Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThere seems to be no rational basis for the arrest of a group of German sociologists, and the case highlights the fragility of our civil liberties.
"Terrorism" has two faces. There are real threats and real terrorists, and then again there is a realm of nameless fears, vague forebodings, and irrational responses. The German federal police seem to have succumbed to the latter; on the July 31 2007 they raided the flats and workplaces of Dr Andrej Holm and Dr Matthias B, as well as of two other persons, all engaged in that most suspicious pursuit: committing sociology.
Dr Holm was arrested, flown by helicopter to the German federal court in Karlsruhe and has since been put in (pre-trial) solitary confinement in a Berlin jail. Of course the police may have solid, rational knowledge they are withholding, but their public statements belong more in the realm of farce. Dr Matthias B is alleged to have used, in his academic publications, "phrases and key words" which are also used by a militant group; among these words are "inequality" and "gentrification". The police found it suspicious that meetings took place with German social activists in which our sociologists did not bring their mobile phones; somehow the police deemed this a sign of "conspiratorial behaviour". By an odd twist, though, none of the activists are in jail, only their sociological interviewers.
Germany had, 30 years ago, a terrible time with indisputably violent militant groups and that leaden memory undoubtedly hangs over the police. And it may well be that "gentrification" is a truly terrifying word. But this police action in a liberal democracy seems more likely to fall into Guantánamo mode than genuine counter-espionage. Consider the hapless Dr Matthias B a little further. He's not actually accused of writing anything inflammatory, but seen rather to have the intellectual capability to "author the sophisticated texts" a militant group might require; further, our scholar, "as employee in a research institute has access to libraries which he can use inconspicuously in order to do the research necessary to the drafting of texts" of militant groups, though he hasn't written any. The one solid fact the cops have on Andrej Holm is that he was at the scene of the "resistance mounted by the extreme leftwing scene against the World Economic Summit of 2007 in Heiligendamm," perhaps confused by the fact that he is studying this scene, not stage-managing it.
These are not reasons for Brits, any more than Americans, to cluck in righteous disapproval; in the long, sad history of the IRA in Northern Ireland, reality and fantasy entwined in an ever-tighter cord. But, apart from hoping that our colleague will be freed if only he promises to carry his mobile phone at all times, we are struck by the grey zones of fragile civil liberties and confused state power which this case reveals.
The liberal state is changing. In the 1960s, Germany had the most enlightened rules for refugees and asylum seekers of all European countries, the United States passed the most sensible laws on immigration in its history; France granted automatic citizenship to all those born on its territory - including all Muslims. Today all these countries, in the name of the war on terror, have revised their rules; the state of emergency rules. The laws meant for real threats are invoked to counter shapeless fear; in place of real police work, the authorities want to put a name - any name - to those they should dread. States of emergency are dangerous to the legitimacy of states. In cases conducted like this one, the government stands to lose its authority and so lessens its chances of rooting out and prosecuting actual terrorists.
If our colleagues are indeed dangerous sociologists, they should be prosecuted rationally. But, as in Guantánamo, persecution here seems to have taken the place of prosecution.
Richard Sennett is a sociologist at the London School of Economics; Saskia Sassen is a sociologist at Columbia University.
© 2007 The Guardian/UK
9 Comments so far
Show AllWhen I hear about terrorist threats I file it away in the "Fifty Angry Arabs will Destroy the USA" file. Assess the Real Risks to you and your loved ones: Heart attacks, Cancer, respiratory problems, accidents, etc..
Fifty Angry Arabs might be able to eliminate the worlds' third largest nation in area and population. You might be attacked by a Great White shark. The probability is low of this happening.
"The police found it suspicious that meetings took place with German social activists in which our sociologists did not bring their mobile phones".
Your mobile phone is is convenient for you (and me) - instant communication anywhere you happen to be. How did we manage without it?
The government loves it just as much. Your mobile phone tells them where you are at all times. They can look the computer and see the pattern of your travels on a typical daily or weekly basis.
