Icon: enlarge
xxx
Photo:
SIphotography / Getty Images / iStockphoto
Today, dear readers, I have to bring up two different urgent topics that are not necessarily related, but have a bit to do with each other and are therefore baked together by me.
One is the continuing excitement about Cardinal Woelki, the other is the general denunciation, modern German wistleblowing.
A new ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has recalled certain limits to public suspicion.
Brothers, sisters, informers
Felix Genn, Bishop of Münster, showed how the »FAZ«, newspaper for Germany, knew to mention again on page 1 yesterday, in December 2020 Dr.
Woelki, Archbishop of Cologne.
That is a nice approach for an editorial, especially if it is to be called "New Chapter in Cologne?"
There are, as we know, so many chapters and chapters that the Münsteraner and the Frankfurter get dizzy.
Nevertheless, one should try not to lose one's balance.
Thomas Fischer, arrow to the right
Born in 1953, is a legal scholar and was chairman of the 2nd criminal division of the Federal Court of Justice.
He is the author of an annually revised standard short commentary on the criminal code and numerous other specialist books.
The argumentation of the "FAZ" editor-in-chief - who is only mentioned here as a representative - is something like this: The Pope has ordered the Catholic Church to please investigate, clarify and confess its criminal, moral and spiritual guilt and to confess itself in the world on this side of paradise behave as is appropriate after having inflicted serious suffering on many people.
But, according to the FAZ, “the law is one thing and its application is another”.
Cardinal Woelki had violated the reporting obligation after 2014, which brought him the »report« of his dear confrere Genn.
In addition, Woelki held back "an abuse report commissioned by him on the advice of allegedly reputable lawyers as 'unlawful'".
His brother bishop, on the other hand, had "published an identical report for the diocese of Aachen".
And the best thing is: "Woelki didn't need an expert opinion at all ... For years he has had investigations (...) into how members of the diocese leadership ... have massively bent and broken the law."
Oh well.
The "lawyers" who are "allegedly serious" are two university professors and chair holders who are certainly not only allegedly, but actually at least as "serious" as an actual editorial author and therefore do not deserve to be denounced as "alleged" .
Even the word "illegal" bears its quotation marks quite undeservedly, because the reason given by the diocese leadership for the review is in fact the fear that parts of the unknown report could be illegal.
The result of all the research, as we can read again and again, is therefore certain before it begins.
So what's the point
The "FAZ" knows that Bishop Diener published an "identical" report.
If the word "identical" is supposed to have its general meaning, this statement is simply wrong: Of course, the report for Cologne is neither identical to that for Aachen, nor for Munich, nor for any other diocese.
That is the meaning and reason of the matter: Aachen is not Munich or Cologne.
It is even more surprising that the denunciation leading article apparently already knows the secret report very well: It not only knows that it is "identical", but also that it is superfluous because it is already clear what is in it.
This reasoning is at the level of the internet-based indignation festival, according to which the only reason for the cardinalistic behavior of Cologne is to continue to cover up the crimes of clerics listed in the report.
The result of all the research is, as we can read again and again, already certain before it begins: All the more astonishing is the anger with which the clarification of the supposedly long-known is demanded again and again.
It is difficult for outsiders to understand what is actually required.
It cannot be prosecution of long time barred crimes;
pious sayings and hand-wringing apologies before eternity either;
that would be a bit cheap and also become routine.
Of course, one could say: The Catholic Church should finally abolish canon law, set up a quota at all functional levels for people who want to assign themselves to any gender that changes every week, as well as following in the footsteps of Franz von Assisis and Hildegard von Bingen , ask for forgiveness from the oppressed in hair and instead of taxes, live on mild gifts like the morally impeccable and sexually exemplary monks in Tibet.
That is what the Catholics and the Buddhists and the Muslims and the Jews should work out among themselves, says the columnist.
more on the subject
Whistleblower ruling by the Human Rights Court: »A fatal signal« An interview by Dietmar Hipp
In any case, the newspaper for Germany not only knows everything that has happened, but also how things are going to proceed: For Woelki, “a criminal law firm he trusts” (the lawyer and university professor will be pleased about the implied denunciation as an accomplice) ” Prepare a new abuse report ”and name it“ Ross und Reiter ”.
Then, according to the "FAZ", an "independent, publicly acting commission" is needed to evaluate the report: a tribunal that assesses an assessment, which assesses an assessment that was previously assessed by "allegedly serious" assessors.
A great plan!
Certainly the public commission will be totally independent and extremely fast, and everyone will know who was to blame.
Once we're done with those, we'll move on to the next.
Words, names, spies
Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben is said to have said that the informer was the biggest rascal in the country, and one should believe almost everything because of his Heligoland verses from 1841.
But whether it is really true in this case is still not entirely clear: Few informers consider themselves to be rags.
