taz lawyer on Red Aid: Some criticism of Red Aid smells of Putin's Russia

Rote Hilfe organizes over 14,000 people: It provides legal assistance through public relations work and financial support for the defense of those politically persecuted, anti-fascists, demonstrators, but also members of “criminal” (climate glue) or “terrorist” (ex-RAF) organizations. It also supports those affected through donations.

Anyone who supports those affected by criminal prosecution is not acting contrary to the constitution: the constitution requires an effective defense. If an association sets these tasks as its goal, there is nothing wrong with that or with membership. The attempts to declare criminal defense lawyers to be accomplices of their clients' beliefs is incompatible with the right to effective defense derived from the principle of the rule of law.

A Berlin criminal lawyer who was recently elected to the BVV Neukölln is publicly accused of complicity with “clan criminals” because he defended members of this “phenomenon”.

The older ones among us still remember how the public treated defenders of the first generation of the RAF. Christian Ströbele was excluded from the RAF trial in Stammheim because he maintained communication between those imprisoned in torture-like solitary confinement (“information system”). A long trial ended with a small fine and a distinguished political career.

The passage of time drove the RAF defender Otto Schily to the Federal Ministry of the Interior. A defense attorney for the “June 2” defendant (Peter Lorenz, see below) made it to the office of Senator for Justice in Berlin.

The scandalous distrust of Red Aid goes far beyond the distrust of criminal defense lawyers. Red Aid is accused of having “a hinge function” because it is accepted by left-wing extremists and left-wing alternatives (which actually speaks in its favor). They massively cultivate the enemy image of the “state” and aim to denigrate the state and its institutions as a “repressive apparatus”. But what else are imprisonments and convictions but repression?

Constitutional protection offices monitor the association and name it in relevant reports. But not every assessment by an Office for the Protection of the Constitution survives the changing historical assessment. Criticism of state measures is not unconstitutional just because it “delegitimizes” its actions. This argument smacks of Putin's Russia.

There are always campaigns against members. Most recently, two judges of the Bremen State Court (on the Left Party's ticket) resigned in February 2026 after the CDU and FDP scandalized their membership in the Red Aid. In 2007, prominent members of the Bundestag parliamentary group of the Left publicly joined the association. A Juso chairwoman, a lawyer, left the club in the same year after being scolded for it. In 2018, a prominent member of the Bundestag from the Green Party, now parliamentary managing director, took a stand against threats of a ban from a CSU Federal Minister of the Interior.

There is also criticism: Rote Hilfe expects those it supports not to cooperate with government agencies. They should not make any statements, otherwise their support will be withdrawn. The “nemo-tenetur-se-ipso-accusare” principle, the fundamental judicial right that no one has to testify and this silence may not be used against them, protects the freedom of the accused to testify, not other suspected people.

A rule of silence replaces the defendant's free decision with a decision forced by the supporter. This is not unproblematic. It corresponds to the behavior of the Omertà, or the wrestling clubs of the Weimar Republic.

One should remember Fritz Teufel's “B-Libi” in the trial for the kidnapping of the CDU politician Peter Lorenz in 1980. On the basis of fake “evidence”, he was accused by the public prosecutor of having “stolen” the CDU politician Peter Lorenz in Berlin-Zehlendorf and taken him to a people's prison. On the 178th day of the trial, he broke his silence and proved that he was doing assembly line work in the Ruhr area on the day of the crime. This refuted the “evidence” of the accusers and embarrassed the judiciary.

In fact, this criticism of Red Aid is unrealistic: silence is the appropriate defense strategy in 99 percent of relevant cases. And Rote Hilfe itself always speaks of a rule in its FAQ, to which there may be exceptions in individual cases.

At the beginning of the year, the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court found - in connection with an account deletion due to alleged support for Antifa Ost - that there was no "factual basis" for the claim that the association was a supporter of the group. According to the association's statutes, the call for donations referred to the legal defense of defendants and protection from extradition, not to supporting the group itself.

That is exactly the motive of many members of the Red Aid: to enable an effective defense and to create publicity against injustice organized by the judiciary. Not only is this not unconstitutional, but it is also no reason not to elect such a member to high state office. Unfortunately, it is not the case that the judiciary has always proven itself in accordance with the rule of law when prosecuting political crimes.