Saradoc1972

Ok, I watched this video until 1/2 mark. The speaker brings up the question quite early, does shar'ia apply to non muslims. After considerable dissembling and digression he still has not answered the question at 9+ minutes, but only talks idly about proper payment for destroying a kafir's goods. Its really a false question because Shar'ia is wholly applicable to muslims and non muslims alike. Asking the question implies freedom, or some sort. There is no freedom. Islam does not mean "Peace;" this is fallacious and Arabic muslims have allowed the idea to continue because it is not impolite. Islam means "submission." Islam and Salam do not derive from the same Arabic etymology. Islam is submission!

[snip]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

First of all, thanks for that link. Helps me with the thorough research on Islam, multi-culti, integration in Germany, and all the sidelines of these topics I've been doing over the last three weeks. Always nice to see foreign nations' takes on German politics and especially Merkel's universal drivel.

I'd have to say only watching 1/2 of a rather short video sounds like a rather short attention span, and I don't like all the SHOUTING in that post and all the name-dropping.

Thing is, Islam might be about submission, depending of what you make of it. But: if you are living in any country there are laws. Everywhere. And you have to "submit" to them, or else.

The "or else" might be less intimidating in non-Muslim states, but still. So Islamic law (they don't really hold with nation states when there should be the ummah in a dar al salam) is not all that different, apart from lacking all the good ideas western civilisations have given birth to when formulating universal declarations of human rights, e.g. the European Court of Human Rights or the German basic law, which along with democracy are, according to some - certainly not all - people calling themselves Muslims, incompatible with their interpretation of Sharia (meaning the portion pertaining to what a pre-medieval civilisation thought constituted a crime and the proper punishment for it).

There have been non-Muslim countries through the ages levying taxes on people of a deviating denomination and subjecting those people to different sets of law. Believe me, I'm German.

Laws are, even when in this case they are divine laws, what you make of them. The German basic law or constitution (Grundgesetz, short GG) starts with 17 articles defining basic rights, a couple of them unalienable human rights for everybody, some of them pertaining to German citizens, but apart from the utterly untouchable Art.1 GG ("Die Würde des Menschens ist unverletzlich" - "human dignity shall be unviolable" - do follow that link!!), all of those Grundrechte are in a Spannungsverhältnis (relationship of tension). Meaning, they are curbed by each other, just how much and in what way is defined by a judge or court.

So, e.g. and very much on topic, if a Muslim family decides their daughters will not take part in a school's swimming tuition (all that naked flesh and the boys) and sexual education (no need for that once they've been married off aged 15 to some cousin to henceforth be confined to his house), a German judge might decide that decision had to be honoured in the light of Art. 4, Art. 6 par. 1 and 2 sentence 1 , Art. 7 par. 1 GG over Art. 6 par 1 sentence 2 and Art. 7 par. 2 GG. Obviously enough that isn't the case, and the authorities will send the police to get the poor things out of there. At least in theory, and not without some lengthy attempts at mediation first.

(I sincerely advocate a massive clampdown here in Germany, no matter what and all the clamour about it. Jugendamt, prison, show them who's boss according to Sharia's tenet to follow the law outside an islamic society, they can still claim taquiyya before their god.)

Hence, an ideal islamic state could -in theory- define it's laws in a way where all dhimmis (i.e. Jews and Christians) pay the same "infidel tax" muslims pay as a "war tax" and build some sort of analogy for atheists and apostates by a lenient exegesis of Muslim holy texts. And there might -in theory again- be no need for a war tax at all. And apart from Iran, the vast majority of Muslim states don't chop off limbs and maybe have abolished the death penalty. Unless the central government holds no sway over certain territories, like in Pakistan or Lybia, Somalia or Nigeria, where law is down to radical Muslim stone-age criminal gangs.

Actually, Jews where delighted to pay that tax and enjoy at least some rights and protection in Islamic territories since the medieval times, as opposed to living in fear in Christian territories. Islam was somewhat of a "model society" during the middle-ages and some time after in terms of human rights, freedom of faith, science and the exchange of ideas! Unfortunately, after that just about everything went wrong.

Well, it never was to be, it hardly ever is going to be, including laicist states such as Turkey and Indonesia, Islam being as missionary a religion as can be, and that is why IMHO radical, salafist Islam has to be kept out of Germany and Europe at all costs. Moderate Muslims as such never were a problem, especially when they fled their home countries to escape that very Sharia we're talking about. The problem is discerning them from radicals and those prone to radicalisation when you only can look at someone's forehead and not beyond.