The denounced are of course very negative.
Both groups are therefore ruled out as neutral experts.
The addressees of the denunciation are more likely to be considered, but the assessment is all too often based on the occasion (see »imposed enrichment«), content (see stupid chatter), occupation (see Commissioner Maigret) and interest (see Othello).
The different cultures and subcultures of society accuse each other of language and thought police persecution.
In the end, there remains the objective third party, in case of doubt the general interest in the form of a fully qualified lawyer.
Experts of this provenance have a relaxed, albeit distant, relationship with the informant: on the one hand, they are not really loved;
on the other hand: what would the godfather hunter be without the mafia informers, James Bond without the renegade villain mistress and the detective in the BtM department without the seven small dealers whom he can force to testify at will!
Nowadays, as is well known, humans and their emotions are largely regulated, at least more than in the past, through words.
Of course, the words are still tied to images, but thanks to the loud constant noise from the Internet and all other sound sources at the same time, the connection between word and imagination has probably become a little looser;
According to the current master plan, it functions as a direct dedicated line between the inner ear, brain stem and amygdala, while the cerebral cortex has fallen behind.
You know what is meant if you have a little experience in the forums of angry opinion: What you are allowed to say, formulate, pronounce is caught in a web of ascriptions, contempts, and insinuations that are supposed to distinguish the good from the bad.
The different cultures and subcultures of society mutually accuse each other of language and thought police persecution, claiming that they are "no longer allowed to say" or absolutely have to say this or that.
Even the smallest nuances of linguistic expression - for example in the gender or racism debate - allegedly reveal the most serious moral errors;
conversely, the well-meaning people of the same religious community recognize each other by the use of certain trigger words, language codes or metaphors.
On the one hand, this is highly silly and unintelligent, but on the other hand it arises from a social reality that plausibly produces just this.
more on the subject
Icon: Spiegel PlusIcon: Spiegel PlusFootball Leaks informant in the witness protection program: Rui Pinto's final by Rafael Buschmann, Nicola Naber and Christoph Winterbach
According to the rules of these linguistic codes, the "whistleblower" is a good one: not a traitor, but an enlightener;
not a denouncer, but a revelator;
not a bailiff of the mighty, but helper of the powerless.
Whistleblowers are called Manning, Snowden or Deep Throat, come from within the evil forces and structures and reveal dark secrets, prohibited actions or dishonest motives.
“Traitors”, on the other hand, are spies, bought informants, busybills with morally questionable motives such as greed for money, revenge or simple malice.
The use of these terms has become very important.
One might assume that "whistleblowing" is now regarded as a highly noble activity, born of the morally meritorious feeling of no longer wanting to endure, participate or cover up any wrong, injustice, abuse or scandal.
The whistleblower, at least in public portrayal, comes from within an evil power;
he must be protected from their influence and vengeance and rewarded for his loyalty to the good and righteousness.
There is undoubtedly a lot to it.
Hidden structures, secret connections, systematically hidden facts can often only be recognized if they are revealed from within, i.e. by initiates or agents.
On the other hand: The motives of whistleblowers are not always and not necessarily noble, mostly quite the opposite: They want advantages, rewards, protection.
Depending on the predominant interest and the interest of the recipient of the advertisement, a moral or legal aspect may be affected;
both can also be judged very differently.
An external offer as an informant, whistleblower and whistleblower may be generally welcomed, but is not per se honorable.
A doctor from Liechtenstein was dismissed in a case ruled by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) because he had secretly reported a colleague (or his superior) on suspicion of inadmissible euthanasia (killing on demand).
This was not relevant under criminal law - in the sense of defamation or defamation - but it was under labor law, because the person concerned had not clarified or had his suspicions clarified internally through the responsible authorities, but served as a "whistleblower" to the public prosecutor .
Some find the result good, others terrible.
This is not the place to make blanket assessments of ECHR decisions.
In any case, the standards applied by the Court seem plausible to me.
Not everything that ennobles itself with the name »whistleblowing« is more than a baseless suspicion, which, by the way, can have particularly harmful effects precisely because of its secrecy.
Many large organizations, institutions and companies have now set up structures in which internal indications of misconduct or illegal undesirable developments can be recorded and processed without the reporting person being at risk.
Where such structures are available, they must also be used.
An external offer as an informant, whistleblower and whistleblower may be generally welcomed, but is not per se honorable and, as the current case shows, can also have justified negative consequences.
State, guilt, punishment
The informants known from dramatic reports and films about »Mafia hunters« and corresponding large-scale trials are of course also available in this country;
they have meanwhile arrived reliably in the Sunday evening thriller, where they are provided with food and encouragement in all sorts of hiding places and witness protection programs by friendly LKA police officers and used to uncover any conspiracies.
