A rickshaw-puller reportedly died of hunger at his house in Jharia lastFriday evening. His wife claimed that he had not eaten anything for the past two days. However the district administration rubbished the allegation arguing that 45-year-old Baijnath Ravidas, a resident of Bhalgora Tarabank in the coal mines rich district, was suffering from a disease.

It was a fact finding team of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) that visited the village on October 20 and met the family members of the deceased; who is survived by three sons — Ravi (20), Suraj (14), Neeraj (10) — and two daughters Suman (16) and Sulekha (8). When the team (comprising Kashinath Chatterjee, Gyan Ranjan Sinha, former minister Dr Saba Ahmed, CPM District secretary Suresh Gupta Ramakrishnan and others) reached the house of the deceased, officials of the district and block administrations in “20 vehicles were present at the spot along with 40 policemen”. It was after the team “interacted with the villagers” and concluded that that his death occurred due to hunger and disease both”. “The situation of others in the family is also quite bad,” said the fact finding team in its reports. “He (the deceased) could not have his ration card made even after multiple attempts,” alleges the report.

The whole area is made of huts and most people here work in the unorganised sector. “Seventy percent of the families here do not have ration card. Many of them had applied for ration card multiple times a year back but did not get it. The families who have ration cards, got them made through agents who charged commission for doing the needful,” alleged the report. According to the fact finding team, this area has large number of Dalit and extremely poor families. Ration through PDS will be lifeline for these families. “During socio-economic & caste census, many families were omitted from PDS. Many deserving families have been deprived of food in the name of Aadhaar or ration card,” alleged the report.

The team has demanded that all the people in the area should be provided ration. They further demanded the government to come out with a white paper on how many people have been deprived of ration in the name of Aadhar and also specify what procedures are adopted for this; and what notifications has been given on this.

Action has been demanded against the officials who were responsible. They expressed hope that all orders of the Supreme Court regarding right to food, and hunger deaths will be followed
“Similar mishappenings have occurred in Garaw, Deoghar and Dhanbad,” alleged the report.

Local units of BGVS are involved in the agitation. “Gyan Vigyan Samithi Jharkhand, along with other organizations will continue to fight for justice on the issue,” said the report.
Last month, an 11-year-old girl died in Jharkhand’s Simdega district because of starvation, months after her family’s ration card was cancelled because it was not linked to their Aadhaar number. With no mid-day meals available in school during her Durga Puja holidays, Santoshi Kumari had gone with barely any food for nearly eight days before she died

The post Jharkand”s Rickshaw Puller Dies of Hunger: Jharia appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Protesting Inadequate Rehabilitation, around 600 NBA activists and people of Narmada Valley along with Medha Patkar got detained from Bhopal and Habibganj Railway station in Bhopal
MP Police detained and kept people at three places, New Central Jail (Gandhinagar, Bhopal), Habibganj and Rest at Bhopal Railway Junction
 
In the early hours of Wednesday,July 19, when protesting villages from the Narmada Valley reached Bhopal, the police detained them without giving any reason and have  taken them to Central Jail, Bhopal. Another 600 Narmada Bachao Andolan Activists and villagers were similarly detained at Bhopal and Habibganj Railway Station. Detainees are reportedly held at at three locations: around 200 people at New Central Jail, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal; around 300 people at Habibganj, and others at Bhopal Junction.
 
This harsh action of the Madhya Pradesh government is being seen as an attempt to curtail legitmate protests on people demanding their due rehabilitation and raising their voice against the unlawful and unjust submergence. As many as 40,000 families have been denied rehabilitation in the Sardar Sarovar Dam affected region in the Narmada Valley.
 
This is the third time in a month time when police of different states detained the people of Narmada Valley and NBA activists at various places without any reasons.
 
NBA leader Medha Patkar and activists have appealed to citizens to call the police officials of Bhopal and chief minister office to release all the detained activists and people of Narmada Valley to save the constitutional values and their fundamental rights.

