BECKlog

A serious question, their answer with the 1200-page Treaty of Lisbon is not easy. Anyone who has ever read it from beginning to end? And above all: Do it our elected representatives actually read? I decide, in accordance with the relevant EU texts to search.

Reminder: Our constitution says in its Article 102: The death penalty is abolished.

Then we could leave been so pretty. For example, we could have been demonstrations sure that would even if masked "anarchists" against the will of the majority of the demonstrators started throwing stones at the police not to shoot suddenly sharp. As it stands now, we have to consider in the future, heartily, to which we want to demo in doubt, go. Because: A few violent "Autonomous" can quickly pop out of nowhere. But first things first:

First there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights (version dated 14/12/2007) that the EU had already proclaimed in Nice in 2000. She has had no validity, since the EU Treaty was not accepted by all EU members. The (penultimate) obstacle now seems to be out of the way with the Irish "yes" on the second attempt.

The said Charter says in its article 2. Paragraphs 1 and 2:
First Everyone has the right to life.
Second No person shall be sentenced to death or executed.

So far, everything seems in butter. The Charter establishes, in article 52 paragraph 7 determined that a "manual", namely the so-called "explanations" of the Charter are binding on all EU countries:

Article 52 Section 7: The explanations drawn up as a guide for the interpretation of this Charter shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union and the Member States.

And what to say now the most important explanations for all fundamental rights, namely the right to life?

Explanation on Article 2 - Right to Life

First Paragraph of this article is based on Article 2, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which reads as follows:
"1 Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. "

2nd movement 2 of that provision, which had the death penalty to the object, the entry into force of Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR, Article 1 of which reads as follows: "The death penalty is abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed. "
In that provision, Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Charter is based.

Third The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter in accordance with the provisions of said article of the ECHR and its Protocol. You have referred to in Article 52, paragraph 3 of the Charter, the meaning and scope. Must the information contained in the ECHR 'negative' definitions are also seen as part of the Charter.

Up to this point so the Charter of Fundamental Rights has said two important things: That they, the European Convention on Human Rights considers to be binding, and in particular their 'negative' definitions of article 2 of the Charter (right to life, death penalty) as binding is considered:

How then are the 'negative' definitions?

a) a) Article 2, paragraph 2 of the ECHR:
"A killing is not considered a violation of this article when it is caused by a force which is essential to
a) in defense of any person from unlawful violence;
b) a lawful arrest or someone of liberty is lawfully detained to prevent them from escaping;
c) a riot or insurrection lawful strike down. "

b) b) Article 2 of Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR:
"A State may provide for a right to the death penalty for acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war,. Such penalty shall be in the cases provided for in the law and be applied in accordance with its provisions"

My objections to this "negative" definitions are as follows:

Someone must be "defended" against unlawful violence. Who could relate to that? For example, police officers or security personnel at rallies and demonstrations that feel attacked? How is such an "unlawful violence" defined? Ranges already a push, a shove, a kick, a poking or accidental, reflexive shock in the crowd, when a protester as a baton or a corner of a shield in the soft tissue feel like?
The provision provides no definition can be so broad interpretation.
Of course, feel politician is always attacked, which is widely regarded as a "chic". At the G8 summit in Heiligendamm in 2007, for example, that was the case. The present politicians felt all tanks were attacked and tornadoes and their "defense" ready.
In addition: In the age of the "war on terror" must naturally always be politicians "defended" against anything and everything. Again, the bidder is room for interpretation (to be defended when needed?) Frightening. This may possibly be intended. For what citizens can still be carried away to a rally will be on the shooting starts?

Then open the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the occasion of ways to kill arrests. Be honest: Who would be if he is sitting at a demonstration or other manifestation tackled and dragged away rudely, not reflexively defend any - depending on how much pain is inflicted on him when arrested? Also in: I could not even guarantee to such a degree of self-control. If someone was beating me with sensitive body parts, my reflexes were faster than my good intentions to "vulnerability". Therefore, I would have to consistently stay away from all future demos, so forgo a civil right.
Also called "flight instinct" during an arrest can be fatal to any in the future and become a perfectly legal execution in the context of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

And then the issue of "riot and insurrection." Here, too, lacks any definition. And that seems to be the whole point. Even the most legitimate, pending demo can be placed according to experience fast through some "anarchists" to escalate. What does one do in such a case as a good European citizen?
Answer: It is best not to risk and consistently remained at home. All public meetings, rallies and demonstrations to avoid.

And then in the EU is also the death penalty to "talk", "committed in time of war and imminent threat of war." The

In exactly such times we live: We live in times of war: Germany is at war against Afghanistan.
There is immediate danger: the danger of a war against Iran.

Conclusion: We are the new threats are not even aware of where we all float. Because the mainstream media deliberately keep this topic from the headlines. The theme officially does not exist.

Even woke up a large part of the population: If that's not already too late? I remember an amusing caricature of a cartoonist named Gayman, I believe;

She was a chicken on a chopping block stretched over him a hatchet, plus a thought bubble of the chicken: "Whether this is gonna work?"

Good question!

Tags: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights , Europaeische Convention on Human Rights , Death Penalty , reintroduction of the death penalty in the EU

This article was posted on Sunday, 25 Created in October 2009 at 22:22 and is filed under Basic Legal filed. Responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed to be pursued. It is possible to to this Article reply or a trackback to send from your own site.

Error? Please tell us korrektor@zeitgeist-online.de