Islam as a world religion has to a large degree failed to evolve and is hence at least a serious problem to integration of foreign nationals, in some cases it's utterly incompatible to democracy and modern humanist values.

With regard to that video (and that moderated version of Sharia) I'll actually come to your aid in my next post after doing some more reading.

Who elected this muslim council? Not me. Who elected the muslim parliament? No one.

Who elected the so called community leaders? No one.

They are actually elected, believe it or not, as opposed to Protestant bishops or the Pope.

They actually are a private-law association and far from the status of the two big churches under public law.

Hence, every Muslim is free to feel represented by them, donate money to them, join them as a member, ignore them, or leave them at whim.

The obvious problem is that they don't represent all Muslims, not even all German Muslims, and only have 20,000 members (and possibly a lot more followers)

and then there is DITIB, firmly controlled by the Turkish government, then there is the Islamic Council, and of course the... you name them. Bit like "Life of Brian", as I wrote.

However, when considering the vehicle in which Islam spreads, its Shar'ia fabric that is as equally binding on believers as non believers,

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

Thanks for the link, I have just watched that video, had so far only read about it.

It probably needs an explanantion (for everyone else at least), that "Sharia" is not some kind of islamic criminal code, that only is a small part of it, but literally means "the path to be taken" in archaic Arabic.

It contains the five pillars of Islam (pray 5x, Shahada, Hadj, alms, feasting) and is a bit like an Islamic Catechism, but mostly about conducting your own life in the right way. Hence, Muslims can't very well distance themselves from that.

Part of the problem, from my point of view, as most non-muslims think Islam=Sharia, which they fear. On the other hand it's hard for Muslims to separate those ancients texts from their personal Islam when taken at face value.

Responding to your earlier post I'd have to say we totally lack that sort of public declaration in Germany.

This is exactly what I am missing everytime there is a major incident in the world or some foiled bomb or assassination plot in Germany (things have been relatively quiet here so far apart from people going to Syria and possibly returning).

We have no shortage of squabbling Muslim organisations, I am still making up my mind about them, so I'll get back to that later. For the time being it looks a bit like "Life of Brian".

What they are apparently totally steering clear of is condemming the acts of other Muslims as "unislamic", as in: barbaric, but intrinsically an Islamic problem.

Any statement will read something like "We Muslims condemn every kind of racism and violence, no matter from which side."

When pressed by the press (that's what they're there for, hence the name) to comment on ISIS and what's going on in Syria there have only been thight-lipped statements, this was nothing to do with Islam at all.

So why do they appear in all those talk-shows, if they're done after one minute?

Q: "Do you distance yourself from those acts committed by Muslims?"

A: "I don't need to distance myself from something I was never close to to begin with."

(Orginal text from a high-profile talkshow on a state tv channel with Aiman Mazyek, chairman of Zentralrat der Muslime)

That Central Council of Muslims is one of the bigger organisations and quite liberal, this chairman is very level-headed and educated.

I was well aware of the "muslim patrol incident" and the "ginger taliban" before and followed that event avidly, to see what these guys would get in court, more from a criminalist's point of view.

I doubt he'd have gone to prison in Germany, and certainly not for that long. Job well done.

We had a bit of our own German version in Wuppertal in September, but there were no threats, no shivs, and no non-muslims involved. Just some guys with scraggly beards wearing vests labelled "Sharia Police" [in English] stepping up to apparent Muslims admonishing them not to consume alcohol. (has happended to me, too, but those wore white clothes and called themselves physicians)

Nothing much happened, guys just had their identities checked by police, never heard from again. Big public outcry up to the chancellor, probably a huge PR success for those salafists.

[Germany calling ... Germany calling ]

German Minister for Economy and Social Democrats leader Sigmar Gabriel advocates taking the PEGIDA protests serious and discuss their motives.

Among the Pegida-protesters "many were joining because they felt frightened and not being taken seriously by policy-makers regarding their diffuse fears of `foreign domination`", said Gabriel talking to Germany's leading tabloid "BILD".

