Ich bin mir wirklich nicht ganz sicher, wie man mit einem solchen Kommentar umgehen soll, wie ihn der katholische Bischof Andreas Laun publiziert hat. Er schreibt in dem Text über die Love-Parade, die Massenpanik und die vielen Toten und Verletzten.

Auf der einen Seite sollte man derart unsinnige Hetzschriften nicht verbreiten. Auf der anderen Seite ist das vielleicht einfach ein bisschen wie mit “Mein Kampf”: alle Menschen, die Hitler toll finden und einen IQ nicht niedriger als eine Standardabweichung aufweisen sollten möglicherweise einfach mit dem Buch konfrontiert werden. Da es dermaßen schlecht, widersprüchlich und unsinnig geschrieben ist, kann ich mir allzu gut vorstellen, dass es eine gewisse Abschreckungswirkung entfalten könnte.

Ich hoffe einfach, dass es mit dem Text hier ebenso ist, und niemand auf die Idee verfällt, sich plötzlich “Bischof Laun” Fan-Tshirts zu kaufen.

Kein Mensch kann ohne Erschütterung von dem Unglück in Duisburg hören und ohne Mitleid bleiben für die Toten und vor allem auch deren Eltern und andere Angehörigen! Darum haben auch der Papst, viele Bischöfe und andere Menschen für die Betroffenen gebetet!

Es ist in der Tat eine schlimme Sache, die in Duisburg passiert ist. Ich leide zwar selten mit Toten mit, aber darum soll es hier nicht gehen.

Auch steht es keinem Menschen zu, über die Toten zu urteilen und darüber hinaus zu behaupten, ihr Tod sei eine – natürlich gerechte – “Strafe Gottes” für die Sündigkeit der Love-Parade, in deren Verlauf das Unglück geschah!

Das merken wir uns, und lesen weiter.

Sie [Love-Parade] dürfen nicht schöngeredet werden als “harmloses Feiern” netter junger Menschen!

Denn da gibt es bestimmt Menschen die vorehelichen Sex haben und andere scheußliche Dinge tun! Schließlich hat Jesus “Du sollst nicht laut-Musik-hören” nicht zum Spaß gesagt!

So falsch die konkrete, moralische Verurteilung der Toten ist und bleibt, wäre es doch auch höchste Zeit zu fragen, warum viele Menschen heute auf den Begriff “Strafe” wie von der Tarantel gebissen reagieren!

Tote Menschen konkret moralisch zu verurteilen ist also falsch, sagt Bischof Laun. Allerdings schreibt er weiter:

“Love – Parade” und Teilnahme an ihnen sind, abgesehen von ihrem abstoßenden Erscheinungsbild, objektiv eine Art Aufstand gegen die Schöpfung und gegen die Ordnung Gottes, sind Sünde und Einladung zur Sünde!

Abgesehen von der lächerlichen Formulierung “objektiv eine Art Aufstand” liest sich der Satz für mich wie eine durchaus recht “konkrete, moralische Verurteilung”, die doch nach Laun “keinem Menschen zusteht”, und “falsch” ist. Hat er schon vergessen was er drei Sätze darüber schrieb? Woher kennt Laun denn objektive moralische Standards? Gibt es bei der Ausbildung zum katholischen Geistlichen ein Seminar “Moral: eine rein objektive Angelegenheit”?

Man weigert sich anzuerkennen, dass die Loveparade, abgesehen von ihrem krankhaften Erscheinungsbild, auch mit Sünde zu tun haben könnte und darum, folgerichtig, auch mit dem richtenden und strafenden Gott!

Da Tote konkret moralisch zu beurteilen aber falsch ist (s.o.), allerdings davon ausgegangen werden kann, dass Gott die Toten ja gestraft hat für ihre Sünden, urteilt Bischof Laun also nur über die Lebenden?
Ich komme nicht mehr mit.

Zugleich korrigiert die Bibel auch das verbreitete Missverständnis, als ob Strafe dasselbe wäre wie die Befriedigung eines hässlichen, grausamen Gelüstes auf Rache! Und dies trifft auf Gott natürlich nicht zu!

