This is a good german article.
http://www.welt.de/newsticker/news3/...cht-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/bloc...,15225276.html