"We need to approach those people, but there can be no lack of clarity in that discussion". Among the protesters were some neo-nazis and radicals, from which a "crystal clear" dissociation was mandatory. Rabble-rousing against minorities "that could very well explode into violence" was intolerable, Gabriel stressed.

http://www.derNewsticker.de/news.php?id=296423&i=dsklch

Little update from German newspapers and the AfD party:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-rechtfertigt-pegida-mit-sydney-geiselnahme-a-1008725.html (in German)

The AfD have finally solidarised themselves with the Pegida movement referring to the Sydney siege, claiming one guy was enough to endanger the German populace in a press handout:

http://www.alternativefuer.de/adam-die-gewaehlten-liegen-falsch-nicht-die-waehler/ (German, translation by yours truly)

You only get to Australia if you follow the rules. And those are tough: the government regulates immigration, intercepts illegal immigrants well before the shoreline and sends them back to their home countries.

Despite all of this an islamist fanatic, universaly labelled a lone wolf, managed to take five hostages, two of which were killed during a rescue attempt by police. "This shows", AfD spokesman Konrad Adams explained,"there is no need for mass-immigration to endanger people. A single person totally suffices."

Still, top politicians believe they can ridicule PEGIDA by hinting at their followers' purported ignorance as to whom they were protesting against, as the country of Saxony was widely trailing behind with regard to proportions of foreigners.

"By that they are only proving they don't understand what is going on." Adam continues, "A feeling of personal security does not depend on what you see in statistics. Only politicians closing their eyes to reality can believe that."

Not the voters were deluded, but those voted for.

No text is dangerous in itself, unless you throw it at someone. I'd rather get whacked with a relatively small quran, if it comes to that.

My textual analysis is a lawyer's - can't help myself. So I go through literal interpretation, then semantic within the scope of a given text, then historical, then teleological (not theological, that's a cold joke! Stems from Greek telos=missile as in: what is the aim?), in that order.

So in a historical context and with a telelogical interpretation islam would nowadays aim at a "greater jihad" meaning strife to perfect oneself spiritually and go out and do good. The whackos only see the "small jihad" which indeed calls for conquering by whatever means.

If I then think of those 50% German Turks, Kurds, and Arabs only passing the lowest level of secondary education (and that's not much - it's sometimes said there is no measurable progress beyond what they learned at primary school) and those up to 20% failing to get even that, I don't think they can look behind seemingly clear sentences like "Slay the infidels whereever you find them". And they will certainly not be able to consolidate that with other passages mandating there can be no force in religious matters.

Actually - we might be singing from the same songsheet here. That Hinterland line of arguing is actually quite intriguing.

The Christian churches obviously had a lot of academic work over the centuries, culminating in Martin Luther throwing out a lot of what he thought of as rubbish. More importantly, all big churches have a hierarchical structure through wich they can sort out what is canon and what is not; the Pope, the bishops, synodes, and so on.

Islam has never had any of that. While there are islamic universities of different levels of reputation, there is no centralization and the umma has failed to evolve here. Hence, every hodscha in the smallest of mosques can basically make up his own interpretation of islam. Hence, Islam has so far, for 14 centuries, not been able to get rid of what you call hinterland, and here we are.

There was one professor at a Cairo university who went public a couple of years ago wishing for an islam version of Martin Luther. Got killed two months after.

So I think we can consolidate both lines of thinking.

Both holy, holy books are no easy read unless you have a lot of guidance. With the bible you drag yourself through what might as well be a phonebook in Genesis, and then there is parabel after parabel in short stories about this or that prophet or saint, I never got round actually reading quran, but its more like psalms. Which are more or less meaningless in the Christian Psalterium unless you get them explained to you.

With muslims, one of the problems are the madressas, where kids only get taught to pronounce arabic syllables. There is not explanation as what the text means. and if you don't have Arabic, e.g. the Turks, you have to rely on hearsay as to what your overly important religion actually says.

Hence, the way I see it, Islam does in modern times not necessarily preach violence and strife, but lends itself to that interpretation through the text in their holy book itself and the structural deficites within the umma. (along with a social dimension)

And radicalization comes easy, as the extremists don't have to reinvent the wheel. It's all in that book the guy grew up with and was told it was swell.

The problem with islam is that it lends itself to radicalization and unbelivable cruelty. If you just read it without any explanation, that's just what it says.

Terribly sorry, but this sounds like undifferentiated hogwash.

Nope, quite differentiated actually.

I am not saying islam is evil along with hundreds of millions of muslim followers, I am just saying it lends itself to radicalization because of what is literally contained in that holy book of theirs.

