| | Introductie | Nieuws | Contact | Steun & Adressen | Teksten | Achtergrond | Dossiers | |
Censorship in the criminal justice system?
by Thomas-Meyer Falk
Article 5 paragraph one of the German "Grundgesetz" (which takes the
place of a constitution) states that everybody has the right to give
and spread his opinion freely by means of spoken language, documents
and pictures. A censorship, so the article continues, "does not take
place".
The "Strafvollzugsgesetz" (criminal justice executive law), however, contains a number of restrictions to this basic right. According to §31 part 1 StrVollzG the leader of the institution (by the way, female leaders are apparently not thought of; the word is used in the male form only) may confiscate documents sent to or written by the prisoners, if: - the goal of the imprisonment or the safety or order of the institution are endangered, - the passing on of the document, knowing its content, is a (criminal) offence, - the document contains relevantly wrong or distorted presentations of the conditions within the institution, - the document contains drastic offences, - it can endanger the integration of another prisoner - it is written in a secret code, it is unreadable, not understandable or written in foreign language for no apparent reason.
Drawing from my own experiences I could name dozens of censorship actions, for the various institutions in which I have been imprisoned since 1996 have made regular use of their right to confiscate letters.
In order to confiscate them they have to read the letters in the first place, of course.
In this way another basic right, the one laid down in article 10 paragraph 1 of the German Grundgesetz, which guarantees the secret state of letters, postal sendings and telecommunications, also ends up on the rubbish heap. Almost no basic right is guaranteed without restrictions. (The most infamous example is probably article 16a GG, paragraph one: "Politically persecuted people have the right of asylum." These few words are mutilated to irrelevance in the following four (!) paragraphs.)
Prisoners have, according to §§ 109 ff StrVollzG, the right to have censorship actions carried out by their institutions checked by law courts. The higher federal court of Karlsruhe ("Oberlandesgericht") criticized censorship by the JVA Bruchsal in several law courts in the year 2001 which I had initiated:
Az. 1Ws19/01-25.06.01
- The reproach against the justice system that its attitude was "militantly anti-communist", and the fact that the article was to be spread via e-mail, related neither to the safety nor the order of the JVA. - Furthermore, the signing of the appeal with the words "revolutionary war prisoner" was not dangerous.
Az. 1Ws87/01-25.09.01
- A letter to the editor of "Die Polizei" ("The Police", newspaper of the police trade union) dated June 2000 should not have been confiscated. The reason given by the JVA was not valid: I had provocatively asked why German police officers demonstrated massively for colleagues killed on duty, but not with the same commitment for victims of police violence. The court accused the JVA of not having respected Art 5 GG. - The confiscation of a letter to the constitutional police (? "Verfassungsschutz") was unjustified. I had described a case of a suspected right wing activist. An officer suddenly was bald and positively answered the question whether he saw himself as a skinhead. (I don't know if it's because of the case court about the confiscation of this letter - anyway, today this officer is not bald any more, and he even has a beard on his upper lip! This, however, does not allow any conclusions at his attitudes. Sitting in my isolation cell, I heard rumours he was accused of bodily injury to the disadvantage of an inmate.)
On May 21st, 2002, the JVA Bruchsal confiscated an article I had written which dealt with the assassination of the politician Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. The reason given was that by the sending my "re-socialisation" was endangered, and that I would justify the shooting of political opponents. Now the federal court of Karlsruhe, through my initiative, will have to decide whether the confiscation was justified. It is worth noting that on May 23rd, 2002, US president Bush, standing in the "Bundestag" (German parliament) received ovations by many political leaders for his "War and evil"-speech. We all know the unconditioned solidarity of the German government with the US crusades against other states.
I. e. the German government legitimates attacks against other states - always, of course, in the name of "human rights" - and also the killing of people for the enforcement of US wishes.
