deviances Blog Archive barwoman bureaucratized freedom of assembly
the question how the police must allow themselves to appear intimidating in the peaceful perception of the freedom of assembly or restrictive intervention, it remains in dispute barwoman properly.
after my open letter dated 6 june 2013 at the Hanover Police Directorate I have a few days ago another opinion piece written authority of get back, to which I replied because of the basic positioning today.
My point I am trying the following as concise as possible for me to explain: I understand that you think that my display assembly for vigil on 31.5.2013 met "No drones of war, monitoring and suppression" is not your right understanding of a Eilversammlung has. At the same time, however, I maintain that they are not actually in a position to make a final judgment on this, or you will not all the circumstances of the conclusion of this demonstration are known long ago. An unresolved question is to what extent your (system based on the Lower Saxony Assembly Act?) Understanding of the concepts of "Eilversammlung" with mine, coincides with that of the Brokdorf Decision and with the Article 8 of the Basic Law or not. The previous letter from your agency may have been meant as a threat or not a threat. The fact is that it has the potential of an intimidating effect barwoman on me, what should be the subject of consideration alone when it comes to questions anchored the assessment and implementation of the freedom of assembly as in Article barwoman 8 of the Basic Law. The laws I have cited comments to NVersG you do not go. This is emphasized Opportunitiätsprinzip is ignored by you. A peaceful assembly must also always allowed and free of penalties or fines (or the threat thereof!) Be carried out if it is not displayed without "evil" intent in the law for the time allowed. This is my opinion of course, even if the question of a "threat to the meeting purpose" does not arise only.
The interpretation put forward by you the freedom and its practical significance and appreciation I do not really. To my offer of dialogue I stand still as well as written to everything else in my letter of 06.06.2013.
I do not mean with the intention barwoman of bringing about a situation like that discussed here once again to quarrel with you. At the same time I insist on my right to freedom of assembly, as set forth by me in my previous letter in detail and how I see it established in Article 8 of the Basic Law and in Brokdorf decision and I am ready to leave also to clarify the issues at stake in court if necessary.
This entry was posted on Monday, 1 Created in July 2013 at 12:20 clock and is in the category of Hanover, Lower Saxony, to find freedom of assembly. barwoman You can follow any responses through the RSS 2.0 feed to this entry. comments and pings are currently closed.
deviances based on WordPress. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
the question how the police must allow themselves to appear intimidating in the peaceful perception of the freedom of assembly or restrictive intervention, it remains in dispute barwoman properly.
after my open letter dated 6 june 2013 at the Hanover Police Directorate I have a few days ago another opinion piece written authority of get back, to which I replied because of the basic positioning today.
My point I am trying the following as concise as possible for me to explain: I understand that you think that my display assembly for vigil on 31.5.2013 met "No drones of war, monitoring and suppression" is not your right understanding of a Eilversammlung has. At the same time, however, I maintain that they are not actually in a position to make a final judgment on this, or you will not all the circumstances of the conclusion of this demonstration are known long ago. An unresolved question is to what extent your (system based on the Lower Saxony Assembly Act?) Understanding of the concepts of "Eilversammlung" with mine, coincides with that of the Brokdorf Decision and with the Article 8 of the Basic Law or not. The previous letter from your agency may have been meant as a threat or not a threat. The fact is that it has the potential of an intimidating effect barwoman on me, what should be the subject of consideration alone when it comes to questions anchored the assessment and implementation of the freedom of assembly as in Article barwoman 8 of the Basic Law. The laws I have cited comments to NVersG you do not go. This is emphasized Opportunitiätsprinzip is ignored by you. A peaceful assembly must also always allowed and free of penalties or fines (or the threat thereof!) Be carried out if it is not displayed without "evil" intent in the law for the time allowed. This is my opinion of course, even if the question of a "threat to the meeting purpose" does not arise only.
The interpretation put forward by you the freedom and its practical significance and appreciation I do not really. To my offer of dialogue I stand still as well as written to everything else in my letter of 06.06.2013.
I do not mean with the intention barwoman of bringing about a situation like that discussed here once again to quarrel with you. At the same time I insist on my right to freedom of assembly, as set forth by me in my previous letter in detail and how I see it established in Article 8 of the Basic Law and in Brokdorf decision and I am ready to leave also to clarify the issues at stake in court if necessary.
This entry was posted on Monday, 1 Created in July 2013 at 12:20 clock and is in the category of Hanover, Lower Saxony, to find freedom of assembly. barwoman You can follow any responses through the RSS 2.0 feed to this entry. comments and pings are currently closed.
deviances based on WordPress. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
No comments:
Post a Comment