The post NBA Activists Detained at 3 Locations: MP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From left to right: Manu who inspired Friedrich Nietzsche who inspired Adolf Hitler

In his writings, Dr BR Ambekar unraveled the unholy ideological link between Manu who inspired Nietzsche, who in turn inspired Hitler, who in turn (along with Mussolini) inspired the most revered Manuwadis of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS: Balakrishna Shivram Moonje, Keshav Baliram Hedgewar and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar.   

The foregoing analysis of the religious revolution showed that religious ideas as forms of divine governance for human society fall into two classes, one in which society is the cent
and the other in which the individual is the centre. The same analysis showed that for the former the appropriate test of what is good and what is right, i.e., the test of the moral order is utility while for the latter the test is justice. 

Now the reason why the philosophy of Hinduism does not answer the test of utility or of justice is because the religious ideal of Hinduism for divine governance of human society is an ideal which falls into a separate class by itself. It is an ideal in which the individual is not the centre. The centre of the ideal is neither individual nor society. It is a class — the class of Supermen called Brahmins. 

Those who will bear the dominant and devastating fact in mind will understand why the philosophy of Hinduism is not founded on individual justice or social utility. The philosophy of Hinduism is founded on a totally different principle. To the question what is right and what is good the answer which the philosophy of Hinduism gives is remarkable. It holds that to be right and good the act must serve the interests of this class of Supermen, namely, the Brahmins. 

Oscar Wilde said that to be intelligible is to be found out. Indeed Manu does not leave it to be found out. He expresses his view in resonant and majestic notes as who are the Supermen and anything which serves the interest of the Supermen is alone entitled to be called right and good. Let me quote Manu.

Manu’s is a degraded and degenerate philosophy of Superman as compared with that of Nietzsche [Hitler’s guru] and therefore far more odious and loathsome than the philosophy of Nietzsche – Dr. BR Ambedkar

X. 3. “On account of his pre-eminence, on account of the superiority of his origin, on account of his observance of (particular) restrictive rules, and on account of his particular sanctification the Brahman is the Lord of (all) Varnas.”
He proceeds to amplify his reasons and does so in the following characteristic manner —

I. 93. “As the Brahmana sprang from (Prajapati’s, i.e. God’s) mouth, as he was first–born and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the Lord of this whole creation.”

I. 94. For the self–existent (Svayambhu, i.e., God), having performed austerities, produced him first from his own mouth, in order that offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and Manes and that this universe might be preserved.”

I. 95. “What created being can surpass him, through whose mouth the Gods continually consume the sacrificial viands and the manes the offerings to the dead?”

I. 96. “Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are animated; of the animated, those who subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent, mankind; and of the men, the Brahmanas.”

Besides the reason given by Manu the Brahmin is first in rank because he was produced by God from his mouth, in order that the offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and manes. Manu gives another reason for the supremacy of the Brahmins. He says —

I. 98. “The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred Law (Veda); for he is born to (fulfill) the sacred law, and becomes one with Brahman (God).”

I. 99. “A Brahmana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the treasury of the Law.”

Manu concludes by saying that —

I. 101. “The Brahman eats but his own food, wears but his own apparel, bestows but his own in alms; other mortals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmana.”

Because according to Manu —

II. 100. “Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to it all.”
Manu directs —

VII. 36. “Let the King, after rising early in the morning, worship Brahmans who are well versed in the three-fold sacred science and learned (in polity), and follow their advice.”

VII. 38. “Let him daily worship aged Brahmans who know the Veda and are pure…”

VII. 37. “Let the king, having risen at early dawn, respectfully attend to Brahman, learned in the three Vedas and in the science of ethics and by their decision let him abide.”

VII. 38. “Constantly must he show respect to Brahmans, who have grown old, both in years and in piety, who know the scriptures, who in body and mind are pure; for he, who honours the aged, will perpetually be honoured even by cruel demons.”

IX. 313. “Let him not, although in the greatest distress for money, provoke Brahmans to anger by taking their property; for they, once enraged, could immediately by sacrifices and imprecations destroy him with his troops, elephants, horses and cars.”

