Fractions

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2022/1, S. 4ff. 

• Swiss law under pressure from  international developments.  
• The law in Switzerland is coming under  increasing pressure from international developments, be it  the climate movement,  the Ukraine war or the Covid pandemic.   This pressure is triggered by the media.   

On Monday evening, 28.  February 2022, Zurich’s Grossmünster will shine  in blue and yellow as a sign of solidarity with Ukraine,  which has been attacked by Russian troops.   According to media reports,  20,000 people  march  peacefully through the city with candles and posters;  they protest against the invasion of Russian troops, one hears slogans  again  and again in  the alleys of the Niederdorf.   

A few hours earlier,  the  Federal Council announced that it would now implement the  EU’s sanctions packages of 23 and 25 November.  It was the first time that  the European Parliament had taken  over. The assets  of  persons  and companies listed by the EU  are also frozen in Switzerland with immediate effect   and  financial sanctions are being enforced against Russian President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister   Mikhail Mishustin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. As a basis  for  this decision, the  Federal Council  declares its desire to  strengthen the effect of EU sanctions against Russia and  thus also decides to revoke  the  2009 agreement on the  To   partially  suspend visa facilitation for  Russians and to  close Swiss airspace to all aircraft with Russian markings  . In  the same announcement, the Federal Council also  reaffirmed Switzerland’s solidarity with Ukraine. The  vast majority of the media appreciates this announcement in  the late afternoon and supports the measures taken, after days earlier the Federal Council had been dismissed for   its  The Commission has    been strongly criticised by  the  vast majority of the media in its  cautious attitude towards sanctions against Russia. 

  Regardless of the media response and with a less superficial view,  however, the announcement of  the Federal Council of 28.   February 2022  as the biggest foreign policy break in Swiss politics  and as a paradigm for (foreign) politics in the   age of the media society.  

 The Federal Council substantively bases the adoption of EU sanctions on Art. 185 Federal Constitution (external and internal security): 

1. The Federal Council takes measures to safeguard Switzerland’s external security, independence and neutrality . 

2. It shall take measures to safeguard internal security. 

3. It may,  directly on the basis of this Article,  issue regulations and orders to  prevent  serious disturbances which have occurred or   are  imminently threatened  with  public  policy or internal   or external disturbances.    This is the first time that we have had a debate on   this subject Such regulations should be limited  in time. 

4. In urgent cases, he  can mobilize troops.  If he  offers more than  4000 members of the armed forces for active service or if  this deployment is expected to last longer than three weeks,  the Federal Assembly must be convened immediately.  

The Federal Council may therefore  take measures if they affect Switzerland’s external security, independence and neutrality. 

 By adopting the EU sanctions,  not only foreign law  is adopted, but also a  type  of law that  results in a  clear foreign policy position of Switzerland.   This clear foreign policy position is contrary to independence  and neutrality and could only be justified       – based on the wording of the law – by external security. .  If, however,  external security is  intended through a clear  foreign policy positioning,  this leads to a contradiction  – not only semantic –  that  is clear political  positioning.    the opposite of  independence and neutrality, so that  external security on  the  one hand and independence and  neutrality on the other are necessarily mutually exclusive. This finding, as banal as it seems, is an epochal breach  of Swiss  foreign policy, even of the Swiss raison d’être, which does not regard  Switzerland’s  independence and neutrality as a contradiction. Restriction or even endangerment of external security, but as its basis  . 

As soon as  the sanction was announced,  a public debate  began  about this decision by the Federal Council and whether it  buried Switzerland’s neutrality. Thus it was  rightly  pointed out (cf. Marco Jorio in the NZZ of 14.  March 2022) that  there is a distinction between neutrality law, which does not allow participation in wars, no  crossing of territory  by warring troops,  no state  The supply of arms  to warring parties, and does not provide for the  formation of combatant troops for  a  warring party, as well as the policy of neutrality, which  includes all measures taken  by  a State through its   In   order  to ensure the credibility of  its neutrality in the event of war.    According to the prevailing opinion, the adoption of the EU sanctions has not violated  the right of neutrality. Whether, on the other hand,  it is still possible  to speak of Switzerland’s  policy of neutrality  at  all, is extremely  questionable. 

