Autor/Autorin
The lawyer and publicist Rolf Gössner has been monitored and investigated by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution for four decades since 1970. The disproportionate and unconstitutional, almost forty years of constant surveillance and research has not prevented him from speaking out publicly and actively standing up for human rights. This month, he was awarded the Hans Litten Prize of the Association of Democratic Lawyers, named after the lawyer and resistance fighter against the Nazi regime. – The editorial team
10 October 2020
Dear colleagues of the Association of Democratic Lawyers, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends!
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the Board of the VDJ for awarding me the Hans Litten Prize, for the support and the trust you have placed in me and my civil rights work. I am really delighted – especially in times like these.
I would also like to thank Rupert von Plottnitz for his sensitive and multi-faceted laudatory speech – for the appreciative words of a laudator whose civil rights-oriented work, including his eventful life, I appreciate.
(1) Let me make it clear right at the beginning of my reply that in the course of my professional and working life I have only done what I thought was right, important and necessary and what I still try to do today in various ways, as best I can. I only found out in later years that there are also prizes and honours for this and I am now experiencing it again. I have only tried to keep my immune system as active as possible against mostly state attacks on fundamental rights and freedoms over the decades – which is why I also confronted the corona complex this spring by intervening as soberly and carefully as possible in the controversial, highly emotional and morally charged debate about the corona state of emergency and the subsequent „easing“ of a so-called „new normality“. I’ll come back to this later.
(2) Incidentally, this journalistic intervention was not without violent reactions, just as my work had already been accompanied by considerable resistance and confrontation in the past – mostly from the state: it was a rather arduous decade of teasing and being monitored, of accusations of contact guilt and conviction checks, there were massive threats, such as after the publication of my first book, Der Apparat. Investigations into the police, arrest, running the gauntlet and police beatings as a taz journalist at the public recruit swearing-in ceremony in Bremen, bans on events at universities, further encroachments on freedom of teaching and freedom of expression or entry in a Nazi list as a „traitor to the people“ – and then resulting from such experiences: the problem with the scissors in the head for fear of the consequences of one’s own work.
Swimming against the tide for decades in the hardcore „internal security“ segment with the exposure of scandals, abuses and undesirable developments, with harsh criticism of the police, secret service and state – that was, I confess, quite exhausting and could only be endured with a good dose of humour and composure. Nevertheless, everything was still relatively manageable and ultimately without any lasting damage. I was also able to make the best use of some of the state attacks I experienced myself for my further civil rights work: practically as vivid lessons in civics, democracy and civil rights.
(3) Yes, and at this point at the latest, the considerable differences to the life and fate of Hans Litten, the namesake of this prize for democratic commitment, become clear, who should be remembered in this context. I feel honoured to receive this award with his name. However, I cannot really do justice to his example and his courage – nor, incidentally, to that of some previous award winners. After all, it makes a decisive difference where and in which times the award-worthy legal work takes place according to the VDJ criteria, which are: „uncompromisingly committed to the law“, „not avoiding confrontation with the interests of political power and its institutions“, „characterised to a particularly high degree by democratic and legal-political commitment“ .
(4) Hans Litten risked a great deal in his time and had to pay for his legal and advocacy work with his life. Hans Litten is regarded as one of the most important lawyers of the labour movement in the Weimar Republic; he was a courageous anti-fascist lawyer and criminal defence lawyer, representing and defending resistant workers, victims of police assaults and Nazi violence and suffering working-class families. In a criminal trial in 1931, in which he represented workers injured by an SA roll-comando as a co-plaintiff, he cornered Adolf Hitler, whose hearing as a witness he had secured. Shortly after the Nazi seizure of power and the Reichstag fire in 1933, Litten was interned and deported to several concentration camps – most recently to Dachau, where he succumbed to the abuse of the Nazi henchmen after five years in prison and was systematically driven to suicide. He died 82 years ago, in 1938, aged just 34.
