No. I'm just saying that just throwing that as a gotcha moment isn't worth anything nowadays. You can't spin an entire conversation around the fact X entity is committing/aiding war crimes. At that point you'd have more reasons to hate your own country than the Houthis most likely. It's just a way to deflect from the conversation: "oh look that guy is justifying use of child soldiers", says the guy sitting in a home probably 90% filled with products built by child workers from China, while wearing clothes made in Uyghur concentration camps. It's completely besides the mark
If they do have the proof, which they now under obligation to provide of course, it is not politics and Islamophobia,
Where did you read that they are under obligation to provide anything? They aren't lol. And won't. If they wanted to, they could've provided it a long time ago.
Many things are war crimes, I don't see anyone getting worked up over it. International law is "only for africans" as one official has put it to the ICC.
I think we've seen ministries mishandle investigations at the pressure of politically appointed ministers like Stark Watzinger with her Fördergeld Affäre trying to cut funding to researchers that don't fit in her political agenda, or the case with Berlin's Culture Minister/Senator that ended up cutting funding to a cultural center that then sued his office and won (https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2024/07/berlin-joe-chialo-foerderstopp-oyoun-vorwurf-antisemitismus.html). I don't think such cases should be admissible under a democracy, even a flawed one as ours. I don't care if 4 out of 5 such orders are well intended, if 1 out of 5 exist because of political pressure. These institutions then have to fight their way through courts (while also being financially able to do so), while the state doesn't have to use the courts at all. That can take ages. If the government wants to ban an organization, it should use the court system, and everything should be on the table. Closing down entire cultural institutions isn't something as simple as "closing down some restaurant". If Hamburg had this cultural center in view for so long, even years, why hasn't it used the courts to close it down? It takes the same amount of time to take them to court after all.
This is what to me is concerning about Germany and especially German democracy.
they’ve had a very keen eye on all kinds of Islamists ever since 9/11 (remember where Muhammed Atta studied?)
And no, I won't trade democracy for this supposed sense of "security" where governmental offices get to skip a ton of steps and political influence can poison the decision making.
I might be mistaken but I don’t think they’re even confidential, they’re just not automatically published.
Why is that? Why not publish your findings? And are you so sure about the fact that you can request them through a freedom of information act? I wouldn't be
Before going into this, don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not supporting religious indoctrination of any sorts and think that any institution doing that should be closed down, BUT, there's some nuance to this case.
It's a bit sad (but completely unsurprising) that DW has left out the nuance in this situation here. I think it's extremely worrying that the politically appointed ministers in Germany can issue such orders. Yes, she's saying that there was an investigation into it, but it wasn't published anywhere. No one can take a look at those files. Most importantly, there was no court order in this decision. And this is where my worries begin. Sure, the mosque can decide to challenge this decision in court (and if there is proper evidence the order will stand) but it's a bit worrying that politically appointed ministers can just sign orders and decisions as this one without a proper court case to go with it.
Maybe two, three years ago I wouldn't have said much about this, or I would've even supported the state, but seeing the German state over the last year go crazy with such orders, many of which ended up being overturned in court, makes me wonder why these decisions don't go through courts in the first place. Why do ministers get free reign like little dictators to sign away orders as they please?
Yeah. First and foremost, I won't shed a tear over a genocidal maniac, nor over a nazi, nor over any other kind of horrible person. I think that's fairly normal human behaviour. Secondly, the article says he was in the IDF, which I clearly commented on (I didn't comment on his nationality). I can still condemn the attack as baseless. You're welcome.
Why I'm curious? Because he was in the IDF, and I have a very bad opinion of people that are part of the occupation forces. I don't have any sympathy for him, even if I don't agree with the attack in itself. I won't lose any sleep over a genocidal soldier getting his ass kicked.
Not that this attack was justified, it definitely wasn't, but I'm honestly curious what his opinion is on Gaza since he was clearly in the IDF as the article says.
That Israel is a shitty apartheid state anchored in a history of systemic ethnic cleansing. Dismantle it already and give everyone from the river to the sea the same rights. We're all humans at the end of the day.
Funny how quickly liberals will jump into the right's arms just so they won't need to hurt the interests of their rich owners by entering a coalition with the left.
I'm part jewish myself. Israel doesn't represent me and never has, nor has it represented my ancestors. I see a clear difference between Judaism and Israel.
Then what's even the point in mentioning it. There is no obligation. The only obligation that counts is the legal one