Sit-down

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles sit-in and sit-in blockade thematically overlap. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. DF5GO 21:52, Jul 22, 2011 (CEST) and Laber □ Disk 00:05, Jul 19, 2016 (CEST)


Sit-in blockade in Leipzig to prevent neo-Nazis from marching (October 2004)
Sit-in during a demonstration in France
Austrian soldiers practicing grips to break down sit-ins

A sit-in is a form of political protest . Those involved sit down on the ground and thus prevent regular operation, for example on a street or in front of an entrance . Often this happens in places that are symbolic of the political goals being contested, for example in front of nuclear power plants . Either those involved end the sit-in protest themselves after a certain period of time, or it is ended by the police using direct force , for example being carried away or using aids such as baton or water cannon . Sit-in blocks are considered a form of civil disobedience or civil resistance. The legal evaluation of sit-ins is not clear in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that sit-in blockades can, under certain circumstances, be meetings according to Article 8 of the Basic Law . Only if this is not the case can there be a criminally relevant coercion .

Legal evaluation

Under criminal law , a sit-in was previously regarded as coercion under Section 240 of the German Criminal Code , since, according to the case law, psychological violence, if the person concerned perceived it as physical, also fell under the concept of violence. This was u. a. This is based on the fact that the driver of the blocked vehicle can in principle continue to drive despite the blockade, but as a rule he does not want to take responsibility for injuring or even killing the blockers sitting in front of him. From the point of view of the time, the blockers did not represent a physical, but a psychological obstacle for the driver of the vehicle. As a result, seat blockers made themselves a criminal offense simply by being coerced.

This interpretation of the element of violence was prohibited by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1995. In the opinion of the court, the extension of the concept of violence to include psychological violence violates the prohibition of analogy under Article 103 (2) of the Basic Law. By expanding the concept of violence to include psychological "violence", the criminal courts would have exceeded the wording limit for coercion and thus made a constitutionally prohibited analogy.

As a result of the ruling, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and the lower criminal courts moved away from the earlier broad concept of violence, so that the purely psychological effects of a sit-down were no longer regarded as a factual violence. In the opinion of the BGH, however, seat blockers exercised criminal violence against the people in the vehicles in the second and subsequent rows by using the vehicles in the first row as a physical blockade against the vehicles behind. According to the BVerfG, this so-called "second-tier case law" of the BGH does not violate the prohibition of analogy under criminal law.

A sit-down, combined with chaining, hooking or active resistance to being carried away, is also generally viewed by the Federal Constitutional Court as coercion under Section 240 of the Criminal Code, especially if the element of violence contained therein can be applied to blockade actions "in which the participants over the psychological impact caused by their physical presence build a physical barrier “, if the blockage is actually insurmountable.

The question of the extent to which participants in a sit-in with the aim of preventing another, non-forbidden gathering, make themselves punishable according to § 21 VersG is highly controversial . On November 19, 2011, the Dresden public prosecutor initiated 351 investigations on suspicion of "demolition" ( Section 21 VersG) after a street crossing was blocked, which was part of the planned parade route for a demonstration by neo-Nazis that had failed due to mass protests . The Dresden District Court gave some convictions and some acquittals. One of the defendants saw this violated the blockers' freedom of assembly.

Examples

In 1982 the week-long sit-down at the nuclear weapons camp near Großengstingen on the Swabian Alb caused a sensation. At that time, the Lance short-range nuclear missiles were stationed in the Eberhard Finckh barracks . The associated nuclear warheads, each provided with twice the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb , were stored in the " special Gulf ammunition dump", which was located in a nearby forest. Around 750 people took part in the nonviolent blockade from August 1 to 8, 1982.

In 1983, recurring sit- ins made headlines in Mutlangen . In the Swabian town, numerous people protested against the stationing of the first Pershing II missiles on the Mutlanger Heide as a result of the NATO double resolution , including many celebrities such as Heinrich Böll , Günter Grass and Dieter Hildebrandt .

In the early 21st century, for example, there were sit-ins by the anti-nuclear movement against the transport of nuclear waste in the CASTOR bins or, based on critics of globalization, against the G8 summit in Heiligendamm .

See also

Web links

Commons : Sit Blockade  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Theodor Ebert : Nonviolent uprising. Alternative to civil war. Fischer-Bücherei, Frankfurt / Hamburg 1970, p. 37.
  2. ↑ a b BVerfG, decision of March 7, 2011, Az. 1 BvR 388/05, full text .
  3. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court: "Sit blockade not always coercion" . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . March 30, 2011
  4. ↑ BVerfG, decision of January 10, 1995, Az. 1 BvR 718/89, 1 BvR 719/89, 1 BvR 722/89, 1 BvR 723/89, BVerfGE 92, 1 - Sit-ins II
  5. ↑ Compare: Joachim Linck: Protest actions against Castor transports and the applicable law. Journal for Legal Policy, Issue 02/2011, p. 44.
  6. ↑ BVerfG, decision of October 24, 2001, Az. 1 BvR 1190/90, 2173/93, 433/96, BVerfGE 104, 92 - Sit Blockades III, previously BVerfGE 92, 1 - Sit Blockades II and BVerfGE 73, 206 - Sit Blockades I.
  7. ^ Johannes Lichdi: Results and status of the so-called “blockade processes” due to squatting in the course of the anti-Nazi protest on February 19th, 2011 in Dresden .
  8. ^ WG Peace Research: Court condemns Nazi blockers
  9. ^ AG Dresden, judgment of May 2, 2013.
  10. ↑ Johannes Lichdi: Statement by the defendant Johannes Lichdi in the main hearing on March 31, 2014 .