„Fundamental rights in times of Corona“, as already mentioned. But before that, let’s take a look into the secret abyss together and start with the award organiser – the VDJ.
(1) We are not only linked by our fruitful cooperation on projects such as the Grundrechte- Report. On the state of civil and human rights in Germany . We are not only united by fundamental human rights, social, democratic and anti-fascist convictions – we are also united by something else: our shared experiences with a secret state institution that goes by the euphemistic cover name of „Verfassungsschutz“ (VS). Both the VDJ as an organisation and I as an individual were targeted by this domestic secret service for years and decades.
Since it was founded in the 1970s, the VDJ was regarded as an anti-constitutional organisation, which, stigmatised in this way, appeared in VS reports until around the end of the 1980s. Probably for the simple reason that it was the only legal organisation, as Norman Paech recently wrote, „in which communists could also organise themselves“. And just eight years ago (2012), it was listed in a government decree in the Free State of Thuringia together with many other organisations as „ left-wing extremist influenced“. This meant that applicants for the civil service could be rejected simply because of their VDJ membership and thus because of doubts about their loyalty to the constitution. The VDJ was only removed from the list when it threatened to take legal action in an administrative court.
(2) My own „protection of the constitution“ story, which I would now like to discuss, has unfortunately not come to an end to this day. Since 1970, I have been observed and investigated by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution for four decades – already as a law student and since then throughout my working life in all my professional and voluntary functions as a publicist, lawyer, parliamentary advisor, later also as President of the International League for Human Rights, and since 2007 also as Deputy Judge at the State Court of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen.
This long-term surveillance therefore concerns the majority of my conscious life – or rather what the „Office for the Protection of the Constitution“ has made of this life with its selective perception: In briefs and a personal file of over 2,000 pages, it paints a picture torn from contemporary historical contexts and constructs abstruse accusations. The result is a denunciatory enemy and distorted image in which I do not recognise myself and which, at first glance at least, would frighten me. With its obsessive monitoring and official interpretation, or rather misinterpretation, the service had to a certain extent seized my political life, my professional and social contacts.
For example, I was accused of having professional contacts with allegedly „left-wing extremist“ and „left-wing extremist influenced“ groups and organisers, such as the „Association of Persecutees of the Nazi Regime“ (VVN), which I represented as a lawyer or at which I gave lectures, but also with allegedly „left-wing extremist“ press organs, such as the „Junge Welt“, in which – among many other media – I published or to which I gave interviews. A ‚contact debt‘ and alleged support effects were practically constructed from completely legal and legitimate professional contacts.
Later on, the „Verfassungsschutz“ (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) also suspected my writings – books, articles, interviews – of extremism and claimed, among other things, that my criticism of the state, police and secret services as well as my „agitation against professional bans“ defamed the German security organs and was intended to render the state defenceless against its internal enemies . The VS therefore also claims sovereignty of interpretation over my texts and exercises it in an almost inquisitorial manner. In contrast, my maxim is: Civil and human rights work is inconceivable without criticism of the state and society!
This secret service control caused me particular problems, especially when dealing with clients and informants, because under observation conditions there are no more professional secrets, no more confidentiality. In order to protect my informants and whistleblowers as well as possible in the course of my often sensitive research in the area of internal security , I had to go to great lengths. In some cases, contacts had to be avoided or cancelled. This also applies to my legal, parliamentary and human rights work. Professional secrets such as client confidentiality and whistleblower protection could no longer be guaranteed at all times, and my professional freedom and professional practice were more than compromised as a result.
I filed a lawsuit against this secret service surveillance because it violated my fundamental rights to freedom of opinion, freedom of the press and freedom of profession as well as informational self-determination. After more than five years of litigation, during which the surveillance was discontinued, the Cologne Administrative Court declared this long-term surveillance to be disproportionate and in breach of fundamental rights in 2011. However, the federal government appealed against this decision. After a further seven years, the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia also declared the entire surveillance to be contrary to fundamental rights in 2018 – the German government promptly lodged an appeal against the judgement. This means that after almost 40 years of surveillance and more than 15 years of proceedings, i.e. well over half a century, the case is now pending before the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig – the outcome and end are uncertain. It may be a long time before the matter is finally resolved. Actually a case for the Federal Audit Office – for wasting public money.
