Upfront: there are none left by now. But before I end this paper, let me explain how so.
The first issue is that pretended human rights, or this paper respectively, is supposed to only protect you against the state. Against any direct actions of this state.
The whole german constitution, in the first place, is an answer to the holocaust.
Remembering times when ambulances of the Red Cross, and later the SS would get Jews out of their private homes and deliver them to concentration camps resulted in a strong demand for protection of private homes against any invasion by the state.
So the state may have no right to invade your private home [theoretically], but then every landlord has a key to your apartment. By law.
Landlords have no right to enter your apartment – this is why the state gives them a key - but if they did, you couldn’t sue. Apart from not being able to prove the invasion – no breaking – you’d have to prove damages.
And any kind of emotional ‘distress’ / damage doesn’t exist in germany.
Actually, let me get this straight: if you tell someone here you suffer from ‘emotional distress’ – and I can not pronounce this word with a big smile of mockery on my face – so if you tell this to someone here, they’ll tell you to go home and cry into your pillow.
You don’t tell anyone here you suffer from ‘emotional distress’. That’s something for pussies. You don’t tell people you’re a pussy. That’s pathetic. You don’t make a fuss about such things.
So we don’t have no law to protect you from ‘emotional distress’, or compensate you for it. That’s private. Back to the real thing: money.
Any law that doesn’t equip you with the ability to enforce your right is no law. Is no protection.
As for protecting you against the state, well, you have rights. That is, unless the state has a so-called public interest in setting these rights aside. Meaning just run over you.
For instance, invade your private home.
On the other hand, if there was no public interest in invading your private home, why would you ever need any protection by law?
What constitutes public interest is not clear. Or, actually it is: it is the simple act of declaring its interest in whatever as being public by the state.
So, every trial will run down to sort of balancing any pretended public interest against any private right.
Flip a coin.
Like twenty years ago a lawyer had been appointed presiding judge of the constitutional court after having published a scientific paper where he had argued for torture being conformable with the german constitution.
You may wonder what qualifies judges in germany to get appointed to this office.
Well. Others do so too, you know. The point is: the government, or actually the german parliament decides on who is going to protect the german people against its laws and actions. Behind closed doors.
So, no need to flip a coin here.
As for rule of law, well, this would, from a theoretical point of view not to mention the practical point of view, presuppose the division of powers.
Unfortunately, this division doesn’t exist in germany. The political party with the relative majority of the people - usually something like 25% of the whole population - controls and/or constitutes both, parliamentary majority [legislative power] and government [executive power].
As for judiciary, one has to differentiate between regular law courts, and the constitutional court. The latter, actually, has the right to override the legislative.
This autonomous power doesn’t imply any responsibility, by the way. Of course not.
As for regular courts, their only job actually is to judge on whether any action is lawful or not; lawful such as had been declared by the legislative. So, they are subordinate to the legislative.
If you think about this, it shouldn't ask too much of a judge. Or, if there were a problem in evaluating what is right, and what is wrong, the legislative wouldn’t have done their job.
Law is, or should be like traffic lights: it should tell you go or stop. Not 'yellow as in yes, maybe, and if you crash a judge will tell you later if the traffic lights were red or green.' Right now all traffic lights are put on yellow. You no longer know what is right and what is wrong. Only that every action might endanger you. You better keep quiet. Hide away.
A state trying to secure its survival. Becoming totalitarian.
The function of a law is to provide security. So people would know what is right and what is wrong. And thus be able to decide on their actions and take on responsibility.
If you cannot know the law now, because it’s so difficult that even judges find this hard to tell how would any laid person ever be able to know the law, and thus follow it.
However, we see states as in legislative powers to open laws more and more to interpretation. Rooms which then will be fought.
The very reason we gave up our autonomy is to find stable, reliable live conditions. Common ground we can build on. So we wouldn't have to discuss every single step with others.
Opening room to interpretation – the german merged legislative/executive found a new and quite interesting way around the german constitution.
It now uses judges to set aside human rights.
I once read something about the state filming you secretly in your private home.
And this law sort of assured the public that only a judge or someone with an equivalent qualification is supposed to watch these tapes.
It somehow felt to me like a judge was now considered sort of a priest who was beyond any lack of morality. We’ve witnessed that for instance, when it comes to child molesting.
It’s not the point who is watching you. The point is autonomy. The point is that a human is in control of their lives. That a human decides freely, acc. to their very own criteria, with whom to share their private life. Not to mention their intimate life.
Deciding on to whom to entrust yourself, your inner truth might be the most crucial point in actually being human.
I’ve always been wondering, by the way: They have to pull the plug when it comes to sex. What is this moment? And how would they ever know when the sex is over?
And what pig equals sex with intimacy?
So, there are judges who even penetrate the intimacy of a person. And do this even secretly so this person would be at their total mercy. Out of control. No consciousness left. Not any consciousness that is correlated to the truth: being spied on secretly.
Could you ever look more stupid? More incompetent? Bereft of any ability to fight back because you don't even know you're under attack. Opening up to your partner, you think. And then the state is taking part in this act. Don’t you know, what to share with others and what not? Don’t you know that this is the very first imposition of society on its members to safeguard a certain idea yourself.