Finally Manu says —

XI. 35. “The Brahman is (hereby) declared (to be) the creator (of the world), the punisher, the teacher, (and hence) a benefactor (of all created beings); to him let no man say anything unpropitious; nor use any harsh words.”

To conclude and complete the theory of supermen and of what is right and good let me reproduce the following two texts from Manu —

X. 122. “But let a Shudra serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven or with a view of both this life and the next, for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends.

X. 123. The service of the Brahmana alone is declared to be as excellent occupation for a Shudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear no fruit.

And Manu adds —

X. 129. No collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he be able to do it; for a Shudra who has acquired wealth gives pain to Brahman.

Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was a hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose title to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue.

The above texts from Manu disclose the core and the heart of the philosophy of Hinduism. Hinduism is the gospel of the Superman and it teaches that what is right for the Superman is the only thing which is called morally right and morally good.

Is there any parallel to this philosophy? I hate to suggest it. But is so obvious. The parallel to this philosophy of Hinduism is to be found in Nietzsche. The Hindus will be angry at this suggestion.

It is quite natural. For the philosophy of Nietzsche stands in great odium. It never took roots. In his own words he was “sometimes deified as the philosopher of the aristocracy and squirearchy, sometimes hooted as, sometimes pitied and sometimes boycotted as an inhuman being.” 

Nietzsche’s philosophy had become identified with will to power, violence, denial of spiritual values, Superman and the sacrifice, servility and debasement of the common man. His philosophy with these high spots had created a certain loathsomeness and horror in the minds of the people of his own generation. He was utterly neglected if not shunned and Nietzsche himself took comfort by placing himself among the “posthumous men”.

He foresaw for himself a remote public, centuries after his own time to appreciate him. Here too Nietzsche was destined to be disappointed. Instead of there being any appreciation of his philosophy, the lapse of time has only augmented the horror and loathing which people of his generation felt for Nietzsche. This is principally due to the revelation that the philosophy of Nietzsche is capable of producing Nazism. His friends have vehemently protested against such a construction (M. P. Nicolas, “From Nietzsche Down to Hitler” 1938). But it is not difficult to see that his philosophy can be as easily applied to evolve a super state as to Superman. This is what the Nazis have done. 

MS Golwalkar (left) and KB Hedgewar: Inspired equally by Manu and Hitler

At any rate the Nazis trace their ancestry from Nietzsche and regard him as their spiritual parent. Hitler has himself photographed beside a bust of Nietzsche; he takes the manuscripts of the master under his own special guardianship; extracts are chosen from Nietzsche’s writings and loudly proclaimed at the ceremonies of Nazism, as the New German Faith.

Nor is the claim by the Nazis of spiritual ancestry with Nietzsche denied by his near relations. Nietzsche’s own cousin Richard Ochler approvingly says that Nietzsche’s thought is Hitler in action and that Nietzsche was the foremost pioneer of the Nazi accession to power. Nietzsche’s own sister, few months before her death, thanks the Fuehrer for the honour he graciously bestows on her brother declaring that she sees in him that incarnation of the “Superman” foretold by Zarathustra.

To identify Nietzsche, whose name and whose philosophy excites so much horror and so much loathing, with Manu is sure to cause astonishment and resentment in the mind of the Hindus. But of the fact itself there can be no doubt. Nietzsche himself has openly declared that in his philosophy he only following the scheme of Manu. In his Anti-Christ this is what Nietzsche says —
“After all, the question is, to what end are falsehoods perpetrated? The fact that, in Christianity, ‘holy’ ends are entirely absent, constitutes my objection to the means it employs. Its ends are only bad ends; the poisoning, the calumniation and the denial of life, the contempt of the body, the degradation and self-pollution of man by virtue of the concept of sin, — consequently its means are bad as well. My feelings are quite the reverse. 

