Ahh, are they stupid? You can't say those things in the US even - nothing threatening is allowed.

In the US, you can say pretty much anything you want.

The difference is that we've got rednecks... and those rednecks have guns and don't mind killing and/or threatening dark looking people.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the bottom line is that people who insist on being outsiders in American culture feel our xenophobia/ignorance breathing down on them with force of arms.

In Europe, a FAR more fundamentally racist and hateful place than the United States, they've run themselves dry of the kind of fight necessary to maintain their own civilizations in the face of a 21st century barbarian horde, having destroyed their continent twice in the last 100 years.

Cheers,
David

PS Oh yeah, and the flip side is that we actually give immigrants a fighting chance to integrate into our society... ahem, France et al.

[tycho102]

you can demand the submission and killing of infidels Kuffir. The word is "kuffir". It's not the same as "infidel". Suffer not the infidel amongst you. Cut at the head of the kuffir, chop hands and feet on opposite sides, wait in every ambush, conduct yourself in dar Al-Harb as a mujahideen behind enemy lines, use taqiyya to hide amongst them and offer Da'wa to those who would follow the call of allah (as interpreted by the local imam and ayatollah, mind you).

as I said so often: Western constitutions are totally vulnerable and defenseless to Islam exploiting this thing called "freedom of religion".
Use our democracy against our democracy. They'll use their females' fertility to outbreed everyone else, form a voting majority, vote for shiara, and expand from there. That was Arafat's plan, too. It's the logical plan for 7th century warfare. They also systematically rape women to reduce the native birth rate. In the 7th century, this was a pretty sound war strategy. Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan would have been proud, if they hadn't been so impatient.

Western constitutions base on the principle of separating religion and politics - a difference that Islam does not know, but actively denies. In years past, it was always the royality who used the religion to support their power. They also learned the that their enemies would band together against them, so they had to balance the religion with diplomacy and trade. It was the monarchies that used to keep the religion in check, and they are slowly dying.


appeasement
Dude. Same thing occurs with your boy L-Ron Hubbard. hubbologists (<--- Fallout 2 reference) have quite a bit of clout, if not the religious (*snicker*) fervor of the muslims. A lot of appeasement goes toward the hubbologists out of fear of judicial reprisal, whereas with the muslims, corporations can't protect all their employees in every nation. Same reason PETA and Greenpeace isn't over in Columbia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, and Iran. They'll get their heads lopped off and used as a football, and they know it. So they "fight" where they are reasonably assured of being able to wake up the next morning, catch a latte at Starbucks, then head down to the local protest with their buddies.

The hubbologists have gained deterrence. The moslems have gained deterrence.





(one guess as to why I used the word "hubbologist" on a Google indexed intartube forum)

[AntEater]

Well, it seems people against Globalization are deemed a far greater risk to the german state than people who are against everything that state stands for...
Those cowards... Taking strong words and stands against their own people while sucking up on those that actually can hurt them.
:damn:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

:doh:

Ok...but is it legal to call for the removal of all Muslims from Germany?

No?

Surprise, surprise... :damn:


Freedom of speech for all! ..unless you're not an ethnic minority!

[Frau_Phillips]

:doh:

Ok...but is it legal to call for the removal of all Muslims from Germany?

No?

Surprise, surprise... :damn:

Freedom of speech for all! ..unless you're not an ethnic minority!

Thats my little cynic <3<3<3<3

[LuftWolf]

I think the point is that a country should not be accepting immigrants who have no intention of joining the national identity.

The lack of emphasis in modern Western governments (the Japanese, South Koreans, and Chinese have no such conflicts) on maintaining nationalized economies, and thus the collective investment of nationalized residents in a single identity embodied and guarded by the central government, should be well-noted.

So as you see, an argument can be made that global capitalists are indeed a natural enemy of the nation-state, just as much as mal-adjusted immigrants and jihadis.

Although on different ends of the argument, globalists and jihadis share a closer world-view than either one would be comfortable admitting: both seek the economic (and thus total, if you like a Marxian interpretation) destruction of the modern nation-state and seek to replace it with a post-modern One World, New World Order.

Cheers,
David

[SUBMAN1]

In the US, you can say pretty much anything you want.

Not entirely true - you cannot threaten anyone, for which calling for Jihad would violate, so this would not be allowed in the US.