Natürlich nicht! Da gibt es auch ganz wenige Bibelstellen, die diesen Gott darstellen, und die tun wir geschwind als “korrigiert” ab.

Wahr ist vielmehr: Wenn Gott “straft” tut er dies mit der Absicht, den Menschen zurückzuholen, Gott straft aus Liebe!

Gott hat auf der Love-Parade also 19 (EDIT: mittlerweile 21) Menschen aus Liebe getötet?

Ich bin begeistert.

Und der Argumentation Launs folgend waren das wohl nicht einfach irgendwelche Menschen, sondern moralischer Abschaum! Die Schlimmsten der Schlimmsten eben, die Gott auf solch einer Veranstaltung aus Liebe tötet. Ich gehe mal davon aus, dass das demnach homosexuelle Menschen waren, Frauen, die der Meinung gewesen sind, über ihren eigenen Körper bestimmen zu dürfen (Faun ist erklärter Abtreibungsgegner), und weiteres Schurkenpack, das es faustdick hinter den Ohren hat.

Also, gehabt hat.

Gut, auf solche Texte sollte man gar nicht versuchen sich argumentativ einzulassen, aber der Artikel war dermaßen absurd, dass ich nicht umhin konnte, Teile hier zu kommentieren.

– via fefe

Many citizens interested in in a transparent state and worried about power abuse have heard about the discussion regarding general video surveillance. In Berlin, for example, cameras are omnipresent, especially in Mitte.

To give you an example, last year’s demonstration “Freiheit statt Angst” passed over 150 cameras. None of these – nor any of the many police cameras – filmed the unchecked police aggression towards an innocent man peacefully protesting; fortunately, demonstrators switched their cameras on as soon as they saw a crime being committed. This actually led to a reform of the Berlin police force: they have to wear an identification number on their uniform now.

Sometimes, the cameras in Berlin have a little sign next to them: “For your own safety, this place is under video surveillance.”

But that is simply not true: a camera does not increase your safety. It is just a piece of metal. If people rob you or assault you a camera will not help you. It will be there, filming, and show people robbing and assaulting. In nearly all cases, these people cannot be identified – that is very well known from cities like London where there is extensive research regarding the usefulness of video footage. We also know that cameras do not reduce crime rates, which was to be expected, because it is common knowledge in psychology that draconic measures of punishment like the death penalty do likewise not reduce crime rates.

Something has happened in London now that really upset me.
In January 2009, there were demonstrations against the Israeli offensive on Gaza. People were throwing bottles at police officers, which is not okay – and so the London police spent months watching CCTV footage in order to identify protestors and charge them. I understand that. But as the Guardian puts it: “It is only right that similar efforts are made to uncover police wrongdoing.” And there have been many documented assaults of policemen towards innocent and peaceful protesters, so that there is a lot of reason to investigate.

One case is a special, however:

“More worrying is the way in which CCTV is being used by the police. Demonstrator Jake Smith was charged with two counts of violent disorder. These charges were later dropped when Smith’s solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage and discovered that the police video had been edited to show events out of sequence, at one point implying another man was Smith while omitting footage showing Smith being assaulted by a police officer without provocation.”

Matt Foot, Jake’s solicitor, has published a short and very insighful written statement of the events.

To sum it up: the London police tampered with video footage in order to prosecute an innocent citizen, and they were caught by a very insistent lawyer.
I find that really hard to digest.

However, there was also one good consequence of the demonstrations. Russell and Ashley Inglis were assaulted by the police, but the police officers responsible could not be identified (youtube video).
They wrote a complaint which was turned down, appealed the decision with the same outcome, then decided to take their case to a solicitor for a civil claim. Russell and Ashley have been awarded £25,000 compensation, although the police officers responsible still remain unidentified! That is the first time this has happened, and although it might not be the best solution to let tax-payers cover for police crimes, at least there seems to be the possibility for compensation when the perpetrators cannot be identified.