“When I read the law book of Manu, an incomparably intellectual and superior work, it would be a sin against the spirit even to mention in the same breath with the Bible. You will guess immediately why; it has a genuine philosophy behind it, in it, not merely an evil-smelling Jewish distillation of Rabbinism and superstition — it gives something to chew even to the most fastidious psychologist.

“And, not to forget the most important point of all, it is fundamentally different from every kind of Bible: by means of it the noble classes, the philosophers and the warriors guard and guide the masses; it is replete with noble values, it is filled with a feeling of perfection, with saying yea to life, and triumphant sense of well–being in regard to itself and to life — the Sun shines upon the whole book. 

“All those things which Christianity smothers with its bottomless vulgarity, procreation, woman, marriage, are here treated with earnestness, with reverence, with love and confidence. How can one possibly place in the hands of children and women, a book that contains those vile words: ‘to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband… it is better to marry than to burn.’ And is it decent to be a Christian so long as the very origin of man is Christianised, that is to say, befouled, by the idea of the immaculate conception?… 

“I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said to woman, as in the Law Book of Manu; these old grey–beards and saints have a manner of being gallant to woman which, perhaps, cannot be surpassed. ‘The mouth of a woman,’ says Manu on one occasion, ‘the breast of a maiden, the prayer of a child, and the smoke of the sacrifice, are always pure’. And finally perhaps this is also a holy lie — ‘all the openings of the body above the navel are pure, all those below the navel are impure. Only in a maiden is the whole body pure.’”

This leaves no doubt that Zarathustra is a new name for Manu and that Thus Spake Zarathustra is a new edition of Manu Smriti.

If there is any difference between Manu and Nietzsche it lies in this. Nietzsche was genuinely interested in creating a new race of men which will be a race of supermen as compared with the existing race of men. Manu on the other hand was interested in maintaining the privileges of a class who had come to arrogate to itself the claim of being supermen.

Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was a hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose title to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue.

Compare the following texts from Manu.

X. 81. “Yet a Brahman, unable to subsist by his duties just mentioned, may live by the duty of a soldier; for that is the next rank.”

X.82. “If it be asked, how he must live, should he be unable to get a subsistence by either of those employments; the answer is, he may subsist as a mercantile man, applying himself into tillage and attendance on cattle”.
Manu adds:

IX. 317. “A Brahmana, be he ignorant or learned, is a great divinity, just as the fire, whether carried forth (for the performance of a burnt oblation) or not carried forth, is a great divinity.”

IX. 323. “Thus, though the Brahmans employ themselves in all (sorts) of mean occupation, they must be honoured in every way; (for each of) them is a very great deity.”

Thus Manu’s is a degraded and degenerate philosophy of Superman as compared with that of Nietzsche and therefore far more odious and loathsome than the philosophy of Nietzsche.

This explains why the philosophy of Hinduism does not satisfy the test of justice or of utility. Hinduism is not interested in the common man. Hinduism is not interested in society as a whole. The centre of its interest lies in a class and its philosophy is concerned in sustaining and supporting the rights of that class. That is why in the philosophy of Hinduism the interests of the common man as well as of society are denied, suppressed and sacrificed to the interest of this class of Superman… 

It is therefore incontrovertible that notwithstanding the Hindu Code of Ethics, notwithstanding the philosophy of the Upanishads not a little, not a jot, did abate from the philosophy of Hinduism as propounded by Manu. They were ineffective and powerless to erase the infamy preached by Manu in the name of religion. Notwithstanding their existence one can still say, “Hinduism! They name is inequality!” 

(This article has been archived from the May 2000 issue of Communalism Combat. The cover story, “India’s Shame” traced how even 50 years after the Constitution proclaimed equality for all, over 160 million Dalits continue to be victims of a ‘hidden apartheid’, treated as untouchables and worse)

The post From Manu’s Brahminism, to Nietzsche, to Hitler: Dr. BR Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Working together, the UN and civil society are using innovative legal action to protect fundamental human rights and re-open lost civic spaces. A contribution to the openGlobalRights debate on closing space.

