Vacation in Europe: This Week The State of Hesse, Germany!

[Osterbaum]

Article/Blog post. (http://www.criticallegalthinking.com/2012/05/10/authorities-define-violence-as-any-restriction-of-capital-flows/)

Selected quotes:
As debate spilled over into a shouting match in the Hessian State Parliament concerning the effective ban of Blockupy protests this 16-19 May in Frankfurt am Main, the administrative decision that effected this ban has come to light. The key finding being that:

The blockade action cannot be assessed as peaceful. To make blockades and hinder traffic with the goal of closing down the entire financial district and the everyday life of the metropolis, has to be defined as violence.

The decision continues:

Furthermore, in order that “European legal obligations” be guaranteed, the European Central Bank “must be functional, especially in times of financial crisis around the clock”. This includes things like “the operation of large-value payment system TARGET2?.

Yet it is not simply temporal laws which the Frankfurt authorities are bringing to bear against Blockupy. Indeed, spiritual laws have also been cited as the reason for banning a proposed “rave” for young demonstrators during the weekend. The weekend 16-19 May is Ascension Weekend (Himmelsfahrt) and the Church requires that public peace reign on these solemn days; in particular, there is a general ban on dancing.

And my favourite part:
[...]when Left Party (Die Linke) delegate to the Hessian State Parliament, Willi Van Ooyen, began a passionate defence of Blockupy in Wiesbaden, an unidentified CDU member shouted “Oh, Marx would be very proud of you!”. Van Ooyen calmly responded: “I would like to think so, yes”.

So yup. Enough of these kinds of decisions and we'll be closer to a revolution at each step. I hope. Welcome to Europe everyone!

e: I'm searching and I haven't found any news site reporting on this in english or finnish, so take that as you will. Perhaps one of our German posters might be able to find a German-language source?

[Geminex]

This is a good german article.
http://www.welt.de/newsticker/news3/article106301339/Blockupy-Veranstalter-und-Stadt-Frankfurt-werden-sich-nicht-einig.html

A few clarifications. The hessian parliament defined the act of intentionally blocking Frankfurt's financial sector as "Gewalt". The above article translates "Gewalt" as "Violence", but that's not... quite true. It's a valid translation, but Gewalt, in the legal sense, is any force that one person exerts over another. It's not automatically illegal, of course, since force in that sense is common in everday life.

Under german law, §240, coercion is illegal, though. Coercion is the use of force to elicit a certain action or behavior from another for a reprehensible purpose. As far as I understand the situation, the parliament's banning the blockade with the justification that the protestors' blockade of the financial sector is sufficiently harmful (or, well, inconvenient) that it constitutes force. If they were right, their ban of the blockade would have something of a legal basis, though there'd still be the question of the reprehensible purpose.

Of course, ultimately, what the parliament is doing is probably bullshit. Unless protestors are actively chaining themselves down, blockades don't fall under force, no matter how sensitive the area that's being blockaded is (quick clarification, the protestors want to block frankfurt's financial district, which is germany's main financial district, home to stock markets, company headquarters and I think a lot of EU-related institutions as well). That's a decision from our constitutional court, and while german law doesn't operate on precedent, it's likely that, if it comes down to it, they'll make the same decision again. And if you don't have any force, there's no coercion, nothing illegal.

That's my understanding of the whole situation, at least. I'd also like to add that Frankfurt authorities have offered protestors an alterate path that wouldn't end up blocking the financial district, so this isn't a question of just trying ot fuck up the protest. Depending on whom you ask it's a question of not wanting to have to look at 'dem stinkin' protestors, or not wanting a political protest to have financial repercussions.
Wait, no, the alternate route they suggested leads through a forest this is totally just an attempt to fuck up the protest.

Edit: Mind you, this totally is bullshit, though. Like, I've tried to give a more neutral assessment above, but personally, I don't think that financial convenience should ever come before political protest. And certainly not above christian sensibilities. I didn't even know about the no-dancing-on-holidays law. What is this, Footloose?

Edit2: For our german readers, this article is nice as well.
http://www.fr-online.de/meinung/blockupy-verbot-kommentar-bannstadt-frankfurt,1472602,15225276.html