Posts on this blog with related content:

• Police aggression in Berlin at “Freiheit statt Angst” demonstration, September 2009
• STOP IT: violence towards policemen at Berlin demonstrations

(Sources: Netzpolitik.org, The Guardian)

President Obama promised to close the prison Guantanamo within 6 months of his presidency. According to tagesschau.de it is unlikely that the torture prison will be closed within the next four years.
(Update: NY Times article )

After the thwarted terrorist attacks last Christmas, only 40% of the US population is in favour of shutting Guantanamo down.

What do the other 60% stand for?

For keeping people in a prison who have not had a trial, in up to 8 years. Who were never properly accused of anything, in a court. Who are not allowed to see lawyers, who cannot talk to their families. Who are tortured on a regular basis (so much proof leaked during the last years, yet noone does anything about it). Remember the American logic: the Geneva Convention is valid in war, but the war against terrorism is not a war, therefor torture is legal.

Not only human rights organizations, but the United Nations (!) have critizied the US repeatedly (!) for the prison. They said that “not even in China” prisoners were denied access to a lawyer.

There were quite a few court decisions against the prison, like this one in 2008:

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its third consecutive rebuff to the Bush administration’s handling of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ruling 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention. [...]
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the truncated review procedure provided by a previous law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, “falls short of being a constitutionally adequate substitute” because it failed to offer “the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus [...] The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

Alas, they were simply ignored by the politics.

Court: “They have the right to …”
Politics: “No thanks, we’d rather not”.

What country is that?!

Read the rest of this entry »

The German government has not yet survived a year, and is very close to an end.

(1) The coalition has been disagreeing on major issues for months now, and the three parties are fighting each other openly now.
(2) The German Federal President (from the Christian Conservatives) resigned for weird reasons two weeks ago. The new candidate from the Conservatives would have no problems to get elected if the whole coalition voted for him, but it currently looks like many electoral delegates from the Liberals are considering to vote for the candidate nominated by the social democrats and the green party. This would be a disaster for the government.
(3) A couple of days ago, the government announced how they want to counter the global financial crises in Germany: they decided take away money from disabled and unemployed people as well as seniors (there are other cuts as well, but this is actually the biggest one).

The protest against the government has never been that big, the Liberal party is down to 3% (from 15% at the elections), and in a re-election the current coalition would not stand a chance.

Today, there was a big demonstration against the government in Berlin. It would have been great to see 20.000 people on the streets.

But it was not.

Because stupid ******** started throwing stones, bottles and even self-made bombs at policemen. Two policemen were severely hurt and had to be operated. It is not yet sure if they will survive.
(EDIT: this seems to be wrong – the police obviously wasn’t publishing adequate information. My point, however, remains, no matter if police officers were severely hurt, killed, or only injured.)

STOP IT.

You are destroying everything we, the people of Germany stand for. We are a peaceful people, and have proven this again and again recently, e.g. when the USA went to war in Iraq and Germany stood up against this war. Most people don’t agree with your violence, and you are ridiculing 20.000 people who went on the street to protest social cuts today. The police has nothing to do with this!

You are taking away our voice by taking illegal and inhuman actions. You offered the government the chance to pretend that only leftwing-radicals on their usual anti-capitalism campaign protested today, which is simply not true.

If you want to throw rocks at people, please feel free to go into some forest and through rocks at each other. Or bottles, or bombs. Noone cares.
Just get it over with.

Die Regierung plant massive Einschnitte. Dass das notwendig und richtig ist, sehen vermutlich die meisten ein. Spannend ist allerdings, wo gespart werden soll:

Das Geld soll [...] durch Kürzungen im Sozialbereich hereinkommen.

Wie bitte?

Ein großer Teil der 80 Milliarden soll bei Arbeitslosen, Kindern, Rentnern und behinderten Menschen gespart werden. Bundesministerin für Arbeit und Soziales, Ursula von der Leyen, hat diese Einschnitte in ihrer bereits bekannten kruden Logik als gerecht hingestellt: ihr Ressort betrage fünfzig Prozent des Bundeshaushaltes, daher seien verhältnismäßig starke Einschnitte bei den Ausgaben für Arbeit und Soziales nur fair. Eine detaillierte Liste der Kürzungen ist detaillierte Liste der Kürzungen zu finden.