  Swiss neutrality has been criticized in the past – not always without reason –   especially in  dealing with those persecuted by the National Socialist regime in Germany  (e.g.   Case Spring).   Critics   have rightly  pointed out that  the refusal to grant protection  to persecuted individuals is difficult to justify tolerably with foreign policy ideals.   This is one of the  reasons why Switzerland has been a member of the  city since the  end of the 2nd century.  During  the World War, neutrality was  not defined as a „look away“ or  “  a delegation of responsibility“,  but was  guided by the recognition  that international  Conflicts are complex and that the  parties involved should be  able to rely on an independent mediator  for their resolution. 

   Acknowledging that international conflicts are complex is the  basis for  understanding and ending these conflicts. Truth is the first casualty in all wars (as  Hiram Johnson did) and a clear    good-evil division  of the actors may be necessary  for the achievement of  political goals.   but does not  help to understand the conflict. Rather, the classification of the actors as good  and evil at the  beginning of  a  conflict represents  a moral and political judgment before the facts are available and – here it  becomes   difficult for conflict resolution – is tantamount to  prejudging the actors. Don’t get me  wrong: The condemnation of actions (e.g. bombardment of  the civilian population, illegal invasion, etc.)  is not to be equated with the condemnation of  the  actors and their considerations and motives   underlying such actions, one thinks of the different moral  evaluation  The bombardments of London and Leipzig during the 2nd century  World War II. The condemnation of actions is  a sign that there are clear values of what is       acceptable (not only legally) to do (or refrain from) regardless   of the actor. The condemnation of the 6 actors, on the other hand,   is a  clear positioning, a partisanship that  makes  conflict resolution more difficult. Only if the actors are  not treated a priori „neutrally“  can  they be brought together at the same table.   No one will go to  the  negotiating table  when the verdict on him has already been passed. 

 By adopting the EU sanctions against Russia, Switzerland  has   clearly positioned itself in foreign policy  and  largely  abandoned its policy of neutrality. You can want   that, but you also have  to say goodbye to  the idea  that Switzerland  will now  be able to  make an essential contribution to ending this conflict. And while it is   not   yet entirely clear at this point how  Switzerland’s  external  security will be protected by the adoption of the sanctions,  it  is possible to  say   that  this will not reduce the suffering of  the  civilian population in Ukraine, but will make diplomatic   mediation  between  the parties to the conflict  more difficult.  Switzerland’s  leadership will probably  be extended. This rupture  also means that Switzerland  must begin to redefine its role in world politics.  Her role as a mediator in international conflicts has   been severely scratched. 

   However, Switzerland’s break with the guiding principles of  its foreign policy to date also  serves as a paradigm of the media society, without which it  cannot be  understood. 

The partisanship   – also  moral  –  at the expense  of independence  and neutrality  took place  under pressure  from the media. Nothing  is   known of pressure  from other  states  and     has  not been communicated in     this way by the  Federal Council. The clear  partisanship of the   Federal Council is   all the  more   surprising as  experience  – also  in casu  – shows that  Swiss banks  are completely  independent  of Federal Council    decisions.  Sanctions  – e.g.   of the US and the EU – usually for themselves  in order    to be   able to continue to process  transactions  in USD and EURO   and   not to  be targeted by  foreign  authorities. The      Federal Council’s announcements that it will   adopt the EU sanctions make  the work of Swiss banks  easier,   but they  do not  affect  them. The Federal Council has     thus not  focused on the actual  implementation  of  the sanctions  –   in the   financial sector , they  were carried out  autonomously by  the banks    and from  their     Interests    – but  on the external image  of Switzerland.  Politics  in the media society  is  always, or  above  all, perception   . In this  light      , the more  than  questionable  appearance  of the Federal Council President  Cassis, who at a     pro-Ukrainian  demonstration with  a  live   Circuit  with    the Ukrainian  President  Zelenskyj  not  only  certified him to  defend the values  of Switzerland, but    then also  on Twitter   as a friend   („my friend“) described.  Zelenskyj , on the other hand,   was more of a   realpolitiker  and used  this    media attention to   demand the freezing of   Russian  funds in Switzerland   and Nestlé, one   of the largest  Swiss  politicians.   To  criticize employers  and taxpayers because Nestlé still  supplies  products  to  Russia. In essence,   a  foreign  head of state  was  courted  by the   Federal President, who   tried to   dictate to him how to  govern. The Federal President  even  expressed his gratitude    for this. What   was   legally  and politically a   very  questionable  appearance by   Cassis was  largely  celebrated  by most of the   media, which demanded a  clear  partisanship  of Switzerland.         