There is one passage after the other calling for the killing of infidels, their subjugation, violent strife and whatnot.

These describe what was going on in times even before the middle-ages, along with the hadites. Strife, clan-wars, and bloodshed everywhere, not just around muslims.

To make a peaceful religion out of that needs a lot of explanation and historical context. Salafists, on the other hand, take the quran literally, and as German secret service officers put it: not every salafist is a terrorist, but so far all terrorists were salafists.

And even then there are some recipes for direct action you can't explain away, The bible on the other hand, in the old testament at least, only describes the outcome of violence (i.e. where god granted his chosen people a victory or whatever), and is not being graphic about it. Apart from one two pieces of hard to find text, it is two steps further apart from directing a reader towards a violent course of action than the quran is.

Again: I am not saying islam preaches violence, it is just so much easier to jump to the conclusion it does, if someone vulnerable meets the wrong sort of people.

While you were arguing about this here....84 of the 500 kids taken hostage in Peshawar (Pakistan)today...are DEAD!!!!! Thats right DEAD.

Who lives by a religion that kills kids and their leaders do nothing to stop it????????

Germany is right to protest.....goood on them

for the record: Germany is not protesting, a tiny minority of Germans are.

It might be nowhere a general strike but it's sizeable. And don't forget they've been at it for 8 weeks now with some (much) smaller gatherings in other German towns.

A couple of major trade unions could, together, rally 25000 people maximum, so with 15000 Pegida is at least in the same league. Certainly nowhere near the protests against NATO double-track in 1979, but still.

Oh yes, and the Pakistan school...

The IRA never even thought about blowing up a school or a church, and neither did their Protestant counterparts. They'd have lost every last bit of support from their respective communities if they had done such a thing. But with muslims it's apparently different, once radicalized. No regrets, no limits, it's just Allah, Allah, Allah and kill the infidels. Or just anyone, those kids were muslims after all.

Basically, it's just "I want to be caliph instead of the caliph!" (if you know those comic books) and even if islam were to be the only religion left on the planet, they'd just be at each other's throat until hell freezes over, over the question who is the better muslim and hence caliph with all the worldly power Sharia brings.

The problem with islam is that it lends itself to radicalization and unbelivable cruelty. If you just read it without any explanation, that's just what it says.

So, alongside Pegida, I advocate a rather tight rein on anything muslim in western countries, especially Islam tuition at school, so kids learn about a moderate and evolved islam.

Pegida has no direct ties with any party, they are just protesters with a mission. Maybe a bit like the EDL, minus the hooligan "hands-on" approach.

Good analogy! The Pegida leader, Bachman, sounds like a right thug tough.

This is what he New York Times wrote about him: "Mr. Bachmann had several criminal convictions — 16 burglaries, driving drunk or without a license and even dealing in cocaine."

As I already wrote, that's appearing in each and every article on the Pegida thingy, looks like the press are seing themselves mainly in the business of discrediting the protesters along with the usual "right-wing populists".

I even registered an opinion with one magazine, they should quit repeating that over and over, everybody was now well aware of it, and it did nothing to discuss what Pegida actually want and if they might be right on a topic or two.

There is a bit of a scene on the internet in Germany going on about how the "mainstream press" was distorting everything right of the CSU having to do with foreigners. Pegida actually does not speak with journalists, bit of an interesting approach if you want your arguments heard.

I suppose Bachmann might not be the nicest guy, but even a fellon can have a valid opinion on politics (when not engaged in his employment or maturing his felonious little plans - if you know Gilbert&Sullivan ) .

I don't see the point in repeating that over and over. As long as he had no involvement with the typical neo-nazi crimes, like holocaust denial or hate speech, I don't really care, not that much different from anyone else in politics if you remember our former head of state Wulff.

Germany's version of UKIP?

That would be the AFD (Alternative Für Deutschland=Alternative for Germany), although they don't want Germany to leave the EU, only restructure the latter.

Pegida has no dierect ties with any party, they are just protesters with a mission. Maybe a bit like the EDL, minus the hooligan "hands-on" approach.

The AFD has, however, expressed sympathies for Pegida, as opposed to all other parties who apparently fear them, but they are keeping their distance for now in case things go too far right.

This thread would be far more 'popular' if someone could find a pic of one of the protesters carrying a swastika ....

not sure what you mean by that but swastika is not anything like the disgusting , chicken sh?t muslim terrorist bas<?"ds.

