Federal Court orders "sharia police" case retrial

34 posts in this topic

Quote

 

A group of Islamists who formed a vigilante gang called the “Sharia Police“ will be subject to a retrial after a German court overturned their 2016 acquittal.

The seven men had been charged with wearing uniforms expressing a shared political opinion after patrolling the streets of Wuppertal in Western Germany at night in September 2014 in orange vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police”.

The group, which included Islamist preacher Sven Lau – who was sentenced to a prison term for supporting a foreign terrorist organisation in July - sought to discourage young men from visiting bars and brothels and drinking alcohol.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sharia-police-germany-supreme-court-judge-verdict-wuppertal-street-patrol-sven-lau-verdict-a8154196.html

 

The logic of BGH is very interesting: these blokes were preaching to Muslims who come from countries where such Sharia police really exists. That could scare them, potentially, that's why they should be guilty of violating state monopoly on violence.

 

If the same "Sharia police" would have been preaching to German Christians, that would have been no problem.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if I understand correctly, relativism has really taken over. Identity politics as well.

Shouldn't any reasonable person be against this, not just Muslims?
 

"The vigilantes themselves said their intention was only to persuade young Muslims to avoid gambling halls, pubs and brothels."  http://www.dw.com/en/top-german-court-overturns-sharia-police-acquittal/a-42112768

Oh that's fine then. These guys are not at all fascists.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vulturesquadron said:

Wow, if I understand correctly, relativism has really taken over. Identity politics as well.

Shouldn't any reasonable person be against this, not just Muslims?

The debate here is not about whether Sharia is good. I don't think there is anything to debate on this.

 

The debate is whether people who find Sharia good are allowed to preach. After all, the Constitution allows freedom of religion. The blokes were not preaching that beheading is good, they were preaching that drinking alcohol and having sex is bad. Are they allowed this? If not, why?

 

The whole problem is to define the borderline between freedom of speech and attack on democracy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No much different to the guys who knock at my door one Saturday morning here and there to convince us to become Jehova's Witnesses. Or the Scientology guys with tables on the streets.

I guess the problem was that they identified themselves as "Sharia Police" which scares immediately the concerned.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about a group wearing the same kind of clothing as a means of intimidating certain target groups, in this case young Muslim men :


 

Quote

 

Nach dem Gesetz ist es verboten und mit Strafe bedroht, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung Uniformen, Uniformteile oder gleichartige Kleidungsstücke als Ausdruck einer gemeinsamen politischen Gesinnung zu tragen. So steht es in Paragraf 3 des Versammlungsgesetzes. Die handelsüblichen Warnwesten, die die Angeklagten getragen haben, sind weder eine Uniform noch Teile einer Uniform. Aber sind sie "gleichartige Kleidungsstücke"? Das ist die entscheidende Rechtsfrage, um die es hier geht.

...

 

Es müsse vielmehr darauf ankommen, ob die Westen mit der Aufschrift "Shariah-Police" in der konkreten Situation geeignet waren, junge Muslime einzuschüchtern. Denn diese jungen Muslime wollten die Angeklagten ja bekehren. Dabei könne auch der Gesichtspunkt eine Rolle spielen, dass es in manchen muslimischen Ländern tatsächlich eine Religionspolizei gibt.

 

 

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/scharia-urteil-sharia-police-analyse-101.html

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Krieg said:

No much different to the guys who knock at my door one Saturday morning here and there to convince us to become Jehova's Witnesses. Or the Scientology guys with tables on the streets.

I guess the problem was that they identified themselves as "Sharia Police" which scares immediately the concerned.

 

This is completely different from the guys who knock at your door to convince you to become Jehova's Witnesses.

 

The "worst" form of "disipline" a Jehova's witness can get is being thrown out of the club. If you're not in the club all you can expect is words to try to convince you to join.