But this „cry“ for   partisanship  by   the media  was   also  an urge  for  supposed clarity: here the good side ( Ukraine,  the West), there   the   bad  side  (Russia). This narrative  not  only  allows quick     and easy  answers  to difficult  questions, but  also creates the impression of resolving the complexity  of  the conflict,   the world  . Yale professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld gained notoriety   in  a short period of   7 years by  maintaining  a  constantly  updated  list  of Western  companies that withdrew  from  Russia  after  the war began.     and  at the same time  denounced  those who  are still active  on the Russian  market.   Asked  about  the negative  consequences  for some  Western  companies  still    operating in Russia   , Sonnenfeld   replied that there was no  grey area  in the „Russia question“,    but  only  Black or  white. Lists that   classified persons  (including  legal ones) on  the basis  of a  moral/ideological  judgment  have existed since  Sulla’s  proscriptions  and hardly any    terror regime  is   without  them. The naming-and-shaming list  from  Yale, as much  as it  wants to achieve  „good“, is  very  appealing  in its  simplification  and clarity,   but misses the complexity   to  mirror. Such a     simplification, even infantilization,   of the conflict  ignores reality,   but allows  polarization  and thus serves    as a  basis  for sensational headlines.  . It is  characteristic  of the media society that  a  large part  of its  members no     longer  wants to   endure  complexity  and contradictions.   Clear  positioning,  clear   „announcements“,  clear   guidelines, a  clear  distinction  between white and black   are in demand. The detailed  examination   of the other side and its  arguments  seems  laborious  and  per   se is not suitable  for  the functioning  of the media society, because  it   is  time-consuming,  while  at the same time     more and  more  headlines  have to  be  produced.        

   For example,  the question of  why Russia invaded Ukraine was almost irrelevant just a few days after the invasion.    This question would be essential for conflict resolution.  Russia – or Putin – is evil. It  is also fitting that  it is  often not spoken of „Russia’s“ war, but of    Putin’s. The numerous articles  dealing with his mental health testify to an assumption that the conflict can be explained     by the insufficiency of the Russian president. would be. This may be less related to a  genuine concern for his health  than  to  the desire  to  give „evil“ a face. The personification of state actions is mainly done  to  further reduce complexity. 

  This  clear  partisanship  is  not  inconvenient for politicians, because  at the same time  as  it  and  the further  escalation of the conflict,   questions  about the responsibility    of the West  in this  war   disappear.   about   the rule of law and corruption in Ukraine, questions about       Ukraine’s   treatment of   its  pro-Russian  population  and diplomatic    misconduct by  Western  politicians, questions  about        Energy  policy mistakes  and why a   few  months  ago  African  refugees were   turned away  at the   exact same  European border   posts, while  now these  border posts  for Ukrainians   are  open.  These  self-critical  questions  no longer need      to  be  answered, because good and evil  are  defined  and the idea that the „good guys“ share  responsibility  for  the actions  of the “     bad guys“ “    is no  longer  posed  in   an almost religious  way. And      as much as    the increasingly  horrific  reports  about  the war in Ukraine   call for partisanship,   it must  be   remembered that  partisanship    is a  is and must remain a personal, individual  decision    and   must   only be  made  at  the state level when  Switzerland’s interests really  demand  it. Taking sides to give   in to media   pressure may be   opportune for individual  politicians,   but  realpolitik with  a  neutral  Switzerland as an  actor  takes place    outside  these  spheres.   Off. A closer  look  at certain  events , however,   raises  other, unpleasant  questions : What exactly  distinguishes  Russia’s  war of aggression  and the desired  regime change  from the actions . of the West  in  Iraq  or  Libya? How can    one   be   right  and the other  wrong when  8  is foreign    intervention   in both  cases?  Significantly,    in   Iraq  and Libya, the West  used the same  arguments as  Russia  does in Ukraine:  the prevention of   genocide, the protection of   certain  populations, the stability    of  the region. The results  are  known  and should  be  no different    in  the case of Ukraine. And  to   return to  sanctions: What exactly  distinguishes  the current  conflict  from others where    Switzerland  was not  prepared  to   impose sanctions?  Are  there really      objective reasons  or  is the   wave   that can be shaped  by the media  now   so large that  politicians  have to   duck  before  it ? And yes, there is  war in Europe, but  it already did  in the 90s in the   Balkans and in the 70s   in Cyprus.  But the supposed „uniqueness“ of this  conflict   allows   for   more violent  headlines  than the confrontation  with    the fact that   Europe  has   many  unresolved  trouble spots  ( e.g.   Ireland, Basque Country, etc.), its neighbours have   partly repressive regimes (e.g.   Belarus, Turkey)  and, above  all,   Russia,   have regularly  instigated  wars for which Europe and the West  had  only  vague  consequences. Also  the questions  of why the   import of gas  and oil from   countries  from the Middle  East should  be     problem-free  and why  business  with  China, which   persecutes  the Uighurs, continues   are fine, must  be  asked  at some point.  These  questions  cannot    be  answered with   moralistic    partisanship, but  only  with  reference  to realpolitik.      One may  find this offensive, but  to  deny   it is  a  glorification  of  the reality in which   the international  order  of states operates.              