Heinz Hilgers, Präsident des Kinderschutz-Bundes bezeichnet die Pläne in einem Interview auf tagesschau.de als “skandalös” und “grausam”:

Da hat eine alleinerziehende Mutter, die gar nicht arbeiten kann, weil sie ein Baby hat und weil es in ihrer Region gar keine Kita für so kleine Kinder gibt [ein] Einkommen von knapp über 800 Euro, und davon streicht man ihr jetzt 300! [...] Das ist eine Kürzung von mehr als 30 Prozent, die einer der Ärmsten der Armen in unserem Land hinnehmen muss.

Stephan Ueberbach hat dazu einen kurzen Kommentar veröffentlicht, der mir aus dem Herzen spricht.

Liebe Bundesregierung, sehr geehrte Frau Merkel,
wen meinen Sie eigentlich, wenn Sie sagen, wir hätten jahrelang über unsere Verhältnisse gelebt? [...]
Meinen Sie vielleicht die Arbeitslosen und Hartz IV-Bezieher, bei denen jetzt gekürzt werden soll? Meinen Sie die Zeit- und Leiharbeiter, die nicht wissen, wie lange sie ihren Job noch haben? Oder meinen Sie die Normalverdiener, denen immer weniger netto vom brutto übrigbleibt? [...]
Nein, maßlos waren und sind ganz andere: Zum Beispiel die Banken, die erst mit hochriskanten Geschäften Kasse machen, dann Milliarden in den Sand setzen, sich vom Steuerzahler retten lassen und nun einfach weiterzocken als ob nichts gewesen wäre.

Ein weiterer kritischer Artikel, der sich mit den Kürzungen beschäftigt, ist bei Telepolis zu finden.
Read the rest of this entry »

You read about the Oil Desaster in the Gulf of Mexico, no point repeating the news here.

(1)
What you might not know is that Oil Drilling in Offshore Areas has been quite a topic in the United States. There was a “longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast, from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean” (source).

I say was. Because Barack Obama decided that this moratorium is really not necessary anymore.

New York Times, 31st of March 2010, in an article called “Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time”:

Drilling there has been strongly opposed by officials from both political parties in Alabama and Florida who fear damage to coastlines, fisheries, popular beaches and wildlife.

Right.

(2)
The “accident” has happened. An interesting fact is that there is a very easy way to avoid such a catrastrophe: relief wells. In Canada, these wells are required by law.

Businessweek offers an explanation:

The relief well aims to intercept the damaged hole at an angle thousands of feet below the seabed and permanently close it with heavy mud and cement.

The final solution BP offers now is exactly that: to drill a relief well. Unfortunately, this is a very complicated procedure, especially when things have gone so terribly wrong already. BP hopes they could be finished by August.

The company has made very active lobbyism to avoid the necessity of these relief wells in the United States – and was successful. Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said in an interview with Reuters:

“Make no mistake: BP ranks among the most powerful corporate forces in U.S. politics. It donates hundreds of thousands of dollars every election cycle through its employees and political action committee and is routinely a seven- or eight-figure federal lobbying powerhouse each year.”

To give an example for the year 2008, there have been donations of $37.000 to members of the House Energy Committee and over $100.000 to members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee (dealing with security issues facing the nation’s oil supply). BP spent $15.9 million on lobbying in 2009.

It worked.

(3)
Some pretty … intense photographs.

After the abuse scandals within the Catholic church, an official report has been published today – concerning the Church of Scientology. For several decades, members of Scientology have systematically abused children in Germany.

