[ad_1]
Berlin Interior Senator Andreas Geisel finds himself in a paradoxical situation after this weekend. On the one hand, everything I predicted a few days ago has happened. On the other hand, it is counted no later than three in the morning on Saturday. Around this time, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin announced its decision that the largest of the anti-corona demonstrations on record could also take place this weekend.
It was the second legal defeat for the SPD interior senator after Berlin assembly authorities banned the large anti-crown demonstration of “lateral thinking 711” last Wednesday. “Unfortunately, yesterday exactly what the security authorities feared happened yesterday,” Geisel said Sunday. “Now I also hear voices saying that this should have been banned.”
The authority of the assembly had justified its prohibition mainly on the experience of an earlier demonstration of “lateral thinking 711”. By August 1, around 20,000 opponents of the Crown restrictions had already passed through Berlin. Refusing to wear mouth and nose protection is part of their program. A detailed explanation can be found on the movement’s website to explain why wearing masks is a mistake. Furthermore, the safety distances were not observed on 1 August, although the organizers had promised in talks with the police that they would deal with it. This is also documented in many photos from the demo.
Two basic rights were weighed against each other
The basis of the assembly authority’s decision was mainly the weighing of two competing fundamental rights, in this case due to the corona pandemic: physical integrity stipulated in article 2 and freedom of assembly stipulated in article 8 . “Holding their meeting would significantly harm the freedom of third parties,” argued the authority of “Lateral Thinking 711” https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/ Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law intervened unacceptably in view of the high status of the violated legal interest. “
The multitude of paragraphs, rules and regulations may give a different impression, but Jura is not always a synchronized mechanism. How legal regulations are applied is also a matter of interpretation. In any case, the administrative courts in Berlin came to a fundamentally different assessment of the authority of the assembly. “The First Chamber denied the existence of an imminent danger to public safety that is going to be required under the Assembly Law for the prohibition of assemblies,” the administrative court said. “The risk forecast made by the assembly authority does not meet the constitutional requirements.” According to the judges, masks are not mandatory, but only as long as the safety distance is maintained.
Interior Senator Geisel had spoken of a second chance for the protesters around “lateral thinking” after the court decision. Most of the protesters bet them, many even deliberately.
