There is a word for that. It is called despotism. The separation of power mandates that a legislative makes laws, a judiciary interprets the laws and the executive enforces them based on the interpretation of the judiciary. Bypassing the judiciary is despotism and it is certainly beyond the capacity of the executive to interpret if someone is a “threat to public safety”.
And in particular in this case the branch of the executive that was obliged to make the deportation notice has objected as these deportations are unlawful. For which the interior ministry of the state of Berlin replied with what amounts to “I dont give a fuck, deport them!” if translating into normal words. The more literal translation of the mail was “It is unusual that an order by the head of house is disagreed with in such a way. I interpret your E-Mail as a remonstration, which i repel. I don’t share the legal of opinion of <blackened>.”
There’s no bypassing the judiciary any action or non-action of the administration can be challenged before court. And the affected people here did exactly that, and have been given preliminary protection. Courts will decide how this is going to end. Administrative courts, because it’s not a criminal matter.
Not all laws that exist are criminal in nature. Not all courts deal with criminal matters. The minister who overrode the opinion of the lower-ranking staff is not a separate branch, they are that branch. Their opinion is the opinion of that branch.
You won’t see me defend the Berlin administration in any way, they’re a failed state after all, have been since the Weimar Republic at least, but what they did here did not break any law and the affected people still can resort to the courts to overrule the administration.
You, standing here, saying “Germany is a despotic regime” is echoing Nazi talking points. Think about what you’re doing.
I said that acting in such a way is despotism and given the development of Germany over the past years, especially looking at the plans of the new government coalition likely to be, dismantling civil rights and giving more authority to the executive that previously required an approval by the judiciary, Germany is making more and more steps towards making despotism a prevalent way of the government to act. In particular in Berlin in regards to activities being critical of Israels actions or in support of Palestinian rights there have been many despotic decisions.
Blanket bans on protests that had to be overturned by courts, influencing a state bank to freeze the account of a jewish antizionist organization to jeopardize them organizing a discussion panel, arbitrarily revoking funding for cultural spaces because they allowed events discussing the situation of Palestinians to hold place, arbitrarily revoking entry to internationaly renowned doctors so they could not give testimony of the horrors they witnessed in Gaza, arbitrarily storming and breaking up events with police force. Countless cases of police violence, especially against women and minors. Exerting pressure on event places to cancel events last minutes. Having the far-right Axel-Springer media target Professors who demanded the observation of constitutional rights in cooperation with the federal ministry for education and research. Having the education minister demand funding to be revoked for the scientists in questions and subsequently wiggling out by firing her secretary and forbidding the secretary from speaking out about what happened…
In a larger scope the federal parliament passed two resolutions demanding an end to academic freedom and involvement of the interior intelligence in assessing which scientists are “not without a doubt not antisemitic”. Despite strong criticism of Scientists these resolutions were passed without even listening to the Scientists. Of course the Fascists from the AfD were cheering as they passed these resolutions together with supposed parties of the center of politics. While these resolutions are technically non binding they are used by administrative bodies and sometimes even courts to interpret laws.
When it comes to Palestine Germany and in particular Berlin are using every dirty trick of the despotic arsenal. And the problem is that even if the decision are later overruled by courts, the damage is already done. And the responsible people in the administration and police face no repercussion.
And I explained to you how you’re dead wrong. How the judiciary is absolutely still involved. It’s the reason why the people in question are currently still in Germany, not deported. Because court ordered preliminary relief while it’s figuring the issue out.
I won’t even read the rest of what you wrote as it’s bound to be all based on that false premise.
Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism. But then you also should not be surprised, when it develops to its more blatant forms.
However i do believe that you understand, that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did. You know, like deporting non binary people to be persecuted in Hungary, despite a court order to the contrary. If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions, then you would also see why the examples i gave in regards to Palestine constitute at least a path to despotism if you don’t want to consider the actions and their damages themselves to be despotic already.
that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did.
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions
Of Berlins executive actions. The federation has nothing to do with it. And yes there’s plenty of rotten parts in the executive. May I remind you that I already called Berlin a failed state.
Palestine
Narrowing things down to Palestine doesn’t help your overall case. If you care about the rule of law, then the issue is broader. If all you care about is Palestine then don’t get into the rule of law, you’re damaging it by instrumentalising it for your pet topic.
As if this case would even be close to the Hungary case in terms of denial of rights, or what happened to Oury Jalloh. In this case, the administration didn’t create irreversible facts. Reign in your campism.
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
I don’t understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive. And then the executive action needs to be in accordance with the court decision. If the executive acts in a way that is in violation of the court decision, or they act on matters where a court decision is necessary, without having the court decided on it, there needs to be consequences.
You are narrowing things down to protests regarding Palestine. Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive, but it is not exclusive to people standing up for Palestinian rights. We also see attacks on the right to protest in regards to climate protests for instance. Palestinian rights are merely the issue, where thanks to “Staatsräson” they are testing the waters with how far the executive can go with despotic actions. They will not stop at this issue and instead expand on to any other issue of civil society not falling in line with the authoritarian demands.