And yet, this glorification of reality and  the insistence on  partisanship on  the basis of  morality creates a dangerous slipstream of  indignation over the supposedly unique „event“  of  the  Russian invasion. In this slipstream,  measures are being adopted that   would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago  : the increase in military budgets in many countries by several hundred billion euros. or dollars. When rescuing indebted countries in the eurozone  , it  felt like every euro was taken care of, now   Europe is arming as if spending were not a  problem  for future generations. It is still too early to say how the  war will end, but the losers – the suffering  Ukrainian people and the future taxpayers – and the winners  –   the arms industry   – are  already fixed. 

  A clear   partisanship  creates   the impression  of a  clear  state of affairs, but  the view  for nuances  is      lost. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown how,   in just  a few  months,   the population    has   separated  into vaccine advocates  and opponents of vaccination   , who hardly have a      common  communication denominator  with each other.    could find. However,   such a   policy,   such  media coverage, which   offers  little  room for nuance, paves the  way  for   radicalisation  and    the   positioning  of the    Politics  in this  war opens     Pandora’s   box to   another  evil that   already seems  to be   escaping    from it: attitude and a  policy based  on sentiment  and  attitude.   is  not  based  on law.  Supermarkets  withdraw Russian   products from   the  market, Russian   athletes  and sports clubs are   excluded  from international  competitions,  performances by    Russian  artists  are    cancelled ,  Russian     assets  are  frozen because  they belong to a   person with  a Russian  passport.    These  measures  are  only  possible if  collective   guilt is   assumed. Collective guilt,     however,   requires that one has   a  clear  attitude, that one not   only  blames  the one  party  to the    conflict   , but  also the    Individuals who   belong to this  party by  birth, chance  or  free  choice.  It is not  the actions  of a  person that serves  as an  indicator of his   conviction and condemnation, but  his characteristics, in casu  nationality.    9This necessarily contributes    to the   escalation of the conflict    and   it is not  far from this  attitude    to  hatred, at the latest  when the local  incited  population in   the     form of  higher  taxes  and energy prices  will  have to  bear the costs  of the escalation.    Moreover,   such  an  attitude makes   it   difficult to return  to          peaceful normality because,     unlike  newspaper articles,   emotions  cannot  simply be    overwritten.   Accepting collective guilt    and   making   decisions based on  it does  not do justice to  a  constitutional state. The ultimatum  of the city of Munich by  its  Lord Mayor  to  the Russian  conductor  of the Munich  Philharmonic  Gergiev to   distance itself  not  only  from the  conflict, but  also  from Putin, is     disturbing, because  it   presupposes  a  certain  individual  attitude    approved  by the  state in order to be able to practice a  profession, in order  to   be able to  practice art.  Politically,   this ultimatum  and  the subsequent  dismissal  of Gergiev  may  well  have  found  support,   but is  hardly  with  one  on  the right   and   not  the attitude.   based  on the rule of law. The Zurich  Opera House  initially   pointed out in an   exemplary manner   in accordance with   the rule of law that  it  had   no  information  about  political  positions from its  artists  due to a lack of   legal  basis.    can catch up.  A few  days  later, however,   it cancelled   performances by Anna Netrebko   – at least  amicably  with  the artist, but  under  heavy  media  pressure.    Such  pressure  to  justify individuals  is actually  only  known  from totalitarian  states.  Comparisons  with the   McCarthy era are   premature, but  the parallels  are  becoming increasingly  clear.   Today it is  the Russians, tomorrow   it can  affect anyone.              