Here are the results, in a nutshell:

• In over six different institutions, at least 205 children and adolescents have been abused. They have been touched, they have been molested, they have been hit, they have been raped.
• The official investigator stated that she strongly believes that the actual number of cases is “far bigger”.
• 46 perpetrators are mentioned in the report.
• Some of the delinquents were known to abuse children. When their crimes came to light within the church, they were transfered to other institutions to continue their crimes.
• An official spokesman of the church said that the reality is outrageous and brings shame and disgrace to the church.

I lied.

There was report published yesterday about abuse within the Church of Scientology.

But imagine for a second what would have happened if it were the case. There would have been a public outrage – this topic would have been all over the news. People would have been arrested all over the place – not only perpetrators, but also the hundreds of members of the church who helped to cover up these crimes. Police investigations would have been initiated, maybe Scientology would have been banned in Germany.

In truth, the investigation, and the official document released concerns the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church. You can find a detailed report on spiegel.de.

Can we please start drawing consequences and initiate appropriate actions?

In the United States, the Catholic Church has payed more than 2.6 billion US dollars in compensation to victims so far. Since it is getting uncomfortable, they came up with a new way to cope with compensation payments now.

After yet another child-abuse scandal has come to light, the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus – also called Jesuits – filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Province includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Washington and Oregon.

Seattle University Spectator reports:

The province [...] filed for reorganization [...] in response to a lawsuit in which 63 Native Alaskan victims have alleged they were sexually abused by Jesuits and that leaders of the province covered up the abuse. More victims will be joining the lawsuit in the coming weeks, according to the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Now, let’s see how Fr. Patrick Lee, S.J., provincial of the Oregon Province views this affair:

Chapter 11 will allow the Oregon Province to resolve pending claims, manage its financial situation and continue its various ministries in the Northwest in which it has been engaged since 1841. [...] Our decision to file Chapter 11 was not an easy one, but with approximately 200 additional claims pending or threatened, it is the only way we believe that all claimants can be offered a fair financial settlement within the limited resources of the Province.

To sum up, in order to pay a fair financial settlement, the church files for bankruptcy. Right.

John Manly, an attorney for the victims:

This bankruptcy has nothing to do with finances–the Jesuits are one of the wealthiest religious organizations in the United States. This filing is about protecting the hierarchy and those who covered up for abusers.

Patrick Wall, a representative of the victims:

We believe that this is an affirmation that the Society of Jesus knowingly and purposefully dumped priest perpetrators in Alaska. The data is overwhelming. Twenty-eight priests from 11 provinces in five countries resulted in over 300 Native Alaskan kids being sexually abused from 1948 to 2001.

And that is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Why do I get the strong impression that this is not about individuals - one priest here, another there – but about the institution Church, about the way the whole system seems to work?

See also:

• Church Humane
• Catholic Church and Paedophilia

A couple of months ago, the Vatican officially stated that “only 1.5 – 5 per cent of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse”.

Read that again: “only 1.5 – 5 per cent”. Right. I wrote an article about it back then, containing some extremely unpleasant facts.

Yesterday, Malte Welding put together a comprehensive overview I want to share here.

In 1962, an official document was sent to all Catholic bishops, signed by the Pope John XXIII. The Guardian brought a story about this document in 2003, also publishing the document online.

The document was confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. It encourages to “cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church”. The Guardian writes:

“[The document] is called ‘Crimine solicitationies’, which translates as ‘instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation’. It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. The instructions outline a policy of ’strictest’ secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication. They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials.”

Now comes the interesting part: as dailykos.com pointed out in 2005, Cardinal Ratzinger (also known as Benedict XVI – the current pope) is “the author of a May 2001 letter to bishops stating that the ‘Crimine Solicitationies’ law [...] is still in effect”.

The Catholic Church has been systematically abusing children for decades. They have an official document, encouraging clergy to cover abuse up, and “encourage” victims to swear an oath to keep it secret.

And the current pope Ratzinger officially signed a letter that this practise should continue, in the year 2001.

I feel very, very sick. And I am pretty sure that holy Ratzinger and his devout group of bishops have broken international law here, for a couple of decades. Not necessarily by abusing children – but by covering thousands of cases up.

Read the rest of this entry »