This is why it is so crucial to understand the despotism that is developed here and to oppose it now, even if you want to ignore the issue of Palestine otherwise. Because it will affect everyone in the long run that dares to speak up about any issue.
I don’t understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive.
And that’s what’s happening: Noone has been deported.
Or do you want the administration to first ask a court each time before it does anything? Like, speeding ticket, ask a court first before telling the driver they have to pay up? Someone dumps garbage on the street, ask a court before issuing a fine and billing the perpetrator for the cleanup?
All you’d do with that is grind state action to a halt. And you wouldn’t change a thing, worse, you’d get courts used to rubber-stamping everything unread.
Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive,
No, they aren’t, the extradition to Hungary is a way worse case. That you can’t see this makes me conclude that you’re blinded by campism. You’re not judging the cases by what happened, legally, how big the fuck-up was, but by whether the people affected were closer to your pet political case. Be honest with yourself, here. I won’t judge you for having Palestine as pet cause, I will judge you for not being honest with yourself.
And that’s what’s happening: Noone has been deported.
They have been threatened with deportation and only by demanding a court to review the decision they got a temporary reprieve, that is if the executive doesn’t choose to ignore the court like they did with the deportation to Hungary. And it is already in the structure of the argument of the administration that they do not want to wait until a court has ruled on any criminal charge, or even let the investigators decide whether there is any reasonable evidence to even make a criminal charge in some of the cases.
This is at the core about taking away matters from courts, where the question of criminality or danger is subject to evidence and neutrality, rather than political affiliation and motivation.
Nowhere did i say that the deportation to Hungary is not worse. I said in case of repression against people standing up for Palestinian rights it is the most blatant, the most obvious. I recommend you to read through your past comments. They have been quite aggressive and filled with strawman arguments. I think by pointing out how despotic the deportation to Hungary is, you yourself acknowledge that Germany has a problem with growing despotism. Which brings us back to the very beginning of all of this discussion. The freedoms and rights granted by the EU and their member states are under serious attacks in particular in Germany. So instead of praising places like Germany as some beacon of freedom and rights, when the current political powers for the most part are eager to limit the very same freedoms and rights.
There is a word for that. It is called despotism. The separation of power mandates that a legislative makes laws, a judiciary interprets the laws and the executive enforces them based on the interpretation of the judiciary. Bypassing the judiciary is despotism and it is certainly beyond the capacity of the executive to interpret if someone is a “threat to public safety”.
And in particular in this case the branch of the executive that was obliged to make the deportation notice has objected as these deportations are unlawful. For which the interior ministry of the state of Berlin replied with what amounts to “I dont give a fuck, deport them!” if translating into normal words. The more literal translation of the mail was “It is unusual that an order by the head of house is disagreed with in such a way. I interpret your E-Mail as a remonstration, which i repel. I don’t share the legal of opinion of <blackened>.”
https://fragdenstaat.de/artikel/exklusiv/2025/04/proteste-berlin-ausweisung/
There’s no bypassing the judiciary any action or non-action of the administration can be challenged before court. And the affected people here did exactly that, and have been given preliminary protection. Courts will decide how this is going to end. Administrative courts, because it’s not a criminal matter.
Not all laws that exist are criminal in nature. Not all courts deal with criminal matters. The minister who overrode the opinion of the lower-ranking staff is not a separate branch, they are that branch. Their opinion is the opinion of that branch.
You won’t see me defend the Berlin administration in any way, they’re a failed state after all, have been since the Weimar Republic at least, but what they did here did not break any law and the affected people still can resort to the courts to overrule the administration.
You, standing here, saying “Germany is a despotic regime” is echoing Nazi talking points. Think about what you’re doing.
I said that acting in such a way is despotism and given the development of Germany over the past years, especially looking at the plans of the new government coalition likely to be, dismantling civil rights and giving more authority to the executive that previously required an approval by the judiciary, Germany is making more and more steps towards making despotism a prevalent way of the government to act. In particular in Berlin in regards to activities being critical of Israels actions or in support of Palestinian rights there have been many despotic decisions.
Blanket bans on protests that had to be overturned by courts, influencing a state bank to freeze the account of a jewish antizionist organization to jeopardize them organizing a discussion panel, arbitrarily revoking funding for cultural spaces because they allowed events discussing the situation of Palestinians to hold place, arbitrarily revoking entry to internationaly renowned doctors so they could not give testimony of the horrors they witnessed in Gaza, arbitrarily storming and breaking up events with police force. Countless cases of police violence, especially against women and minors. Exerting pressure on event places to cancel events last minutes. Having the far-right Axel-Springer media target Professors who demanded the observation of constitutional rights in cooperation with the federal ministry for education and research. Having the education minister demand funding to be revoked for the scientists in questions and subsequently wiggling out by firing her secretary and forbidding the secretary from speaking out about what happened…
In a larger scope the federal parliament passed two resolutions demanding an end to academic freedom and involvement of the interior intelligence in assessing which scientists are “not without a doubt not antisemitic”. Despite strong criticism of Scientists these resolutions were passed without even listening to the Scientists. Of course the Fascists from the AfD were cheering as they passed these resolutions together with supposed parties of the center of politics. While these resolutions are technically non binding they are used by administrative bodies and sometimes even courts to interpret laws.