Apart from neo-nazis having killed some 170 political opponents or people with a darker skin over the last 10 years, mostly in eastern Germany?

Maybe they're not as wanton and don't share that total disregard for their own lives, but they're certainly not the good guys.

Going to be big trouble in Ozzieland, they will not stand for this kind of act, now, rather than later is the best way.There IS going to be a race war, good v evil, and the majority of muslims are evil, the good ones go home now, before your life is lost.

That is one nasty post !!

I can't say I like anything islamic too much, but the majority of muslims is not even thinking about turning extremist.

And as far as "the good ones" (I am finding that very expression quite detestable) are concerned, most western states need those immigrants. And at least in Germany about half of them are well integrated, would be a shame to lose them.

A good couple of Muslims even left their home state because they are totally fed up with the local version of Sharia.

Didn't Merkel once say multiculturalism had failed in Germany?

Yes...she did.......she's a lot braver than many other western countries PMs and Presidents to admit the truth......

That one talks a lot when governing silently on auto-pilot is no longer an option, mostly in flowery phrases to the extend that you wonder if she is saying anything at all, even if it comes out in grammatically correct sentences.

My favourite phrases are "and hence I consciously state" and "so I am stating here quite consciously [insert drivel]".

It's nice to know she at least sometimes is actually conscious when talking.

Posts #6 and #23 sum things up for all practical purposes, but the German system is actually one of "personalized proportional representation".

Meaning: everbody has two votes, the first for the candidate smiling the nicest on those billboards and the second for the party purportedly the least mendacious. Let's call it "complicated", because the system determining the actual seats in Parliament combining both systems really is (it's called "Überhangmandate", don't even ask me for a translation).

The federal system also makes some sense, just Germany has 16 Länder (counties or states, whatever), and it's gotten somewhat impractical after re-unification. Make it 6 or 8 at most, which is what is being proposed over here (not that it's going to happen in my lifetime). And don't extend it to education. That was implemented in Germany after WW2 by the allied forces for good reasons, but it's obsolete now and totally impractical.

But the real backbone of whatever voting system is used is the constitution (German: "Grundgesetz", sometimes referred to as "basic law"), which effectively curbs a government's executive rights regarding civil rights and checks and balances, overridden and amended by EU-law and the ECHR, and needing a 2/3 majority in both Houses to change (with some basic provisions nobody at all can change).

Without that AND a working court system in all three subdivisions (civil law, penal law, administrative law), the voting system is more or less insubstantial.

If they don't, well quite frankly, then they'll have to suffer the consequences.

If the past is any guide, the Palestinians will aways suffer the consequences of their own violent actions a lot more than Israelis ever will. They never seem to learn.

Exactly.

Just with the Palestineans, as with Muslims most everywhere else, there doesn't appear to be a "they".

I'm quite positive most Palestinians are not supporting any of this useless violence. It's just that some Muslims from an otherwise innocuous community seem to be prone to a sort of violence unthinkable to anyone from a Jewish-Christian background over whatever presently hurt their feelings as such. And those people hold the rest of that community more or less as gunpoint, there is no effective state system to protect anyone rejecting the idea of storing rockets in a hospital, even if it's only because they know what is going to happen when Israel decides it's not going to stand for it. Anyone trying to do so would just be gutted, it's mob rule out there.

So it appears, Israel has decided it can only look at peoples' foreheads, put them into some sort of fenced-in "reservations" called West-Jordan and Gaza, and while some actions might be somewhat drastic or unhelpful, you can't really blame them.

Sure, Palestinians deserve a state but Arabs and Muslims ALREADY have MANY MANY states.

That is the basic mistake from the end of colonial times after WW2, when a good couple of countries in the Middle East were arbitrarily created, mostly by the British, with no regard for ethnicalities and differences among Muslims.

Not all Arabs are Muslims, not all Muslims are Arabs, there is more than a good two dozens of different streams within Islam.

Best known example are Shiites and Sunnis (some squabble about who is the successor of the Prophet I'll probably never get into my head), Allevites and Salafists probably couldn't be more different, the first denying all Islam interference with secular matters, the second wanting Sharia in everyday life to full extent as it was 1400 years ago.

...m'kay? If it's the other way round, it doesn't really matter.

The basic mistake back in the 1940ies (and back then nobody knew any better) was drawing those borders with no regards for those ethnic and religious differences. If you look up the map, you'll see a lot of rather straight lines, like on a drawing board.

