The “international interests” of germany against those of the demonstrators

The Rostock police department has issued a crude ban on gatherings to protect the security fence around the venue of the G8 summit in order to prevent the planned blockades by opponents of globalization

The police department of Rostock Kavala, prepared by appropriate warnings, announced yesterday a general prohibition of assembly around the venue of the G8 summit. This is now to protect the 12 km security fence that has been erected around Heiligendamm even from possible attacks and to prevent demonstrators from blocking the access roads. August Haning, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of the Interior, defended on ARD television-"Morgenmagazin" the Mabnahme: "We have a duty as hosts that we do everything we can to protect our guests."

In addition to the protection of the guests, the right of assembly guaranteed by the Verfang recedes into the background. Like a father of the nation, Hanning added that they will "but also" make sure "that meetings can take place that also criticize the summit and certain aspects of globalization.". In the General Proclamation, "all open-air public gatherings and performances" are prohibited from 30. May to 9. June within the "technical barrier", as the security fence is called, "around Heiligendamm and up to 200 m in front of the technical barrier, as well as in the small (lakeside) restricted area in front of Heiligendamm" is prohibited. This also applies to all unannounced demonstrations, i.E. The planned blockades, in the much larger area around the "technical barrier". Between the 2. And 8. June was also imposed a ban mile around the airport Rostock.

The'internationalen interessen' deutschlands gegen die der demonstranten

For registered meetings and demonstrations here is a ban between the 5. And 8. June, i.E. At the time when the state guests will be in Heiligendamm. They should neither be aware of the protests nor be disturbed by them in any way. They want to remain among themselves, publicity for the representatives of democratic states is only possible through the media. The 10 protest events already approved – out of a total of 60 registered – were reviewed once again with regard to general authorization.

It is safe to assume that the installation of the fence at this late stage is intended on the one hand to make it more difficult for the organizers of protest events to take legal action against it, and on the other hand to avoid giving the impression that demonstrations are being prevented. Last week’s raids, which so far seem to have revealed no evidence of past or planned crimes, appear to be an afterthought in preparation for the bans that have been imposed. They were charged with the suspicion of forming a terrorist organization, but also to defend against allegedly planned "arson attacks and other violent actions" and other violent actions. The search warrant also stated that the reason for the seizure was the danger that "the international position of the Federal Republic of Germany as a reliable partner in the alliance of the eight most important economic nations could be considerably" by possible violent protests (first ban on demonstrations in Heiligendamm). Such "damage to the reputation" of the state, which the security authorities seek to defend against burgers, can hardly be used to justify significant restrictions on the right of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Anti-globalization circles have repeatedly called for "real and effective blocking of the G8 summit and cutting it off from its infrastructure". This creates a permanent threat situation for all summit participants and critical demonstrators. Mandatory rescue operations may have been impossible to carry out. No longer feasible. Such a disruption of the working capacity of the summit with its numerous delegations would cause lasting damage to Germany’s international interests. Even the overwhelming number of peaceful protest participants cannot prevent such intended disruptions. Experience shows that violent criminals successfully achieve their goals from the protection of peaceful gatherings.

The violent storming of the area secured by a technical barrier is obviously the declared goal of opponents of globalization who are prepared to use violence. In the case of overcoming the technical barrier, the police task of preventing attacks is endangered.

The restriction of the right of assembly is therefore not only necessary, but also reasonable, also taking into account the high value of the fundamental right to freedom of assembly.

From the general public

Whether there is actually evidence of planning for a "violent first assault" and even of attacks seems doubtful. Hanning argues as if there were none: "There is the impression that perpetrators of violence want to try to get over the security fence and disrupt the actual event". One knows "of actions that are at least dangerous in character". Which these are, he did not say however, but referred to the fact that with fire attacks, as it had happened in Hamburg, also humans could be hurt. The warning of possible violence should prevent the blockades of the access roads announced by Block G8. These were "sustainably damaging Germany’s international interests". But what are the "international interests" here?? The trouble-free conduct of the meeting? The demonstration that the German security authorities have the situation under control? The proof that the German public buries the meeting, because demonstrators are not to be seen? Or proof that Germany is a defensible democracy in which security and prevention take precedence over freedom? Does it damage the reputation of the German government and German international interests if loud protests take place in front of the security fence?? Or would it harm interests if pictures went around the world showing clashes between demonstrators and police?.

"For the G8 a criticism- and demonstration-free zone is to be enforced. This once again underlines the illegitimate character of the summit.", said Lea Voigt, spokeswoman for the Block G8 campaign. "We support all political and legal attempts to bring this undemocratic measure to an end. But even if the ban on assemblies should be approved by the courts: Thousands of people will not let themselves be told where to protest against the G8 and will deliberately disobey the order in an act of civil disobedience." Blockades were never directed against emergency vehicles, it continues, because they were allowed through. Block G8 announces to carry out "mass blockades" despite the ban – "as a calculated violation of rules in the sense of civil disobedience". Instead of de-escalating, the sides, including the media, are now caught in a spiral of expectation, which is only further fueled by the crude ban on gatherings. The content of the G8 summit and the political criticism of the protesters are less and less at stake (The Charm of Resistance), both are the show and attention events that are now converging into a spectacle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.