Icon: enlarge
Photo: Creativ Studio Heinemann / Getty Images / Westend61
You know, dear readers, that organized crime is a scourge of humanity.
This knowledge can be considered common property even among the population groups with a below-average level of education, if there is not even a certain correlation between the two.
It goes without saying that the latter must not be confused with causality: For example, if, as I recently read, 125 police officers in Berlin are permanently engaged in fighting organized crime in Görlitzer Park by cycling or strolling around there People from West Africa are persecuted and earth bunkers with high-grade THC-containing plant residues are dug up, and if, on the other hand, the number of registered offenses against the BtMG at the location mentioned increases, that is a correlation like that between the arrival of storks, feelings of spring and daycare places, but not necessarily a causality: It could be that the cops and the dealers just do their jobs and don't care about each other at all.
Then it would all be a coincidence.
As I have to admit, this is not particularly obvious, but at least possible.
We only know exactly when someone has done "a new study", preferably in America, where, as I suspect, all students (often called "scientists") are now obliged to do "a new study" once a month.
Of course, only if the currently prescribed feeling of consternation gives them the time and energy to do so.
Thomas Fischer, arrow to the right
Born in 1953, is a legal scholar and was Chairman of the 2nd Criminal Senate 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.
At this point we will skip the intuitively obtrusive Mrs. Oprah Winfrey as well as the Duchess of Sussex and her best friend, the Countess of Los Angeles and famous actress Janina G. Not because it would not be totally interesting what they have to say to us, but because we are intellectually overwhelmed: there are too many cones on the field, one always more intelligent than the other.
And it has to be said that the screw of meta-journalism here again comes threateningly close to self-lapping: stories about how third parties make stories out of them, which in turn others suspect about what someone meant something completely different from him or her not said.
You know this from Enid Blyton's Five Friends;
but at that time we were still young, fresh and receptive and were not afraid of the trickiest criminal cases.
An association with Oprah Winfrey that is already obvious in terms of hairdressing is Mr. Wolfgang Thierse, who has nothing to do with organized crime, but recently more than before with being affected.
However, the concern that Mr Thierse has just addressed critically, for which Kevin and Saskia embarrassingly apologized to the German people, does not concern organized crime at all, but other things, circumstances, conditions and problems.
Behind the fog banks of the interviews we can see the long waves of human issues.
Is Mr. Laschet the right one, although or because Mr. Nüßlein was the wrong one?
Is Ms. Malu cheerful enough and Mr. Winfried sufficiently presidential?
Should one delete, replace, rewrite or add the word "race" in Article 3 (3) of the Basic Law?
We heard that the Federal Ministers Lamprecht and Seehofer had decided that yes, and had already agreed on the new form of the fundamental right.
This is surprising insofar as an amendment to the Basic Law should not, strictly speaking, be decided by two federal ministers, but by a two-thirds majority in parliament.
But maybe this can also be done by ministerial decree based on an infection protection ordinance.
Somehow, equality has to do with vaccination, too.
My understanding of language tells me there is no racism without race.
The term "race" is, at least in the German language, definitely contaminated by the organized crime of popular mass murder.
You can therefore easily replace it with "ethnicity" or "population".
The word "race" cannot, however, deny that there are racists.
And whoever wants to abolish the word cannot really insist at the same time on calling a reprehensible hostile attitude towards foreign ethnic groups "racism".
Because that only exists where a devaluation (and mirror image revaluation) of ethnically / population-wise certain groups of people is linked to the (alleged) content of the word "race".
Put simply: Without race there is no racism, my understanding of language tells me.
In order to condemn xenophobia, one has to consider it possible that there are strangers, and even "hatred of men" is simply difficult without a term for "man".
Nobody claims that there are no (different) ethnic groups.
If all human populations were genetically identical, the obvious differences, for example in size, physique, face shape, etc., would come about through pure miracles, which is unlikely.
The widespread devaluation of entire population groups and populations is not based on words or names, and certainly not on body shape or hair growth.