The difference is that we've got rednecks... and those rednecks have guns and don't mind killing and/or threatening dark looking people.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the bottom line is that people who insist on being outsiders in American culture feel our xenophobia/ignorance breathing down on them with force of arms.

In Europe, a FAR more fundamentally racist and hateful place than the United States, they've run themselves dry of the kind of fight necessary to maintain their own civilizations in the face of a 21st century barbarian horde, having destroyed their continent twice in the last 100 years.

Cheers,
David

PS Oh yeah, and the flip side is that we actually give immigrants a fighting chance to integrate into our society... ahem, France et al.

I agree 100%!

[LuftWolf]

In the US, you can say pretty much anything you want.

Not entirely true - you cannot threaten anyone, for which calling for Jihad would violate, so this would not be allowed in the US.



Well... in the US it is perhaps more of a gray issue than in other countries with limited freedom of speech.

In the US, we pretty much do have unlimited freedom of speech... with the only limitations on the speech of private citizens being that the speech itself cannot constitute a criminal act, so nothing that would be conspiracy or menacing.

Basically, anything short of speech that creates a threat to public safety is allowed (the classic example being not to yell "fire" in a public theater)... so nothing you can say would be a crime because of the theme or topic of the speech, but rather the conditions that are or might be caused by the speech itself.

If that makes any sense...

Cheers,
David

[Hitman]

I somehow suppose that the decission had not exactly the words "you can demand the submission and killing of infidels, you only are not allowed to practice djihad. You are allowed to propagate and publicly support terroristic ideas and organisations, you are just not allowed the membership in and material support for them", but instead something different. Would like to read it myself if you can post it, pleaze:yep: . Probably the court has not the same concept as you about what Jihad is (I'm not saying who I think is right), as I doubt much that a court anywhere in EU can say that propagating and publicly supporting terroristic ideas and organisations is OK.

But anyway, you germans are IMO sadly still unfairly paying a high price for the errors of your grandfathers:hmm: And what's worser, I don't think the supposed *tolerant and democratic example* of the german politics and laws are in fact what the german Volk wants. I think I know germans a bit, I admire them much and would prefer to have born german rather than spanish...but certainly they don't rate in my list as a tolerant nation.;)

[waste gate]

Since I cannot read the arcticle (this is an english speaking forum) I cannot make a judgement. When I can find something in english I may comment.


I'd like to know the whole story before I comment. Sorry to say it, but skybird has an agenda, and I will not take his partial translation as the important part of the arcticle.

[Heibges]

You used to be able to say stuff like that in the United States, and the KKK often did. But with all the new hate crime laws you will find yourself between a rock and hard place in a hurry.

The only people it is okay to pick on in America is gays and lesbians.

[waste gate]

The only people it is okay to pick on in America is gays and lesbians.

That's not true.

Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) are crimes motivated by bias against an identifiable social group, usually groups defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

My suggestion would be if one was to commit a crime based on the above; say nothing and just do the crime. After all hate has no place in criminal activity.

[Heibges]

The only people it is okay to pick on in America is gays and lesbians.

That's not true.

Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) are crimes motivated by bias against an identifiable social group, usually groups defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

My suggestion would be if one was to commit a crime based on the above; say nothing and just do the crime. After all hate has no place in criminal activity.

You are right. I used to ride Golden Gate Transit between San Francisco and San Rafael. San Quentin releases it's prisoners at the bus station in San Rafael. I was talking with this ex-prisoner on the bus one day, and he explained how he went down to the Castro, beat up a gay gentleman, called him names at the same time, and now was looking at Two Strikes. He was going back to Oklahoma.

But what I was really referring to was Bush not wanting to afford them federal protections, because this would place several religious groups, who consider homosexuality to be immoral, in violation of federal law.

[waste gate]

But what I was really referring to was Bush not wanting to afford them federal protections, because this would place several religious groups, who consider homosexuality to be immoral, in violation of federal law.

Congress makes law, not POTUS.
They have done nothing because any federal law would violate the tenth amendment.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

zero tolerance for ALL religons... forge tthe past... what can we do about it.. wut happened happened.... zero tolerance for all religons... religons and state DO NOT mix...:shifty:

[waste gate]

I like this

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[Heibges]

True, but in schools in the south they used the Bible to justify Segregation.

Then the Government went ahead to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other legistlation meant to combat this.