 

Sharia has punishments such as stoning, lashings and amputations. Leaving the club is not allowed and is punishable by death. So for muslims who know the sharia laws, suddenly seeing sharia "police" is definitely threathening. (I did not read the judgement so the reasons given might be other, but I would even see this as threathening as a non-muslim)

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, msam said:

Sharia has punishments such as stoning, lashings and amputations. Leaving the club is not allowed and is punishable by death. So for muslims who know the sharia laws, suddenly seeing sharia "police" is definitely threathening. (I did not read the judgement so the reasons given might be other, but I would even see this as threathening as a non-muslim)

Yes, this is the logic in the judgment.

 

I think, if Jehova witness state existed, it would also practice stoning etc. But it doesn't exist, so it is just my speculation, while Sharia states really exist.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

Yes, this is the logic in the judgment.

 

I think, if Jehova witness state existed, it would also practice stoning etc. But it doesn't exist, so it is just my speculation, while Sharia states really exist.

 

Jehova's Witness seem to consider expulsion as the highest form of discipline...cause what could be worse that not being allowed to be a Jehova's Witness ? ;) 

 

Ultimately it does work, just like the reinforcement vs punishment strategies with children

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, msam said:

Jehova's Witness seem to consider expulsion as the highest form of discipline...cause what could be worse that not being allowed to be a Jehova's Witness ? ;) 

That's because they are in a small minority. I speak of a hypothetical situation when they can get the whole power in the country. In this case they will not follow their own books...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, msam said:

Jehova's Witness seem to consider expulsion as the highest form of discipline...cause what could be worse that not being allowed to be a Jehova's Witness ? ;) 

 

Ultimately it does work, just like the reinforcement vs punishment strategies with children

 

I had family members who were JW and left.  They didn't seem too broken up about it although one said it's a strange feeling when people you've known since childhood no longer greet you on the street.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, msam said:

So for muslims who know the sharia laws, suddenly seeing sharia "police" is definitely threathening. (I did not read the judgement so the reasons given might be other, but I would even see this as threathening as a non-muslim)

 

My beloved Turkish relative was frightened and angry when the self proclaimed Sharia guys turned up!

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018, 3:10:33, msam said:

Sharia has punishments such as stoning, lashings and amputations. Leaving the club is not allowed and is punishable by death. So for muslims who know the sharia laws, suddenly seeing sharia "police" is definitely threathening. (I did not read the judgement so the reasons given might be other, but I would even see this as threathening as a non-muslim)

 

Sure Sharia does that in some places.   Some Catholic priests like to rape small kids.  Would you them assume all Catholic priests are rapists? 

 

The "Sharia" guys here in question were not doing anything threatening, they were preaching at the entrance of casinos and brothels trying to convince young guys not to go in.    

 

Why did they identify themselves as "Sharia"? Because they thought it would give them some moral legitimization among the people they wanted to preach to.     Do I think it was a good idea? No, I think it was a bad idea.   But I understand why they did it.  

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Krieg said:

 

Sure Sharia does that in some places.   Some Catholic priests like to rape small kids.  Would you them assume all Catholic priests are rapists? 

 

The "Sharia" guys here in question were not doing anything threatening, they were preaching at the entrance of casinos and brothels trying to convince young guys not to go in. 

 

 

Sharia has those punishments written down - maybe it is not interpreted and applied in the same way in all places, but in the places where it is interpreted in that way, that is considered "just", and people who come from those places (Afghanistan, Sudan, even some parts of Indonesia and probably others) will associate those punishments with sharia becuase that is the Sharia they grew up with.

 

Catholic priests raping small priests are breaking their own rules - in all major catholic denominations and interpretations. I hope you can see the difference there. 

 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do not agree with what they did, it is concerned people like you that will make these issues end bad. You are already painting everyone with the same brush, which does not help with integration. The sad thing is that there are way too many people thinking like you. You want the bad side of their culture not to repeat here then you have to start by learning and understanding it and creating spaces for the newcomers to make a new life.