It is almost passé these days, as depressing as that sounds, to declare that civic space is shrinking across the globe. It is certainly true that in the last decade we have seen an unprecedented wave of repressive laws and practices sweep across the world, all designed to prevent people from organising, speaking out and engaging in democratic rights and duties. But we are well past talking of “shrinking” in the present or future tenses. Data from the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) indicate that between 2004-2010, more than fifty countries considered or adopted restrictive measures for civil society. In many places, the deed has been done. There’s not that much space left to take.

Even more depressing, perhaps, is the fact that many of our traditional tools for combatting this trend are no longer working quite as well. Reporting, documenting, public pressure, guidelines, recommendations—none of these have been particularly effective in reversing the overall drift towards repression. I feel this currently in my work as UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. My duties include both a monitoring and reporting component—name and shame, if you will—and a technical assistance component, which means working behind the scenes to help states improve their enforcement of human rights norms. It is plain that some governments are not moved by either approach. At this point, real pushback and stepping up of enforcement measures will require more creativity, innovation and a multiplicity of approaches.

A new way forward: litigation in domestic and regional courts

It was against this backdrop of stepping up enforcement efforts that my mandate began a new project in 2014, designed to advance the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association through litigation in domestic and regional courts. The project actively seeks to support cases related to these rights and focuses on providing technical assistance and advisory services to litigants, attorneys and civil society organisations. An important part of the project is the submission of amicus curiae briefs (e.g., briefs submitted by experts not connected to or solicited by either party) in relevant cases to add critical analysis and an international voice.

Special Rapporteur mandates are vast, often covering the entire globe, and resources are limited. We need civil society activists and actors as partners to alert us to cases which might benefit from an intervention, flag the legal challenges they face, re-use international-law based arguments in their domestic jurisdictions, and to let us know the outcome of these cases.

The thrust behind this endeavour is simple: get international human rights law and standards into local courts, so that they can filter into domestic law and—perhaps most critically—enjoy better enforcement. The UN system is notoriously impotent when it comes to enforcing the human rights it espouses; it simply does not have the tools, and its Member States are not going to make them available anytime soon. National and regional courts or human rights commissions are often in a better position to do this.

This is not to say litigation in domestic and regional courts is a panacea. It has its inherent shortcomings, such as corruption or a failure to induce real on-the-ground change. But litigation does present unique advantages, such as ensuring concrete remedies: accountability, compensation and some closure. Litigation can also shine a light on repression by forcing the government to address issues head-on in a public setting.

Until this date, my mandate has filed three amici curiae before domestic and regional courts. Besides the mandate’s first amicus brief submitted in a case before the Constitutional Court in Bolivia, described below, in August 2015, an amicus brief was filed in a case before the Supreme Court of Mexico challenging the constitutionality of the “City Mobility Law”, which I argued unduly restricts the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. In November 2015, the mandate also filed a third party intervention—with the Human Rights Centre, University of Ghent (Belgium)—urging the European Court of Human Rights to adopt strong protective standards for the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in four cases against Azerbaijan.

Bolivia: a first foray

My mandate submitted its first amicus brief in May 2015, before the Constitutional Court of Bolivia in Sucre. The case in question surrounded the constitutionality of the NGO Act: the first provision conditions legal status upon an association’s contribution to economic and social development. The second stipulates that such status can be revoked when associations do not comply with sector policies and/or norms. The law itself dates back to March 2013, when Bolivia adopted the legislation despite many analyses indicating that it contravened international law. It was implemented in June 2013, by the equally contentious Supreme Decree.

The amicus brief argues that the Bolivia provisions unjustifiably restrict the right to freedom of association under international law, standards and principles. The brief notes that restrictions to the right to freedom of association are only permissible under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) when they are (1) prescribed by law; (2) for a legitimate aim; (3) necessary in a democratic society. Any restrictions to the right must be judged against this three-pronged test. Both of the articles challenged in the Bolivia case fail to meet this test.