The German state decided to not only use judges for their extremely unbearably dirty work of penetrating even the intimacy of people even without their knowing, thus undermining any right, or actually ability to control what you're giving away. Any autonomy. Not even your right to hide behind a mask.
And this state understands: judges, who are good for such disgusting, demeaning, and humiliating work can be quite useful for more dirty work.
So the state lured them into all-power. Into all three powers: First, they are in judiciary by law. Second, the state provided them with laws which are wide open to interpretation, and thus judges will fill these voids, thus acting as legislative. And then the state came up with paragraph nine hundred something, sentence 2, line 4 which states something completely weird about arresting people and referring to some other paragraphs [§ 920 Abs.2.S4.ZPO].
After being totally confused as to how this paragraph might be of any relevance for my case, I found out that professional lawyers actually discuss, or rather know as in acknowledge this paragraph as so-called investigation function.
That’s right: the state, with this one line, puts judges into the role of ordinary civil servants of its executive power.
When? Whenever the executive is being sued by a citizen.
I think I’m gonna repeat this:
If, in germany, you sue the state for having violated any of your rights, the lawmaker puts the judge in exactly the role of the civil servant who violated your rights.
And in this role the judge will investigate on you! You’re no longer petitioner but respondent.
This investigation will decide on whether the suit is justified or not. Theoretically, the judge will, as a result of his investigation, either open a trial, or reject it.
However, opening the trial is the wrong term. Because the verdict of the investigation will actually preempt any actual trial. So there will be no trial.
So instead of an impartial judge overlooking the executive, they turn the judge into an active member of the executive. Assign this very function to him.
There will be no trial. The state just replaces an ordinary civil servant by a judge.
And a judge might feel bothered by some legal restraints here. Well. That’s the moment when hardliners among judges will find redefinitions around human rights to get them what they want.
And then this judge will rule. Speak about impartial. He won’t be. And on his way, he will set the law aside. Not just for himself but also for his colleagues: civil servants of the executive.
For instance, the privilege of protections against self-incrimination. By the way: I find this humiliating and extremely abusive to call this a privilege. This sort of creates the impression as if anyone could force you to reveal information about yourself that is private. And that only you possess.
Actually, we don’t have to ask anyone for some kind of permission here, to decide on what to share with others and what not to. Not to mention a privilege.
It’s my human right. My human ability. My human responsibility.
Back to investigation and self-incrimination. So, at one trial, probably someone refused some information, claiming protection against self-incrimination.
And a judge didn’t like that. So the judge, who may not make a law, because he’s not legitimated to make laws, created a so-called precedent.
And you may call a precedent a precedent. But as a matter of fact, it is a law. Worse. To fight it, you need to go through judges. And judges don’t like so much judging on other judges.
So, the law now says: If you want to lay claim to protection against self-incrimination you first have to prove that you actually need this protection.
The state wants you at its total mercy. But then will grant you the right to sue. Well. Sort of. Or not, rather.
How do you prove that you are in actual need of protection against self-incrimination? Well, get yourself a lawyer!
You will not prove this. If you prove it the FBI will have an obligation by law to investigate on you. You will just have incriminated yourself successfully.
That, against which you search protection.
So the game is to disclose enough information so the judge will believe you but not too much information.
What that amount is nobody knows.
Even better: you will have only one shot in this game. If you refuse to disclose sufficient information, as in whatever the judge considers to be sufficient, your case will be dismissed.
This perverted Nazi-state no longer needs a legitimating to penetrate your private life. You need a legitimating to find yourself protected against it. And of course, a good citizen has nothing to hide, do they?
I’ve thought about the holocaust a lot. And one the most perverted points was to make humans fully accessible. If we compare it to slaves of former times, these slaves at least could build their own huts. Sort of live there.
But germans like to be in full control of someone else’s life. Maybe a lack of intimacy. Or inner sovereignty. Incapable of getting close to someone else in a normal, in a human way.
Disgusting beyond enduring.
germany is back to 1936. Pressure, aggressiveness, denial and ignorance are on a constant rise.
The state is as terroristic as totalitarian.
And America won’t do this time. I’ve actually always been thinking that America did not really end Nazi-germany. But rather took over. With some adjustments.
Which brings us back to the german constitution.
Especially after watching the Iraqi situation after the war, I understand that this constitution is not german. Apart from a few points which are very german.
For instance, the german constitution lays claim to be untouchable. That’s a claim not even the bible did raise. But then there is this need to feel master-race like, sovereign. Even if you can no longer say this aloud.
Another really amazing article is the first one: ‘human dignity is invulnerable’. And this like two days after germans had just delivered really new dimensions of humiliation to the world.
Meaning: total denial. There is nothing more vulnerable and easier to violate than human dignity.
The whole constitution is expression of german ignorance, denial, deception. It’s basic conception is bound to lead this country into the next totalitarian system.
Is totally inadequate to protect human rights. Or, to get to what it should protect: humanity. A word, you won’t find in the german constitution.
But then, at least animals now are entitled to a life that is appropriate for their species. Considered to be, that is.
As an economist, I can assure you: for them, you’re exactly cattle. And taking a look at the german state cattle, I cannot but agree.