Bavarian Youth Concerned about new Police Law
Young people in Bavaria are unhappy with the new police law that was passed on the 15th of May. The new Policing Regulations Act (Polizeiaufgabengesetz) was officially proposed in April, with reforms from the original proposal last year.
The new law entails a definition shift from “concrete danger” to “impending danger” — allowing Bavarian police more preemptive power. This includes the ability to open private letters, intercept phone conversations, scan emails and data, and put a person under ‘preventive detention.’
Under preventive detention, a person can be denied access to an attorney and the opportunity to face a court, for renewable periods of up to three months. Critics have stated that a normal citizen who had done nothing but been held in detention could possibly lose their job and apartment.
Bavaria’s Christian Social Union (CSU) intend to have Bavarian Police keep pace with technological trends, by using body cameras, DNA identification, and facial recognition. Joachim Herrmann, interior minister in CSU’s government has stated, contrary to what critics have said, that there will be more oversight of police operations by judges.
The new surveillance is deemed necessary to prevent potential mass shootings, terror attacks, and violence by stalkers.
However, many people remain entirely unconvinced of this necessity — 40,000 people to be exact.
A demonstration was held on the 10th of May to protest this law. It began at Marienplatz and moved to Odeonsplatz and was the biggest protest held in Munich in years.
Image from “Nein zum Polizeiaufgabengesetz Bayern” facebook page
“Some of my friends, they went as a funeral block, they carried a coffin and said we are burying our freedom by passing this law,” 20-year-old anthropology student and political activist, Sofia Ritthammer, said.
Many of the young people who attended the demonstration feel their privacy and personal freedom is being infringed on and decided to speak up against it.
“It’s just insane, they could take away the personal freedom of everybody,” Miss Ritthammer added. She is particularly concerned about how it could affect activists such as herself.
Some are concerned about the possibility of this new power being abused. While most young people trust those currently in power, they fear this new law builds an infrastructure that could easily be abused in the future.
“The vagueness in those words is really dangerous,” Franzisca Muck, 20-year-old Communication Science student said, “there’s the possibility it will be used in the wrong ways.”
Bavaria’s youth worry about the future consequences of the Policing Regulations Act. Loose wording and unclear restrictions are a major cause of concern.
“We’ve seen in a lot of different countries now, over the years, the way power can be abused, and I think that’s the main difficulty with this law,” Miss Muck said.
Others worry that innocent people may be affected directly as a result of mental illness. They fear that under the new wording of the law, mental illness could be considered a ‘potential danger’.
“I’ve seen a lot of outrage over this,” Lisa Okoyomo, a 21-year-old English student said, “are mentally ill people supposed to count as criminals?”
Despite the general outrage, some students feel they understand the necessity for the new law. They accept it and are not worried that it would affect their way of life or their freedom.
“I don’t think it’s really that bad,” Lisa Hofstetter, a 26-year-old graphic design student said, “if you don’t have bad intentions, why would it worry you?”
I chose to research and write my article on this law because when I first heard about it, it sounded exactly like a law we have had in place in Singapore for the past 55 years. Under the Internal Security Act, a person can be ordered to detention without trial, in two year periods. Advisory boards will review this sentence annually and it can be renewed indefinitely. A person can be held for several reasons, including:
- Causing or potential to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear, organised violence against persons or properties.
- Exciting disaffection against the President or the Government
- Promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes, likely to cause violence
- Prejudice to the nation’s interest, public order or security
It also allows authorities to prohibit political and quasi-military organizations, ban subversive documents and publications, shut down entertainment and exhibitions that are likely to be detrimental to the national interest, and to suppress organized violence by declaring parts of Singapore to be security areas.
The Internal Security Act was put in place in light of communist uprisings in Malaysia in the 60’s. Singapore was a part of this law (as a part of Malaysia), and retained it even after independence in 1965.
Over the years there have been suspicions that the law has been used to oppress political opponents and maintain power. The vague wording, “likely to”, and the condition of “exciting disaffection against the President or the Government” has greatly restricted political opposition and criticism of the ruling party in Singapore for the past 55 years.
This law has been in place since our independence and, in itself, restricts our freedom to contest it or criticise it. I admire the bravery of the Bavarian youth to reject a law that they feel challenges their freedom and privacy. The demonstration, and the students I spoke to, were truly inspiring — even if the law was passed anyway, they spoke their minds.
One of my interviewees, Sofia Ritthammer, ended off our interview by saying “if you have the possibility to be politically active and go on the streets, you should do it. Not everybody has this freedom so if you have it, you should make good use of it to keep it.”
Link to the Polzeiaufgabengesetz bill for those who read German: https://www.bayern.landtag.de/www/ElanTextAblage_WP17/Drucksachen/Basisdrucksachen/0000013000/0000013038.pdf