The culture of outrage  as an  inherent  part of the media society  certainly promotes    a  politics based on attitudes. One can, perhaps  even must,   criticize Donald Trump’s  populism, but at   the same time  one must   be   aware that by  simplifying  politics  – based  on  him  ,   he     Acceptable  media  – which   provided the   blueprint  for the West’s current  policy of convictions . It   is not true,   of course, that  the West  should  not  defend  itself  and its interests.    However,   it  must   be remembered that this   has  been  badly  neglected  over the last  three  decades. The defense of   Western  interests  must  not  be carried out  by the duty  of individuals  to create a  supposedly  morally  superior – in  the worst  case even    state-propagated  –    This is the first  time that   we have had a debate on this subject.  The fact that  individuals  – including  state   –   have to   adopt moral concepts in order   to  circumvent reprisals is  a  breach of taboo. The greatest  merits  for Western   values  have always   been earned  by  admonishers  and critics. The demand to   take  a clear position   is    politically understandable,   but  wrong under the rule of law.  Politics  cannot  do  without  moral  convictions, without clear   ideas,   and the media  need  simple, clear  facts    for their  headlines. The problem and  the danger,   however,  are that  the principles of   the rule of law  are  neglected  or  even thrown  overboard.  Attitudes  must  not  and cannot  be   the yardstick by which  individuals    are  legally evaluated. Even opinions that differ  from the  mainstream   deserve  protection. Thoughts, as disturbing   as   they may be   in  individual cases, are and must  not  be   punishable or  have  other  repressive consequences.    Within  what    is legally  permissible,   the individual – in order  to     be   such at all  – must be able to    position himself  morally freely and without  fear of  state  consequences  and   to   To express one’s attitude  –   whatever    it    may be.  If  this  is not  possible,   the  threshold   to  totalitarianism has  been crossed.  Shockingly,     we  have now   reached   the point where there   are  serious  proposals to   overthrow one of the most important  pillars of   the  rule   of law: legal professional privilege  should  not   be applied to Persons who are on (sanctioned) lists   apply.  Putting certain  people  on 10 lists   (for   political  reasons, mind you)   and   then  denying them  legal protection must be   an  absolute taboo for a  constitutional state. It   is  no  different  with  the recently  drafted  proposal of   some  politicians that   blocked  assets  of „Putin-close“ oligarchs  should not  only  be frozen. , but  also      to  be  confiscated  and   used for a  specific  purpose, such as   the reconstruction  of Ukraine. As much as one may see the   good  intention   in this  proposal ,  it   is dangerous , as  it breaks  with the guarantee   of property  and allows  the   expropriation  of the state.  of persons  on the basis of   political  considerations.  If one breaks with   these principles of   the rule of law,   one also breaks  with  the rule  of law   as  such, which must  not     only  affect politics  and administration, but also     also  become  clear to   the media  and to each  individual.       Countering an  unquestionably  difficult  political  situation with  such  more than  questionable  means  under the rule of law will   not  solve the   (foreign)  political problems, but will  ultimately  lead to the     erosion of the Rule of law.                

Of course, and this is the realization that  is     leaking more and  more,    the media    are moving away  from Augstein’s „writing what is“ to     „writing  what should be“.  After the first  reports   of   a  possible  massacre  of Ukrainian  civilians  by   Russian  soldiers in the village of   Butscha  emerged at the   beginning   of April,   the FDFA reacted – probably  also  Cassis‘ mishap.   in  mind  – by    calling for an  independent  investigation and   criticizing  the violations    of international law. Switzerland at its best: an insistence  on rules, even  if  others  break  them. Blick’s reaction   was    to  describe  Cassis, the head  of the FDFA, as a  fabric softener because he   had not   taken sides   more   clearly  and he  did   not  show    sufficient  toughness against  Russia. . Cassis reacted  to this: He praised the fact that  Switzerland  was   not  only  on course in    implementing the   sanctions , but  was  one  of  the best in the   world.  Apart from the question    of how and with  what  sense and purpose the „best in the world“   should  be evaluated  in    the Russia sanctions,   it   reveals a  policy that  is driven    by the   media  „what should be“.  The German journalist Nikolaus Blome    directly accused  German   Chancellor  Olaf Scholz in an  article  of   not    wanting to    be  driven  by the media after  he   In Blome’s  view, he   had  acted  too  cautiously  in the  Ukraine war. The Chancellor, according to Blome,      is „not driven  by reason or  to the  right“  and     that is childish  and costs  time.  Not  only  that the     journalist  was   already  propagating for himself what was right  and reasonable –   at least that could   be   qualified  as an  opinion  – but the fact that   the fourth    estate   It                          is  problematic and – one   has to Say clearly    – dangerous. The separation of powers  also applies to  the media, even  if  this   is  increasingly forgotten by their  representatives    under  the activist  haze of „writing what should be“.              