Rather, it has always been the result and characteristic of power and violence, access to or exclusion of resources.
In the matter, therefore, it is really irrelevant whether one calls ethnically distinct groups "races";
the word changes nothing in genetics, sociology, or racism.
The citizen is relieved to hear that, in the future, he or she will no longer be allowed to be a member of parliament who is concerned about the interests of Azerbaijan.
It's good that our Federal Chancellor a.
D. Gerhard Schröder did not do that.
At this point, the column must find its way from the amendment to the constitution back to organized crime.
That sounds more difficult than it is, because in view of Article 79.3 of the Basic Law, this path inevitably leads through the Bundestag.
As a voter, mask wearer and media consumer, one could currently have the impression that the octopus arms of the global mafia have meandered into the middle of our parliament.
The announced concerns, distancing, threats and measures are correspondingly enormous.
Now, one way or another, you will not really want to believe that the parties and the parliamentary groups and their leaderships until two weeks ago firmly believed that under no circumstances would anyone hold or be allowed to have a mandate who would also have their own , for example pursuing economic interests.
And the moral disbelief that someone earns money from masking and fighting epidemics does not seem completely convincing in view of the general "money doesn't matter" mood and the weekly new public configuration of the first, second and third most outrageous failures »Politics«, »bureaucracy«, »the EU« or at least once of Mr. Spahn or the Chancellor.
The moral panic that broke out in the Bundestag and that gripped even the most important empathists in the country, Messrs Steinmeier and Schäuble, stems, as everyone suspects, in a rather transparent and therefore somewhat silly way from the two elections that took place on the weekend take place and, in the perspective of the parties, decide once again about the fate of the world, i.e. the possibilities, to do on the swing of the state lists what the candidates love most in the world: to help the citizens with all their might to happiness .
The dark revelations about a hitherto completely unknown selfish lobbyism coincide with the suspicion and envy mentality that is widespread in the population and that has many good reasons, but also many bad reasons.
The citizen is relieved to hear that, in the future, he or she will no longer be allowed to be a member of parliament who is concerned about the interests of Azerbaijan.
It's good that our Federal Chancellor a.
D. Gerhard Schröder did not do that, otherwise Walter and Eskia and Kevin would have a lot of work to do with democratic socialist morality.
I am sure that one can assume that organized crime does not have a strong basis among the many, many hundreds of members of the Bundestag.
The majority of "politics" trembles before their faction leaderships and behaves in a practically exemplary manner, if only for the sake of the claim to "compensation" in the amount of the salary of a ministerial director or federal judge plus all sorts of pecuniary benefits and social significance.
Ironically, the prevailing view in the country is that the best MPs are those who have no other profession than that of voting and who stick to the mandate with their entire social existence.
The viewers on parliamentary television count the seated elected officials almost as meticulously as the parliamentary group leaders.
The experience of life has always taught us that everyone has something to hide.
Some don't know, and many don't realize it until too late.
But that doesn't change the fact that organized crime (OK) is a real favorite topic in legal politics, across all time, faction and knowledge boundaries.
If only you finally knew what exactly the OK is, where it is, how you can recognize it and how to "fight" it!
Because the "fighting" has been going on its legally permanently "improved" or "intensified" pace for 40 years, with the irritating result that everything is getting worse from year to year and from one alarmistic revelation book to the next googled sensational report.
After all, as one could read, an unbreakable crypto telephone network was recently cracked, which gave the police authorities the knowledge that secret messages were being exchanged on the encrypted message channels.
On the one hand, it is good if all doors are open, all networks have been cracked and all messages have been intercepted and decrypted.
Who can object to terrorists, human traffickers and gold coin thieves being caught?
On the other hand, there is once again the question of the relationship between the catch quota and bycatch.
If you have nothing to hide, the state tells us in the form of the ideal general policeman, you don't have to fear anything.
However, the experience of life has always taught us that everyone has something to hide.
Some don't know, and many don't realize it until too late.
