Updated November 18, 2020, 10:35 a.m.
The Leipzig lawyer Jürgen Kasek was there on November 7th when opponents of the Corona measures demonstrated in Leipzig. In an interview, the former Leipzig city council member of the Greens reports on his impressions.
The “Querdenker” demo in Leipzig at the beginning of November: Tens of thousands of participants disregarded the official requirements – they did not wear a face mask, did not keep the prescribed distance from one another, left the prescribed route and did not end the event when requested by the police were.
But how could the situation escalate in the first place? The Leipzig lawyer Jürgen Kasek was there himself and describes his impressions.
Mr. Kasek, first of all a personal question: What do you think of the measures that have been ordered to prevent the coronavirus from spreading rapidly?
Jürgen Kasek: Even if I don’t doubt that we have a pandemic, that doesn’t mean that I think all the measures are right. Nevertheless, I say: wearing a mask and keeping your distance doesn’t hurt, you should do it out of consideration.
In your opinion, what are the flaws with the infection protection laws?
My basic criticism is that the Federal Infection Act speaks of measures against infected people – but that many measures are directed against all people. In my opinion, there is no explicit confirmation by law. In addition, the laws in the federal states are sometimes very different. Our “small states” are causing problems.
That is federalism, and that is also a pillar of our democracy …
Of course, there is absolutely no doubt about that. But in this case it intensifies the problem that people often do not understand abstract determinations and their contradictions.
The Saxon Interior Minister Roland Wöller countered that the authorities would act “with a sense of proportion”. Can you rely on it?
“A sense of proportion” is the translation of the fact that a lot in the laws is a matter of interpretation and that the interpretation should therefore always be chosen that least restricts the fundamental rights and still keeps the legal goal in mind. Our laws are always abstract and always have to be adapted to the circumstances – this is a dynamic process, in the course of which laws can also change.
You talk about the fact that many regulations are not backed by corresponding laws. Do you consider the accusation of many critics of the measure to be justified that the legislature is currently being switched off?
I actually see this problem. In the beginning, many restrictions were not even enacted as an ordinance – that was a defeat of the legal path. We are a democratic constitutional state and in such a state it must be clear at all times that the legislature – that is, the legislature, and that is the parliaments of the states and the Bundestag – has political control. In my opinion, things have been done much too quickly, and that is causing confusion among the citizens.
With the pandemic, danger is at hand. How could the legislature proceed in a more constitutional manner and at the same time react quickly?
The situation is undoubtedly difficult. We are facing a pandemic that has still not been scientifically researched and which harbors great dangers. But in times of crisis, the hour of extremes often strikes. I, on the other hand, believe that instead of panic, proportionality must be established, I would like to be willing to talk and that society is sufficiently involved in the decision-making processes. In the meantime, some measures are being withdrawn or limited by the courts, and I think that’s completely okay. It shows – in contrast to the opinion of the “lateral thinkers” – that the rule of law works.
Regarding the demonstration that got out of joint in your city: What went wrong in Leipzig?
A lot went wrong there. It starts with the fact that the Higher Administrative Court assumed 16,000 participants, although the city had expected up to 50,000 – the University of Leipzig then counted 45,000 demonstrators in the end. Even before the demonstration began, the officially approved event area was too small. In this situation, the participants were allowed to change the venue, although the “lateral thinkers” made it clear from the start that they did not want to adhere to the requirements. That’s how it turned out. Nevertheless, the police were not at all prepared for this development and had far too few emergency services on site.
Despite the supposedly so many hooligans and right-wing extremists?
Yes! Several hundred of them were present and they practically “took over” the demonstration. The police had no chance and had to clear the way. But you have to imagine that in this escalating situation the city of Leipzig did not have any insight into the deployment concept of the police. There was no arrangement, and when the city wanted to know what was going on, they had to call the police situation center and wait for the local police to find someone to provide information. These far too long lines of communication are unbelievable!
How did the Free State react?
Interior Minister Roland Wöller read a statement on Sunday, the day after the events, in which he said nothing about the presence of the neo-Nazis or the attacks on journalists. Two days after the demo, he supposedly still didn’t know what kind of people they were and what camp they belonged to.
The “lateral thinking” movement gathered in Leipzig on Saturday. There were clashes with counter-demonstrators.
–
In your opinion, shouldn’t the demonstration have been approved under these conditions?
The basic right of assembly is a great good – even in times like these there must be the possibility of demonstrations – adapted to the circumstances. I would therefore have considered a ban to be wrong. But at the latest after it became clear that the majority of the participants did not adhere to the conditions, the resolution should have taken place promptly. That took way too long.
Teaserbild: © picture alliance/dpa/Sebastian Kahnert
– .