Incidentally, I found it more than shocking the ideological doggedness and perseverance with which this domestic secret service – alongside many other left-wing groups and anti-fascists – had observed me and my civil rights activism for decades – while at the same time, on the other side, neo-Nazis, right-wing violence and terror were able to develop almost unchecked – partly „supervised“ by the state via an uncontrollable system of informers – and leave their trail of blood across the republic: with a total of more than 200 deaths since 1990 alone.
And right-wing extremist chat groups and Nazi networks have also long since developed within the police, armed forces and secret services, from which people are massively threatened – within the armed security organs of the state monopoly on the use of force, of all places. A scandalous and highly dangerous development that has once again completely escaped the attention of the „Office for the Protection of the Constitution“ as the „early warning system“ that it is supposed to be – just as in the case of the NSU complex. All of this must finally be analysed independently and relentlessly in order to draw appropriate structural consequences. And this includes, among other things: Measures against institutional racism, racial profiling , „cop culture“ and esprit de corps as well as the establishment of independent monitoring and complaints bodies, which human and civil rights organisations such as Amnesty International or VDJ have been calling for for years for good reasons.
The scandal-ridden „Verfassungsschutz“ must not be allowed to get away scot-free with this urgently needed structural change. After all, these domestic intelligence services at federal and state level are foreign bodies in a democracy to which the democratic principles of transparency and controllability only apply to a very limited extent. To put it bluntly: This is where the democratic sector ends, as is so often the case. For this reason alone, the „protection of the constitution“ at federal and state level should be dissolved in a socially responsible manner – especially in its form as a secret service, precisely because of its uncontrollable system of informants and systemic obfuscation. Fully in line with the German Basic Law and the constitutions of the federal states, because according to these, the ‚protection of the constitution‘ does not have to be organised as a secret service.
(1) In the face of such reticence or even shyness towards conflict, I felt downright compelled to contribute to an open, critical and controversial debate with my sceptical thoughts and pointed theses on the nightmarish coronavirus state of emergency and the „new normality“ in these oppressive times of great uncertainty. After all, social debate – not least in the media – has suffered for too long from fear, one-sidedness and pressure to conform, including defamation and marginalisation. In any case, the culture of discussion and diversity of opinion have suffered considerably during the coronavirus crisis and continue to do so – even if doubts, criticism and dissenting voices have long since become louder, but can also take bizarre or even dangerous turns.
However, with so much immune-weakening, easily manipulated fear and rarely experienced unity, scepticism and critical-constructive questioning of supposed certainties and executive-authoritarian decrees that strongly permeate all our lives were and are not only appropriate, but urgently required – as is the review of harsh fundamental rights interventions for proportionality and constitutionality. After all, this is what characterises a living democracy – not just in good weather, but especially in times of great uncertainty and dangers that lurk not just from one direction, but from different directions, especially in times that not only weigh heavily on the present, but especially on our future. In such times, democratic lawyers are particularly challenged.
(2) After all, the coronavirus not only endangers people’s health and lives, but also damages fundamental rights and freedoms, the rule of law and democracy – „thanks“ to those serious coronavirus defence measures that are intended to serve the declared and important goal of preventing the healthcare system from collapsing and protecting health and lives. At the same time, however, these defence measures are interfering more deeply in the everyday lives of all people than ever before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, causing serious individual, family, educational, professional, social, cultural and economic damage and dramatic long-term consequences, the extent of which will continue to have a serious impact on the Federal Republic of Germany, its society and its inhabitants for a long time to come. It was the historian René Schlott who warned against „strangling the open society in this way in order to save it“.