That just doesn't work, just ask a Kurd. At least with people relying very much on a tribal system. I don't want to sound racist or anything, but "Irak isn't Norway", which is some adage I read on the news some 10 years ago when the US where warned their supposed implementation of democracy "down there" and just drawing out was unlikely to work. As it then turned out to be unworkable with a lot of modern weaponry ending in the hands of zealotes now known as the "IS" or taken by them from weaker "tribes" and a "failed state" Irak.

So, if you want to help the Palestines, even if it is only to put a lid on all the bad things happening "down there", they will need a state of their own, the question is: Where???

Ooops... technical malfunction here.

I'll send the reply I meant to send below. Original text is lost, grrr.

Sorry.

Short update:

German Telco's including freemail-providers have been quick to declare not to be using any scanning technologies whatsoever as there are no legal provisions to do so.

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/kinderpornografie-deutsche-e-mail-dienste-suchen-nicht-im-postfach-a-985046.html

They can only use spam-filters and anti-virus software on specific request by the user.

None of this is having to do with a service being provided for free.

The problem with Germany (and most non-Anglosaxon countries) is, again, that there is no preclusion of evidence apart from somewhat outstanding cases where that evidence was gathered by government entities illegally on purpose. Evidence obtained indirectly -like from a search warrant based on some notification by Google or some foreign authority acting upon that- could be used in court.

 

I am a huge advocate of 4th Amendment, but unlike you actually understand the 4th Amendment. In the mid 90s, I composed 4th Amendment opinions for judges at both the intermediate appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

4th Amendament law addressing these issues is not new and was clarified or explained in Hester 1924 and in Katz 1967.

My law firm's emails reside on our servers inside our business and we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those email under Katz. Emails through gmail reside on servers outside your business or home and are not covered by Katz.

Google is not a governmental entity. If you do not like Google's policies, don't use their free email service and don't email kiddie porn to email accounts that are stored on their servers.

Gmail has a right to prohibit its users from using its services as a means of violating the law and here is why:

--------

Not every search and seizure that is scrutinized in state and federal court raises a Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons or entities, private investigators, spouses, or neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment is inapplicable even against governmental action unless one establishes they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection ... ". Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 [1967]

Individuals generally maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bodies, clothing, and personal belongings. Homeowners possess a privacy interest that extends inside their homes and in the curtilage immediately surrounding the outside of their homes, but not in the "open fields" and "wooded areas" extending beyond the curtilage. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 [1924].

Iformation and photos on services like Gmail, Dropbox, Facebook and Twitter as their own, that information resides within easily accessible computers outside the user's home. If you do not like or disagree with email providr's policies chose a different email system or don't send anything incriminating over those services that violate their policies.

 

I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree here, but I appreciate your pointed reply and the effort you put into this. I might even try to locate the cases you are qouting as I am finding it quite educative to take a closer look at the US legal system instead of just going along with the common European opinion along the lines of "they've all gone bonkers over there" or something.

I readily concede I don't know squat about the 4th Amendment which is why I never used that legal term and did not capitalize the word constitution. I am talking about the German legal system and constitution, the German (and general European) take on freedom of speech, and the impact these press revelations will probably have on Google's business in Germany and Europe (I wrote "over there" because I am presently residing in Thailand). I have professional expertise opining on that and I find it worthwhile discussing those things with a view to other legal systems as the American Constitution might not be the be-all and end-all of things with a view to an open democratic society, especially after Snowden and the NSA saga.

That Google case is already a big issue in German language news and I have failed digging up a single German, Austrian, or Swiss news report with a positive connotation as to Google's practices so far, apart from quotations of the British Prime Minister, which is why I wrote "continental Europe". The British government has a view of it's own as to what the European Court of Human Rights holds and has a history of disregarding some of it's verdicts on grounds of "national security" (our dear Mr Camron is apparently thinking of opting out of the ECHR system because of some mistaken views as to restrictions that is imposing on the UK's ability to extradite some unwanted foreign citizens, but won't be able to do so while in a coalition with the British Liberal Democrats).

That was probably easy enough to miss as -so far- we are talking about an American case here.