The positions of the concerned, "it is not my job to understand anyone, they are here they have to behave like us" is what will end up ostracizing them and making them the victims in their eyes.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Krieg said:

While I do not agree with what they did, it is concerned people like you that will make these issues end bad. You are already painting everyone with the same brush, which does not help with integration. The sad thing is that there are way too many people thinking like you. You want the bad side of their culture not to repeat here then you have to start by learning and understanding it and creating spaces for the newcomers to make a new life.

The positions of the concerned, "it is not my job to understand anyone, they are here they have to behave like us" is what will end up ostracizing them and making them the victims in their eyes.

 

I said "...maybe it is not interpreted and applied in the same way in all places, but in the places where it is interpreted in that way,... ". That's not painting everyone with the same brush. If I had said "all sharia implementations involve corporal punishment", I would have been generalising, but I didn't

 

I'm not "concerned". I'm just saying that in this case it was very understandable that some people were "concerned". (again - only the specific people where Sharia has a specific implementation, not generalising). Me possibly feeling threathened (if I had been there) stems from not knowing where these "sharia police" come from and what they exactly mean by "sharia"

 

About "it is not my job to understand anyone"...um...indeed it is not. I had to work to understand some finer aspects of the German culture - not because I had to, but because I wanted to. I did not, and do not, expect Germans to understand my culture, because they have no reason to. Now in my case the culture gap is not so large so the things I had to get accustomed to were relatively small but they're still important for proper integration.

 

On the other hand, it is the government's job to understand these cultures and find the best road to integration "by learning and understanding it and creating spaces for the newcomers to make a new life".

 

"they are here they have to behave like us"...Only in part - There are laws and anyone living here has to abide by them. Trying to change the laws of your host country to suit your culture, while democratically acceptable, will only lead to problems. On the other hand, imposing cultural values doesn't work, in either direction, and I do not agree with it. But sometimes, law and culture are tightly coupled, and that's where things get complicated

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, msam said:

About "it is not my job to understand anyone"...um...indeed it is not. I had to work to understand some finer aspects of the German culture - not because I had to, but because I wanted to. I did not, and do not, expect Germans to understand my culture, because they have no reason to. Now in my case the culture gap is not so large so the things I had to get accustomed to were relatively small but they're still important for proper integration.

 

On the other hand, it is the government's job to understand these cultures and find the best road to integration "by learning and understanding it and creating spaces for the newcomers to make a new life".

 

 

People like you are the ones that make integration difficult.  Of course it is everyone's job.   Integration is a 2 ways road.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Krieg said:

 

People like you are the ones that make integration difficult.  Of course it is everyone's job.   Integration is a 2 ways road.

 

By that definition: do you understand all the minutiae of every culture on earth? If yes: respect! If not: you're not doing your "job" well. 

 

I respect (not the same as understand) other cultures, and people who come here can keep their own culture if they so desire - I have zero problem with that as long as they don't break any laws or try to force their culture on anyone else. Yes, it's an unfair argument in an unfair world, since some aspects of the host culture has to be "forced" upon them (i.e. don't break the law). But don't get offended if a native says or does something that doesn't agree with your culture. (Personally, I am willing to learn why something was offensive, but I don't consider it a "must" for integration)

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, msam said:

 

 

I respect (not the same as understand) other cultures, and people who come here can keep their own culture if they so desire - I have zero problem with that as long as they don't break any laws or try to force their culture on anyone else.

 

Are immigrants allowed to force their culture on their children? I believe that's what you have to do if you want your culture to live on and not die with the first immigrant generation. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, msam said:

 

By that definition: do you understand all the minutiae of every culture on earth? If yes: respect! If not: you're not doing your "job" well. 

 

Of course not.  But if a bunch of Mongolians suddenly moved to the city I live I will make the effort and learn about the basics of their culture.  Because you know, sooner of later I will have to interact with them.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now