Security state Germany | Counterterrorism with side effects

Mourners at a vigil for the victims of the attack on Berlin's Christopher Street Day in the Tiergarten. A man drove a vehicle into a crowd of people. Photo: dpa/Christoph Soeder Unfortunately, it can be assumed that the Islamist attack on Berlin's Christopher Street Day was not the last. That is why Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) and Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) have launched a package of measures. It is probably no coincidence that they are going public with this a few days before the elections in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Berlin. The black-red federal government wants to send a signal - because security policy is one of the areas in which the AfD picks up dissatisfied people.

The package of measures is a potpourri of surveillance, prevention, restrictions on freedom of movement and increased punishment, which is not always convincing. If, for example, it took another heinous attack for the authorities to work better together to avert the attack, then the announcement would be tantamount to an admission of guilt. After all, the threat of Islamist terrorism has existed for decades. Increased punishments, on the other hand, often seem populist and somewhat helpless after an attack. They announce a tough crackdown, but it is clear that this will have no effect. The prospect of going to prison for a long time after a terrorist attack has never deterred any radicalized person who is ready for anything from their plan. It was just a side note from the Interior Minister when presenting the 10-point plan, but it suggests far-reaching consequences: The announced tightening of punishments for knife offenses does not only apply to Islamists, said Dobrindt. Laws are never made just for certain people, but apply to everyone. That's why it's important to look closely if so-called propaganda crimes are to be punished more harshly. Who determines the definition for this, and does this possibly also restrict freedom of expression? The situation is similar with so-called dangers who are to be monitored with ankle bracelets in the future. The classification of who is considered such is still based on the police's mere assumption that a person could commit crimes in the future.The legislature is thus walking a tightrope: Nobody wants Islamists to cause a bloodbath, but averting danger must not lead to a weakening of the rule of law. But the fear remains. Because everything that is aimed at Islamists today in terms of averting danger could also be used tomorrow against climate activists, whom the Federal Minister of the Interior also has in his sights and describes as “terrorists”. However, these are not Islamists who are prepared to commit murder and manslaughter, but rather people who are worried about the future because an excessive economic system threatens to destroy it.

The »nd.Genossenschaft« belongs to its readers and authors. They are the ones who make our journalism accessible to everyone through their contribution: We are not backed by a media company, not a large advertising customer or even a billionaire.

With your support we can continue to:

→ report independently and critically → address overlooked topics → give space to marginalized voices → counter misinformation → advance left-wing debates

With “Pay voluntarily” you can take part. You help ensure that this newspaper has a future. So that nd remains.