But if the pattern changes, that is a cause for suspicion. If your mobile phone is turned off for any length of time, that is a cause for suspicion. It would be the equivalent of blocking the view of your home by covering the camera on your TV in George Orwell's novel "1984".
The question is - why did that person not want to submit to government monitoring. We want to know what you were up to. You may have a perfectly valid reason, and I suspect that in the future you will NEED to come up with a valid reason. And there will be less and less reasons that will be considered valid, from the government point of view.
Under these circumstances, government curiosity will lead them to read your emails. Look at your web browsing patterns, have a look at your recent internet chatting, and intercept some phone calls. If the reason for the break in your pattern of behavior is still not satisfactorily explained, then it is time to pick up that citizen for an interview.
The German federal police? Boy, I hope it's nothing serious.
I've just been reading Anthony Beevor's THE FALL OF BERLIN 1945, and if half of the stuff in his book is true, Germany can be a very scary space.
The SS hanging regular German army soldiers, the Soviets freeing gulag prisoner's only to send them to the forefront in the battle for Berlin. Talk about going from the frying pan, right into the fire. . .
Of course 1945 was a long time ago, and things have certainly changed.
Now at the mere usage of the word "inequality" or "gentrification" the state swings into preventive action.
If nipping it-in-the-bud had only been standard practice in 1933, things might not be where they are today.
And lets look truth in the eye, if you couple "inequality" and "gentrification", you may end-up with a very undemocratic conspiratorial union.
Why wait for the formation to build, spreading into sentences, paragraphs, pages, chapters and verse?
It's just so much more efficient to mount a few cameras or audio collection devices, here and there, and mine the data. We all know there's a lot to learn, and that's why we have education.
But people are fast learners, soon they will be all walking with heads down, eyes averted, and mouths shut.
Any apparition of mouths posed in an attempt to speak, can be transposed, by the state, into any sentence deemed appropriate, by the proper authorities.
And, of course, there will always be the possibility of some sort of appeal, to higher authorities.
WJM--Great thinking , The War on Courage!! If only more people could realize how sick our leadership has become since FDR said " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".
Ever since 9-11, many citizens have been paralyzed because of the constant drumbeat of fear. Congress has also contracted the disease, and the only question is, will people wake up soon enough to put the country right again?
War On Courage-- interesting. I might like that.
If they wanted to stop Americans from being harmed or killed. They wouldn't be focused on Terrorist. They would be focused on, Health Care, Healthy Food, DUI's, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Trans' Fat, Cigs, and Serious Diseases. Other things to but those are just the ones I whip out of my pocket for short notice.
~Future~
It's NOT a war on terror. It's a war on courage. And everything they have said and done is proof of it. Does W ask for strength and courage? No, he asks us to all be afraid. Does he ask for national sacrifice to defeat a common enemy? No, he tells us to go shopping.
It is now and always has beena war on the courage of the American citizen. It's a real shame that so many have fallen for it.
jedediah,
As many have commented at CD before, including me, this is all at least somewhat related to the fall of the Soviet Union which allowed the fascists to convince themselves they need never again worry about the left as the Soviet demise could be used to "prove" to the hoi polloi that the left was not a viable alternative.
what has caused the western democracies in less than 10 years or so to completely dismantle the structure of democratic rights? Hint: it ain't the war on terrorism. (people at CD bitch about this stuff in the US, and rightly so. but it's happening in australia, germany, new zealand, canada, france, etc.)
is ireland a more telling example than these authors care to admit? the brits all called it terrorism; the irish might call it something else. incidentally, i just looked up red army faction on wikipedia in reference to the german troubles referred to here: 34 people killed in 30 years. i'm sure more germans died from violent sneezing during that time. (not justifying the RAF or IRA here)
and how the hell do police know one of these guys left without his cellphone?
the search for "rationality" in these state actions is an exercise in futility. fascism: the arbitrary power of the state must be unquestioned. big brother is a boot stamping on a human face. forever.