In the same  vein    ,  the politicians and „experts“  who attest  to  Switzerland  doing   too little against   Russia and   against  the assets  of Russian  citizens, and who the    USA       and       openly call on the EU to put pressure  on Switzerland. They advocate   the de facto  suspension  of banking  and    legal secrecy  and direct    action  by  the US authorities against   Swiss lawyers if   there are indications that  they     break  with  US sanctions    on behalf of  their  Russian  clients. The     argument   repeatedly put forward    is that  Switzerland has   expressed   its „restraint“ through the „restraint“   (allegedly perceived  by  foreign countries,   but at least as expressed  in the media).   „good  reputation“.    To  define foreign  public  opinion  as an   indicator of   political  action is strange    in itself   and testifies  to an  inferiority complex, but  on this altar   To  want to   sacrifice the rule of law  is  – let me   be clear –  a  rupture that   will    result in the end   of Switzerland’s liberal, liberal  order. The   joint  article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine  Zeitung  at the end   of May by Michael Ambühl, Professor Emeritus  at ETH Zurich and former  State Secretary  of the Swiss Foreign Ministry, Nora Meier,  Managing Director   the Swiss School of Public Governance at ETH  Zurich, and Daniel Thürer,  Professor Emeritus at the University of Zurich and former  Chairman of the German  Society  of International Law    and former  member    of the   OSCE Arbitration and  The Court of Conciliation    gives      a deep insight into how  much  the   political will to shape seduces to      suspend elementary  legal principles.   In   their article  –   nota bene only published  in a  foreign  medium   –  the three  authors  propose       confiscating Russian assets of „sanctioned  Russian  oligarchs“ for the   purpose of rebuilding  Ukraine.   and strive  as “ inspiration“ Art. 72 SCC.  This  standard   provides for  the confiscation of assets  of criminal  organisations. In   respect of assets of a   person who   has participated  in     or    supported such an    organisation,   Article   72  of the Criminal Code provides that   the   organisation’s power of disposal is to be exercised  until  proof   of  the  The opposite  is suspected. Based on this  , according to the authors, „in   principle,   all assets could   be  confiscated, unless the persons could  prove that  they  were  not        involved in the war of aggression provoked by Putin.   are involved   in or  support  them“.  Ambühl, Meier  and Thürer  conceal   the  fact that  Art. 72 of the Criminal Code  does not   provide for a   general reversal of the burden of proof   – such a  reversal would   also  not    be  lawful  and neither  with  the  Swiss  law  still compatible  with  the ECHR.  Rather,    Article 72 of the Criminal Code  applies  only  to the assets of persons who,   by    judicial and  independent judgment,   have been granted membership  of a    criminal  Organization  has  been  demonstrated.  Ambühl,    Meier and Thürer , however,   ignore  this  complexity, as well  as  questions of international law,   and demand  from a  more undefined    group (sanctioned   Russian  Oligarchs) issued a public   political  statement  (in casu  against  Russia’s  actions) to  avoid confiscation  of assets: „An explicit  public  distancing  from the     Kremlin   would be  relieving.  Otherwise, following  such an    approach,   support  would   be  accepted.“ With  their  article,   the authors catapult  us back to times when     a   person’s mindset decided whether  they would  be     subject  to    state  repression, to times when        In times when   opinions  deviating  from state   doctrine were   directly  sanctioned, in times when   political  and moral  ideas overrode  the law, in times when     fundamental  principles of   the rule of law  such as  freedom of expression, guarantee of property, presumption of innocence, causality  between  action and sanction, principle of legality   ,  prohibition   of retroactivity  and prohibition of analogy  – in order to      to  name just  a few  –   could  be  undermined at any time  in  pursuit of   political  goals  or did not  even exist. A  political goal   , no matter  how noble, remains  a  political  goal  and must   bow to the law. A reversal in which  the political   goal  bends   the law opens the   door to  (political) arbitrariness . And whoever    wants to   make politics   in this way, makes  politics that focus  on the radicalization of the population, the superficiality  and simplification of complex  problems, the production    of    Prohibitions of thought, which   promotes  Nibelung loyalty  to  state morals and dependence  on  the media  and thus carries   the rule of law  to  the grave.