[Yahoshua]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif



Now to address the original topic:

This is a sad day for Germany, when the german people and government are willing to tolerate a group that is openly hostile to german freedoms and ideals that has made germany better than the evil twin that once was. The problem now, is that the good twin is too timid to defend what has been gained.

[fatty]

I have the utmost faith in our man Skybird but I would like to see an English report on this to read and weigh for myself. Anyone have any luck?

[baggygreen]

No luck here.

Someone, i think mrs KP there, said that its so germany doesnt get bombed when the ME goes on the offensive...

Maybe its so they can be given the capital city of the western half of the caliphate..

In all honesty, its not just a german problem. Its happening everywhere. A good example down under is Sheik Taj al din Elhilaly. or somethin like that. Im sure some of his words were spread around the worlds news outlets at various times in the past few years... This bloke has openly supported AQ, has openly supported a group of young animals led by bilal skaf who raped for hours a number of poor women who 'brought it on themselves'. He has openly called for sharia law here, he has said that muslim australians are more aussie than 'infidels'..

deadset, this bloke is a wanker of the highest order and oughta be deported. But oh no, we cant offend the muslims, and we cant offend the civil libertarians!

:damn:

[Skybird]

I have the utmost faith in our man Skybird but I would like to see an English report on this to read and weigh for myself. Anyone have any luck?
The news has not been reported by many german media - most jumped it completely. Die Welt also put it very fast from page one (online edition) to some hidden place, deep inside the archiv. "Die Welt" is one of Germany's leading conservative newspapers. Beyond what I said, the article says that the change was "necessary" due to new laws from 2002 and 2003 that were meant to strengthen freedom of speech. In the past, declaring your sympathy for terror organization was under penalty, and for whatever crazy reason, this they wanted to exclude from the list of misdeeds you could get penalized for. don'T ask me why somebody could argue that this is a smart move, I don't know the inside of such well-meaning brains. Die Welt reports, that the freedom of such expressions remains proteced, no matter how inhumane or disgusting it is by content (I wonder why rejecting the Holocaust is under penalty then, or Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is forbidden). The article also says that the case that triggered it all was coming from the office of the federal state attorney and was about a man spreading internet adverts and sympathizing movies for Al Quaeda, namely more than fourty such movies. In these movies, the killing of victims, past terror strikes, and the war of Al Quaeda were explicitly justified and excused. Well, he can now go on, thanks to lawmakers who have serious orientation problems concerning reality.

German constitution, article 1,1 (that is the very first basic rule in our constitution):
The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority

Except the dignity of targets and victims of terror, and Muhammedan aggression, which are no longer protected by the constitution. Also note the articles I quoted in my reply to Frau Phillips. Maximum freedom to attack for the aggressor. no duties and obligations for him, please.

Some weeks ago a female judge argued, that a man whipping his wife acted in conformity with his culture's rule (why the hell is this well-integrating man from marocco living in Germany, when German standards have not become his standards then?), and that rule based on the Sharia. So she let him have his way, and at court even referred to the Sharia as basis of her ruling. Law experts here say that such things are just the tip of the iceberg. Sharian standards are in full drive to infiltrate and undermine the german laws and courts. Muhammeddan organizations pay huge sums and encourage colonists to go to the court in favour of some Muslim demand at every single, no matter how small an opportunity. They loose most cases, but the sheer numbers of cases nevertheless makes sure that a slow, steady progression towards sharia views of things is maintained by winning the remaining, and constantly hollowing out the laws and legal system.

Constant dripping wears away the stone .

[LuftWolf]

The only people it is okay to pick on in America is gays and lesbians.

That's not true.

Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) are crimes motivated by bias against an identifiable social group, usually groups defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

My suggestion would be if one was to commit a crime based on the above; say nothing and just do the crime. After all hate has no place in criminal activity.

The key distinction here is that "hateful speech" is itself protected speech... the bias crimes laws only apply to speech that demonstrates motive for a crime against a member of a protected group.

In other words, if I hit a person it's assault... if I hit a person and call him an ethnic slur (apparently it would have to be one particular to his ethinicity although it might be amusing to try to find a case in which an ignorant person called a black person a spanish slur or something or me hitting another white guy and calling him a "cracker", anyway I'm OT now...) it's a hate crime.

It's not a perfect set of laws, and in fact I'm not sure where I stand on the whole idea of "bias crimes" being some how worse a priori.

Cheers,
David