Even if the restrictions were properly prescribed by law (which they are not), they do not serve a legitimate aim. To the contrary, they could be interpreted as an attack at the very foundation of the right to freedom of association. In addition, the provisions are not necessary or proportional. Their effects—not obtaining (or revoking) legal personality from associations that hold different ideas than the politicians of the day—are simply too sweeping, particularly when you take account of the wide margin of discretion afforded to the authorities enforcing the law.

The Constitutional Court of Bolivia is expected to rule on the case in early 2016. It is of course difficult to predict how the court will rule, but I am concerned by the recent statement by the Bolivian Minister for Decentralisation, who was quoted in news reports as saying that NGOs should observe national laws, regardless of what the UN thinks about them—likely a reference to my mandate’s amicus brief.

The way forward

The Bolivia case was just the first in what I hope will be a series of judicial interventions by my mandate. Each case is a small step towards reclaiming civic space, but the biggest impact will come when we reach a critical mass of interventions. Finding appropriate cases, though, depends on our networks and partnerships—the people on the ground. Special Rapporteur mandates are vast, often covering the entire globe, and resources are limited. We need civil society activists and actors as partners to alert us to cases which might benefit from an intervention, flag the legal challenges they face, re-use international-law based arguments in their domestic jurisdictions, and to let us know the outcome of these cases.
—
 
Maina Kiai is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

A longer version of this article was first published in Sur Journal’s 22nd issue here, produced by Conectas.

The post Reclaiming rights and freedoms through UN-supported litigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While Merkel has defended her decision, trying to stress that it did not amount to a verdict on whether Jan Böhmermann was guilty or not, but should be understood as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s independence, she is facing increasing criticism for the act. Merkel was left with the final decision on whether Germany’s state prosecutor should start proceedings against Böhmermann after Erdoğan requested the comedian be prosecuted. Under an obscure section of Germany’s criminal code, prosecution for insults against organs or representatives of foreign states requires both a notification from the offended party and an authorisation from the government.

PEN International has issued a strong statement in condemnation of the decision.  

“The German government’s authorisation for the prosecution of comedian Jan Böhmermann for broadcasting a crude poem that allegedly insulted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in accordance with a German law on insulting foreign leaders, infringes on the fundamental right to freedom of expression, German PEN and PEN International said today.

'The decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel came after the Turkish Embassy lodged a formal request with the German foreign ministry to prosecute Böhmermann, after the comedian read a poem in a late-night programme screened on the German state broadcaster ZDF at the end of last month that accused president of Turkey of, among other things, “repressing minorities, kicking Kurds and slapping Christians”.

‘There has been some discussion about the vulgarity of Böhmermann´s mock defamatory poem. We trust in our judicial representatives to know that freedom of expression is not about taste or the quality of literature. It´s about freedom and civil rights,’ said Regula Venske, General Secretary, German PEN

‘As Josef Haslinger, president of German PEN, has pointed out, Jan Böhmermann´s action can be understood as a paradoxical intervention. By adding one defamatory cliché after the other, Böhmermann drew our attention to some obscure paragraph criminalising lèse-majesties in German criminal law. We call upon the German government to quickly proceed with its abolition.’

'Merkel made the decision today on whether Germany’s state prosecutor should start proceedings against Böhmermann, after Erdoğan pressed charges against the comedian. Insulting heads of state is illegal under an obscure section of Germany’s criminal code, which requires authorisation from the German government. If found guilty, Böhmermann could face up to five years in prison or – more likely – a fine.

'Merkel has indicated that the law will be repealed by 2018.

'President Erdoğan has made extensive resort to Turkey’s criminal defamation laws to silence critics and opponents, having lodged over 1800 personal insult suits since he became President in 2014.

'International human rights standards put a high value on uninhibited expression in the context of ‘public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions’. The Human Rights Committee, which oversees the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Germany is a state party, has made clear that the ‘mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties’. Human rights bodies have also pointed out that heads of state and public figures should tolerate a higher degree of criticism than ordinary citizens.