When it comes to Palestine Germany and in particular Berlin are using every dirty trick of the despotic arsenal. And the problem is that even if the decision are later overruled by courts, the damage is already done. And the responsible people in the administration and police face no repercussion.
And I explained to you how you’re dead wrong. How the judiciary is absolutely still involved. It’s the reason why the people in question are currently still in Germany, not deported. Because court ordered preliminary relief while it’s figuring the issue out.
I won’t even read the rest of what you wrote as it’s bound to be all based on that false premise.
Of course closing your eyes is the easiest way to not see any forms or precursors of despotism. But then you also should not be surprised, when it develops to its more blatant forms.
However i do believe that you understand, that a court decision after the fact cannot heal the damage that an illegal action by the executive already did. You know, like deporting non binary people to be persecuted in Hungary, despite a court order to the contrary. If you manage to accept this as an example of problems in Germanys executive actions, then you would also see why the examples i gave in regards to Palestine constitute at least a path to despotism if you don’t want to consider the actions and their damages themselves to be despotic already.
Precursors of despotism like, *checks notes*, the rule of law being adhered to.
Touch grass.
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2025/bvg25-013.html?nn=68666
What is your alternative? That there be no courts checking executive decisions? You cannot at the same time claim that judicial review is what keeps us from despotism, and then slam juridical review for doing exactly that when the executive fucked up.
Of Berlins executive actions. The federation has nothing to do with it. And yes there’s plenty of rotten parts in the executive. May I remind you that I already called Berlin a failed state.
Narrowing things down to Palestine doesn’t help your overall case. If you care about the rule of law, then the issue is broader. If all you care about is Palestine then don’t get into the rule of law, you’re damaging it by instrumentalising it for your pet topic.
As if this case would even be close to the Hungary case in terms of denial of rights, or what happened to Oury Jalloh. In this case, the administration didn’t create irreversible facts. Reign in your campism.
I don’t understand this conclusion from what i said. It should be obvious that such decision have to be made by a court, before there is action taken by the executive. And then the executive action needs to be in accordance with the court decision. If the executive acts in a way that is in violation of the court decision, or they act on matters where a court decision is necessary, without having the court decided on it, there needs to be consequences.
You are narrowing things down to protests regarding Palestine. Those are the most blatant examples of despotic actions by the executive, but it is not exclusive to people standing up for Palestinian rights. We also see attacks on the right to protest in regards to climate protests for instance. Palestinian rights are merely the issue, where thanks to “Staatsräson” they are testing the waters with how far the executive can go with despotic actions. They will not stop at this issue and instead expand on to any other issue of civil society not falling in line with the authoritarian demands.
This is why it is so crucial to understand the despotism that is developed here and to oppose it now, even if you want to ignore the issue of Palestine otherwise. Because it will affect everyone in the long run that dares to speak up about any issue.
And that’s what’s happening: Noone has been deported.
Or do you want the administration to first ask a court each time before it does anything? Like, speeding ticket, ask a court first before telling the driver they have to pay up? Someone dumps garbage on the street, ask a court before issuing a fine and billing the perpetrator for the cleanup?
All you’d do with that is grind state action to a halt. And you wouldn’t change a thing, worse, you’d get courts used to rubber-stamping everything unread.
No, they aren’t, the extradition to Hungary is a way worse case. That you can’t see this makes me conclude that you’re blinded by campism. You’re not judging the cases by what happened, legally, how big the fuck-up was, but by whether the people affected were closer to your pet political case. Be honest with yourself, here. I won’t judge you for having Palestine as pet cause, I will judge you for not being honest with yourself.
They have been threatened with deportation and only by demanding a court to review the decision they got a temporary reprieve, that is if the executive doesn’t choose to ignore the court like they did with the deportation to Hungary. And it is already in the structure of the argument of the administration that they do not want to wait until a court has ruled on any criminal charge, or even let the investigators decide whether there is any reasonable evidence to even make a criminal charge in some of the cases.
This is at the core about taking away matters from courts, where the question of criminality or danger is subject to evidence and neutrality, rather than political affiliation and motivation.
Nowhere did i say that the deportation to Hungary is not worse. I said in case of repression against people standing up for Palestinian rights it is the most blatant, the most obvious. I recommend you to read through your past comments. They have been quite aggressive and filled with strawman arguments. I think by pointing out how despotic the deportation to Hungary is, you yourself acknowledge that Germany has a problem with growing despotism. Which brings us back to the very beginning of all of this discussion. The freedoms and rights granted by the EU and their member states are under serious attacks in particular in Germany. So instead of praising places like Germany as some beacon of freedom and rights, when the current political powers for the most part are eager to limit the very same freedoms and rights.