This allows the conclusion that the advocation of such killings carried out by states is legitimate and does not endanger any "re-socialisation". If, however, the ruling class is supposed to be the aim of comparable actions, then this means the endangerment of "re-socialisation" - at least according to the way of thinking of the JVA representative. It will be interesting in which way the court will decide.
The "Strafvollzugsgesetz" (criminal justice executive law), however, contains a number of restrictions to this basic right. According to §31 part 1 StrVollzG the leader of the institution (by the way, female leaders are apparently not thought of; the word is used in the male form only) may confiscate documents sent to or written by the prisoners, if: - the goal of the imprisonment or the safety or order of the institution are endangered, - the passing on of the document, knowing its content, is a (criminal) offence, - the document contains relevantly wrong or distorted presentations of the conditions within the institution, - the document contains drastic offences, - it can endanger the integration of another prisoner - it is written in a secret code, it is unreadable, not understandable or written in foreign language for no apparent reason.
Drawing from my own experiences I could name dozens of censorship actions, for the various institutions in which I have been imprisoned since 1996 have made regular use of their right to confiscate letters.
In order to confiscate them they have to read the letters in the first place, of course.
In this way another basic right, the one laid down in article 10 paragraph 1 of the German Grundgesetz, which guarantees the secret state of letters, postal sendings and telecommunications, also ends up on the rubbish heap. Almost no basic right is guaranteed without restrictions. (The most infamous example is probably article 16a GG, paragraph one: "Politically persecuted people have the right of asylum." These few words are mutilated to irrelevance in the following four (!) paragraphs.)
Prisoners have, according to §§ 109 ff StrVollzG, the right to have censorship actions carried out by their institutions checked by law courts. The higher federal court of Karlsruhe ("Oberlandesgericht") criticized censorship by the JVA Bruchsal in several law courts in the year 2001 which I had initiated:
Az. 1Ws19/01-25.06.01
- The reproach against the justice system that its attitude was "militantly anti-communist", and the fact that the article was to be spread via e-mail, related neither to the safety nor the order of the JVA. - Furthermore, the signing of the appeal with the words "revolutionary war prisoner" was not dangerous.
Az. 1Ws87/01-25.09.01
- A letter to the editor of "Die Polizei" ("The Police", newspaper of the police trade union) dated June 2000 should not have been confiscated. The reason given by the JVA was not valid: I had provocatively asked why German police officers demonstrated massively for colleagues killed on duty, but not with the same commitment for victims of police violence. The court accused the JVA of not having respected Art 5 GG. - The confiscation of a letter to the constitutional police (? "Verfassungsschutz") was unjustified. I had described a case of a suspected right wing activist. An officer suddenly was bald and positively answered the question whether he saw himself as a skinhead. (I don't know if it's because of the case court about the confiscation of this letter - anyway, today this officer is not bald any more, and he even has a beard on his upper lip! This, however, does not allow any conclusions at his attitudes. Sitting in my isolation cell, I heard rumours he was accused of bodily injury to the disadvantage of an inmate.)
On May 21st, 2002, the JVA Bruchsal confiscated an article I had written which dealt with the assassination of the politician Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. The reason given was that by the sending my "re-socialisation" was endangered, and that I would justify the shooting of political opponents. Now the federal court of Karlsruhe, through my initiative, will have to decide whether the confiscation was justified. It is worth noting that on May 23rd, 2002, US president Bush, standing in the "Bundestag" (German parliament) received ovations by many political leaders for his "War and evil"-speech. We all know the unconditioned solidarity of the German government with the US crusades against other states.
I. e. the German government legitimates attacks against other states - always, of course, in the name of "human rights" - and also the killing of people for the enforcement of US wishes.
This allows the conclusion that the advocation of such killings carried out by states is legitimate and does not endanger any "re-socialisation". If, however, the ruling class is supposed to be the aim of comparable actions, then this means the endangerment of "re-socialisation" - at least according to the way of thinking of the JVA representative. It will be interesting in which way the court will decide.