‘The test of a nation’s commitment to freedom of expression comes when its government has to decide if it should use an obscure law, which protects only one class of people (in this instance foreign heads of state), to prosecute the author of what is clearly a satirical poem. Germany has decided to do so because a foreign government – Turkey, which is hardly a beacon of freedom of expression, which has an appalling record in protecting free speech, and has prosecuted writers and journalists over the years – wants Germany to act the way Turkey itself would in similar circumstances,’ said Salil Tripathi, Chair of PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee.

‘The question is not whether Jan Böhmermann is a good poet, whether his work has aesthetic value or whether it was deeply offensive – that remains a matter of individual taste. The question is whether Germany – which has pledged to repeal the law by 2018 – should use the law as if it had no other choice. Robust democracies thrive on sharp debate and biting satire, even if it is in poor taste. Germany must act consistent with its own, European, and international standards of free speech and drop all charges against Böhmermann immediately.’

PEN International opposes the criminalisation of defamation in all cases, calling for defamation and insult to become civil offences. PEN also calls on the German authorities not to bring any charges against Böhmermann and to implement the decision to overturn the law criminalising the insult of foreign leaders as soon as possible.

Salil Tripathi, Chair of PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee told Sabrangindia, “‘The test of a nation’s commitment to freedom of expression comes when its government has to decide if it should use an obscure law, which protects only one class of people (in this instance foreign heads of state), to prosecute the author of what is clearly a satirical poem. Germany has decided to do so because a foreign government – Turkey, which is hardly a beacon of freedom of expression, which has an appalling record in protecting free speech, and has prosecuted writers and journalists over the years – wants Germany to act the way Turkey itself would in similar circumstances.’

‘The question is not whether Jan Böhmermann is a good poet, whether his work has aesthetic value or whether it was deeply offensive – that remains a matter of individual taste. The question is whether Germany – which has pledged to repeal the law by 2018 – should use the law as if it had no other choice. Robust democracies thrive on sharp debate and biting satire, even if it is in poor taste. Germany must act consistent with its own, European, and international standards of free speech and drop all charges against Böhmermann immediately".
 
Meanwhile, in a lighter vein, a satirist blog based in the United Kingdom commented that the “World stunned by revelation that Germany has a comedian!

The decision is also being criticized on account of the recently agreed refugee deal between Turkey and the EU has made the chancellor reliant on the whims of Turkey’s strongman leader. Merkel was one of the main drivers of the agreement, under which migrants arriving in Greece are now expected to be sent back to Turkey if they do not apply for asylum or their claim is rejected.

“Merkel is kowtowing to Turkey’s despot Erdoğan and sacrifices freedom of the German press,” said Sahra Wagenknecht, a senior politician for the German Left party said in a statement to the media.

The chairman of the Turkish Community in Germany, Gökay Sofuoglu, also criticised the German government’s decision, saying: “I would have wished the chancellor had not allowed the trial to go ahead.” Erdoğan had also filed a personal lawsuit against Böhmermann, and Sofuoglu said Merkel should have waited for the outcome of that trial first.

A demonstration in front of the Turkish embassy in Berlin, scheduled for Friday afternoon, has been banned by Berlin police. Activists had announced that they were planning to read out Böhmermann’s poem in front of the embassy.

Böhmermann himself has not commented on the affair since the programme was aired last Thursday. Cologne authorities have confirmed that the comedian and his family are under police protection.

Sabrangindia has been tracking the developments in Turkey that have seriously endangered personal freedoms.

References
1. ‘Statement of Concern by Professors of Turkish Studies and Ottoman History Regarding Diminishing Academic Freedoms in Turkey’

2. Turkey: Crushing the dissenting voice

3. Turkey: Mind numbing violence in a country where even “insulting President” is a crime

The post Germany Bows to Turkish Pressure: Allows Prosecution of Comedian who Mocked Erdogan appeared first on SabrangIndia.