And almost everyone is afraid that others might think they are afraid because they have something to hide.
This is how the everyday life of dictatorships works and the poison of totalitarianism works: virtue strides around with a flashing sword, demanding to hear the words of truth and to see the evidence of righteousness.
You can't get rid of the suspicion that the whole world is an OK place.
Senior Public Prosecutor Knispel from Berlin, mourning and indignation speaker of a phenomenon that he calls the "constitutional state", but which is more reminiscent of a Swabian sweeping week excess than of a self-confidently composed community of free people, is very close to real life in his new disclosure book, as it is to him appears: "Clans, organized burglar gangs, no-go areas, parallel societies in which German law apparently no longer applies" and a "failure of the rule of law, which has long been unable to fulfill its tasks to maintain internal security in the country."
Should you laugh or cry?
A chief attorney who despises the state he serves?
The prevailing conditions, according to Knispel, "do not allow any further waiting."
Fortunately, the author does not immediately call for the storming of the Bastille, but is content with insulting the Attorney General and the Senator of Justice.
Reading his work “Rechtsstaat am Ende” shows that someone has thought deeply about the connection between the German language, German acuteness and touching modesty.
“From the nationwide college,” reports OStA K. about his work, “I received consistently positive feedback.
What they all had in common was the recognition of my clear words. ”That is well said.
More main clause was rare.
The profession of non-fiction editor also has its bright days.
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
March 12th, 2021 5 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
Incidentally, this should by no means be concealed, the Bundestag recently passed a legislative resolution to improve the fight against organized crime by prosecuting "money laundering".
What started out very small has now finally reached the dimension that corresponds to his inner logic based on excess.
The smart idea is to prevent crime by making it impossible to take advantage of it.
After 40 years of "fighting" by criminalizing "money laundering", we are now so far that the OK should be stronger, richer and more dangerous than ever before, but drinking from a stolen bottle of cheap red wine will soon also be punishable as "money laundering" is: The limitations of the »catalog of predicate offenses«, which once began with the most difficult deeds in order to please the citizens, are now completely lifted, so that »money laundering« after shoplifting and petty fraud are also punishable.
Of course, still for the purpose of »fighting the OK«, which firstly sounds really good and secondly, full telecommunication surveillance of the potential perpetrators is necessary and permissible.
Next year we will then be able to read that the number of registered money laundering offenses has again risen extremely worryingly.
Retired Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder once announced the goal of "exterminating it wherever it appears".
I don't know whether he was also referring to Wolfsburg and the Baltic Sea.
A small increase in the range of punishment cannot do any harm and ensures a good mood among fellow citizens out in the country.
Germany will feel much safer again!
Especially when the threat of punishment under Section 108a of the Criminal Code is raised, the criminal provision against bribery of parliamentarians.
The rule has never been applied and is formulated with a steady hand in such a way that it will stay that way if someone doesn't act really stupid;
but a small increase in the range of punishment can then do all the less harm and ensures a good mood among fellow citizens out in the country.
One can therefore be quite hopeful.
As we heard, MP Nüßlein and MP Löbel have "withdrawn from politics."
The "withdrawal" from something, even before the "resignation" from anything, is a royal privilege of really important people.
In other words: A long-term unemployed person has withdrawn from the economy, but should neither call it that nor announce that she has resigned from her last minimum wage job.
Nor should one resign from the positions of tenant or wife, senior public prosecutor or specialist salesperson, nor withdraw from living, marriage, the rule of law or the gross national product.
To be able to withdraw, you have to be a senior boss, national coach, member of parliament or at least a news anchor.
A sailor who retires from shipping is a sad character, unlike an actor who resigns from the role of the dream ship captain.
We are therefore confident that the bosses of organized crime, the heads of the clans and the pullers of corruption in view of the consistently critical voices about their activities and the steadily increasing pressure from the
communities
will soon withdraw from business and from their activities.
Then it's summer and everything will be fine.
Icon: The mirror