In reality, it's usually not that romantic.
Most "whistleblowers" are petty criminals who run on the leash of law enforcement agencies and, in return for a generous overlook of their own involvement, give all sorts of tips about incidents in the respective scene.
more on the subject
Icon: Spiegel PlusIcon: Spiegel PlusUno special rapporteur on the Assange case: "It's about the future of our democracy and the rule of law" An interview by Dietmar Pieper
Of course there are also "big" cases: V-people in isolated groups, but also those involved in the crime (accomplices or assistants), for example of economic crimes.
This is where the applicable regulations of criminal law and criminal procedure law apply.
The forerunner was, as in many other things, the narcotics criminal law, which long ago introduced the possibility of a considerable reduction in penalties through so-called educational assistance with the regulation of § 31 BtMG.
In 2009 the time had come: in the eternal - and eternally inadequate - »fight against organized crime«, the regulation »help to investigate or prevent serious crimes« was introduced as Section 46b of the Criminal Code.
In it, a "whistleblower" who voluntarily participates in the investigation of a serious criminal offense is promised a high reduction in punishment or even the waiver of punishment.
After any denunciation was initially recorded, since 2013 the regulation has presupposed that the criminal offense that has been investigated is "related" to the offense committed by the person concerned.
So it is no longer enough for a suspect to tell something during his trial that he has heard (for example in detention) about a completely different act by someone else.
The role of the law enforcement authorities in this context is precarious and not always completely clear: Today, the clearing up of "structures" and the motto of "not letting anyone go if possible" apply, so the highest goal of criminal policy.
On the other hand, it is hard to overlook the fact that the judiciary gets its hands dirty to a considerable extent when it offers criminals leniency and often also support in order to be able to catch other criminals or to sentence them to high sentences.
Particularly in connection with the practice of so-called collusion, which has often gotten out of hand, there are always dubious "deals".
At last we heard all sorts of interesting things in connection with criminal proceedings because of the so-called "cum / ex" deals;
but also in the area of everyday crime or politically motivated crime, questionable agreements with people are not uncommon, and the judiciary should be more likely to touch them with sharp fingers.
Anyone who, like the columnist, has ever conducted a whole series of criminal proceedings that began with a single "life confession" by a BtM dealer acting as a "key witness" knows how problematic it can be to always ask for the same statement and with the To explain reason for credible, the witness had incriminated himself by betraying 50 customers.
display
Thomas Fischer
About punishment: law and security in a democratic society
Published by Droemer HC
Number of pages: 384
Published by Droemer HC
Number of pages: 384
Buy for € 22.99
Price query time
19.02.2021 6.29 p.m.
No guarantee
Icon: Info
Order at AmazonIcon: amazon
Order from ThaliaIcon: thalia
Product reviews are purely editorial and independent.
Via the so-called affiliate links above, we usually receive a commission from the dealer when making a purchase.
More information here
The reward for denouncing and "whistleblowing" those involved remains problematic and must always be examined critically.
It is not to be confused with milder treatment based on credible repentance or reparation.
Insofar as »whistleblowers« have not acted unlawfully themselves (eg are involved in criminal offenses), but only clear up other people's misconduct, other rules apply;
these are now also legally anchored (see, for example, the European »Whistleblower Directive« in the version last amended on October 7, 2019).
Suspicion, trust, betrayal
If you regularly follow public communication, you have to get the impression that there is a deep mistrust anchored in society, the scope and effects of which go beyond specific causes and suspicions.
Rather, a widespread fear is expressed here that the whole "structure" of society may ultimately be just a surface of deception behind which a terrible truth is hidden.
Its extreme form in the psychopathological realm takes on something like "movements" like the crazy "Q-Anon" belief that huge secret powers under the surface of society are engaging in a regime of crimes.
You can find something similar in the meantime in many other countries and in a less extremist form;
ultimately also in so-called movements, which always want to ascribe all possible hardships and misfortunes of life to some organized powers.
Such a culture of fear is extremely susceptible and receptive to "investigative" ventures, and ready to believe any nonsense and fill it with hot air that is blown onto the market with the stamp of "investigative research".
The secret researcher and underground investigator as a dream job between journalism, secret service, police and the big wide world is a phenomenon whose precise analysis and description is still to come.
For now we want to remember that after thousands of years of life experience, many suspicions are justified, but most are unfounded.
Not every display is a revelation, even if it is made by people who feel close to the highest truth and morality.
Mistrust is almost always a sign of fear.
A society that surrenders to fear produces an abundance of distrust without ever finding peace through the constant search for new abysses.
The "whistleblower" may be a necessary evil, but by its nature it is not a shining star.
It's like always: it depends.
This is true even of bishops.
Icon: The mirror
/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/YU6JYS64KNDZNHHGXA3QMTYNGY.jpg)