The German version of "Meinungsfreiheit" (freedom of speech, when I am discussing legal terms on this forum I always give the original term with an ad hoc translation as this is technical language and just giving the English term is precarious at best) encompasses the right to communicate without surveillance by either government or private entities (unless there is a warrant signed by a judge, and don't get me started on how useless that judicial system is in practice unless occasionally brought before the constitutional court), because if citizens are aware of their private communcation being customarily intercepted and possibly being used against them, that might lead to self-censorship and hence render that basic freedom meaningless to the detriment of democracy as such.

To the general audience: I refuse talking about child porn and other illegal content here, I am talking about basic democratic freedoms, their legal protection, and their value as such.

The freedom from surveillance is enshrined both in in Art. 5 and Art. 10 Grundgesetz (Basic Law or Constitution of Germany) as "Meinungsfreiheit" and "Brief, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis"  (Letter, Post, and Communication Secret). While communication providers of phone, email, or other communication services *are* entitled to forbid using their services for illegal purposes, they are definitely not allowed screening the use of their services for that. If they are served a warrant (or are otherwise notified by a third party) they might terminate their contract with that customer and usually reserve that right in their terms of business.

This goes not for openly accessible webpages, it *might* not be applicable for file-hosting or cloud-services, as that is not or might not be private communication. But ISPs in most European countries (the UK, France and Sweden have so far imposed a set of rules with blocking file-sharing with varying degrees of success) are not required to check on those UNTIL their are notified (i.e. not finding out by themselves) there is illegal content there, and are granted total legal immunity until then because of that take on freedom of speech.

Emails, whether on a private server or an ISP's server, are considered private communication in Germany (as is what webpages you are accessing over the internet) and are absolutely sacrosanct for service providers unless there is warrant, in which case they have to hand them over to authorities and still cannot screen or read them themselves.

When I had my little law firm in Germany I used a German email provider with a reasonable expection of those emails being safe on their server, while sending clients are warning in my terms of business that email correspondence was not generally safe unless encrypted and provided a public key for that.

IF any authority had ever seized my emails because some client had been indicted for something I'd have placed a court order for those to be sealed for the scrutiny of a judge only, certainly not the police or some state attorney. Not that I would have expected anyone to even try that.

The problem I see for Google's practices in Germany is that we don't have a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, so any notifications by Google and the following seizures will probably admissible in court. As long as Google is allowed to do that sort of thing. And I don't see how screening emails for child porn (as opposed to other criminal acts) is having to do with their customized advertisement-based business-model.

 

Yeah, but unlike North Koreans, I actually have internet access, electricity 24 hours a door, high quality food on my table, clean water, drive Italian sports cars and can say anything I want about Obama without fear of being arrested.

 

I fail to see what those amenities have to do with basic freedoms in a democracy. Unless you are argueing along the lines of "Life's good, shut up" or "I am happy, if you are not it's the wrong democracy for you", in which case the word democracy no longer applies.

I suppose for the time being you can say anything about Obama without being arrested, might just buy you a couple of hours of quality time with the border patrol whenever you enter the US, even as an US citizen. For the time being it only happens to US muslims and also to NSA-critical western authors wanting to attend an international conference.

 

News flash, its not the government scanning images in the emails. It is a private company, it is their email system, you probably consent to it by signing up and using their free system and if you don't like it, don't use gmail or better yet, don't send child porn in you gmail emails.
 

That's good. Private companies cannot hide so easily behind nondescript mantra-like terms like "national security" to avoid lawsuits.

At least for Germany I am 100% positive the practice of going through somebody's communication is illegal under both the telecommunication act and the constitution, no matter what you consented to, without a warrant in the first place. Might buy somebody at Google up to 5 years in prison as it contravenes our idea of freedom of speech, even if it uncovers illegal acts.

As this went through the news now I am also 100% certain Google will have to cut out those practices at least in continental Europe quite soon or be gone with it's mail and cloud services. I am expecting some lawsuit to be filed within the month.

"You probably consent to it by signing up..." - so you don't even now if you are swearing away your rights by signing up to some service, too much hassle going through 25+ pages of fine print full of legalese, the ramnifications of which you wouldn't comprehend even if you did? That's why terms of business are curtailed by laws.

 

Google's made no secret it scans Gmail users' accounts to provide targeted ads and even argued in court users should have no expectation of privacy. In response to a class action complaint against the company last year, Google's attorneys argued, "Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's ECS provider in the course of delivery."

I suppose the sender of a letter would be quite surprised if said letter was ripped open by the mailman, that recipient's assistant could only get it's jand on it have processing by the communication provider. Will be an interesting lawsuit over in Germany with that statement out in the open. Or rather not.

I only lost mine once when moving house inside Germany - no sweat. It conveniently occurred the month before they introduced electronic chipping, fingerprints, and biometric photos.

Being abroad outside the Schengen area where you might need a visa obviously calls for some security measures such as a pouch fastened to your belt inside your trousers and you should only take it with you when absolutely necessary. It brought an original of my birth certificate and identifaction with pictures with me to Thailand just in case, but even at the German embassies around SE Asia it would take some 4 weeks minimum to have it replaced. So losing it and only getting a period of grace of 15 days from immigration would more or less spell disaster, might end up getting emergency travel documents and taking a flight home, as that is the only place you can go with those.

What I wonder is whether a passport is actually a target for thieves, would it be valuable to an average thief or might they just leave it if it doesn't happen to be in a container or purse with expected valuables?

Good answer but how do you suppose I do that with my expensive Seiko received as a retirement present just under four years ago in the UK still in great nick as well maestro

Exerpt vom German customs: http://www.zoll.de/DE/Privatpersonen/Reisen/Reisen-in-einen-Nicht-EU-Staat/Persoenliche-Gegenstaende/persoenliche-gegenstaende.html

Should you take high-value goods, e.g. sporting or camera equipment, computers, jewelry on your vacation, we recommend presenting prove to allay doubts as to the origin of the goods which may result in duties being attached. For this the Auskunftsblatt INF 3 für Rückwaren is used or the "Vereinfachte Nämlichkeitserklärung im Reiseverkehr" [simplified certificate of origin/identity for travelling purposes] (form 0330 only for re-entering Germany). The forms INF 3 and 0330 will be issued before exit upon presentation of the goods at every customs office.

You should describe the goods close enough to faciliate their identification on your return journey. Photos of jewelry, or details of the model and serial number of technical equipment might be helpful, as a guideline. Alternatively you can provide the original receipt or correspondence as proof, provided the item in question is adequately identified and proven to have been acquired in the EU.

Heck, have I thought about getting a job as a specialty translator?

Same in New Zealand: http://www.customs.govt.nz/inprivate/sendingitemstonz/giftsandbelongings/Pages/default.aspx# sub "Duty free goods exports and return"

The English terms are a bit muddled up and come nowhere close to the beauty of the German terms so googling "certificate of indentity" yields a lot of crap on how you can identifiy yourseld with your driving licence and so on, "certificate of export" gets you a lot of stuff on sales tax and a good number of things I never heard about (phytohygienic... WHAT? Irish spuds?)

Her Majesty's Custom an Revenue Office and Border Force have however deigned to publish a leaflet with a toll-free number you could call (and possibly report back here). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/travelling-to-the-uk

I'd just re-enter the UK as you are and in a pinch you could appeal against attached duties and import sales tax (on estimated value depreciated according to age and state of use) within one month stating "why you are unhappy" http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/customs/baggagechecks/index.htm#6 and get your former colleagues as witnesses or something.

I left Thailand this evening, planning to return in a couple of months.

Aware of the situation, I went to the customs, at departure, to show them the items I was taking out and intended to bring back.

I thought they were going to issue me with a letter proving that I was not trying to import new items in Thailand

They were quite surprised as they are only dealing with companies ( a lot of forms to fill ). They said that these were not new and it shouldn't be a problem.....saying that it was up to the officer in charge on the the day I would return.....As this was not good enough, not say kind of worrying, I insisted and they advised me to take a picture of myself in the airport, showing myself with my stuff, which I did but, again, it's kind of a lottery.

I guess that is fine when you come out of Thailand but what about people who arrive "loaded"?

Thanks for breaking that chain of "they've gone nutters"-posts!

I just phoned my buddy who is doing customs and this is all about NEW items (Neuware). There can be an argument about what is new, but it's mostly reserved for valuable stuff. Unless you are carrying goods for something commercial or goods looking like they might be.

What you were asking for at customs is a "certificate of identity", if you had said so it might have rung a bell with those officers.

They obviously don't get too many Thais carrying stuff of real value out of Thailand to then return and run into customs with that watch or s.th., so by reverse logic most farangs (definitely tourists) will be ok as they are not resident in Thailand.

But taking a photo and having invoices at the ready to show you and your valuables go way back is a first step to refute any notions those are "new" items.