(3) Much has been done right in this country with sensible protection rules, but unfortunately some things have also been done wrong, too little differentiated and not proportionate. There are well-founded doubts about the appropriateness of some of the panic-stricken and generalised lockdown measures imposed on the basis of unsecured data. With a regional, local and target group-orientated, yet responsible approach, a lot of damage and personal misery could have been prevented.
Even the judiciary, which initially hardly questioned the executive restrictions on freedom, has now cancelled state corona measures in fifty or more cases due to illegality or unconstitutionality. That alone should give us pause for thought. In view of the current coronavirus infection situation – which, incidentally, also needs to be assessed in a more differentiated way than before – the courts are increasingly calling for a more differentiated approach and treatment of individual cases. This also applies to times of increased infection numbers, such as we are currently experiencing. I am only thinking of the questionable recent accommodation bans and quarantine requirements for travellers from domestic risk areas.
(4) In all of this, consideration should be given to what has sometimes been forgotten: social upheavals and health consequences caused by the restrictions of our daily lives must also be included in a constitutionally required balancing of civil liberties, health and life. The Basic Law does not recognise a „super fundamental right to health“ that eclipses all other fundamental rights, nor does it recognise a „super fundamental right to security“. The (survival) opportunities (in) a society, especially for socially disadvantaged people and groups, must also be given appropriate consideration when weighing up legal rights. Health protection and civil liberties must not be played off against each other; human life must not be played off against human rights.
(5) And another warning for the future: The state of emergency in the modern preventive state, as it has long since developed in this country, tends to mutate into the legal normal state even after the crisis has been overcome; this can lead to a dangerous acceleration of the course that has long since been taken towards a preventive, authoritarian security, control and surveillance state. This was clearly demonstrated after 9/11. For this reason, the utmost vigilance is already required now to ensure that the new state of emergency in health policy does not gradually normalise – after all, there has long been talk of a „new normality“ for an indefinite period of time; and the utmost vigilance is already required now to ensure that the authoritarian turn that has long been in evidence does not become entrenched – with a paternalistic state, a restrictive and over-regulated society and a highly controlled and tense everyday life.
(6) Incidentally, I am in favour of setting up independent interdisciplinary commissions at federal and state level. Their task should be to critically monitor policy during the coronavirus crisis and to evaluate the necessity and proportionality of state defence measures and their social, psychological and economic consequences. Lessons could then be learnt from the knowledge gained in this way for a more differentiated and thus proportionate management of the further development of coronavirus and future epidemics.
But it must also be about developing and implementing perspectives for overdue structural changes in society, health policy, socio-economic, ecological and peace policy – towards equal opportunities and social justice, sustainability and climate protection, disarmament and peace, in short: for a fairer and future-proof society.
Yes, there is so much more I could say about these issues, which I have only touched on here. But unfortunately my time budget has long since been exhausted. I would therefore like to refer you to a recently published brochure entitled Human Rights and Democracy in a State of Emergency, in which you can read a lot about this. It is the extended and updated long version of my thoughts and theses on the corona lockdown, the ’new normality‘ and the consequences – thankfully published by the Association of Democratic Lawyers and published by Ossietzky. A productive cooperation for which I am very grateful (see info below).
Finally, I would like to thank the VDJ, Rupert von Plottnitz and all those involved today for this award ceremony under difficult corona conditions – and also my comrades-in-arms and companions, because I probably couldn’t have done it all alone.
And then, as I like to do on such occasions, I would like to remind you of a quote by the writer Günther Eich, which I carefully chose as my essay topic in my A-levels in 1967 and which in a way became my life motto: „Be uncomfortable, be sand, not oil in the gears of the world.“ This sentence, this call, is particularly valid in these difficult times of the pandemic and great dangers – which, as I said, lurk from very different directions. Today’s award ceremony will hopefully give me the strength to remain true to this life motto. Let us all remain sensitive to fundamental rights – even in times of coronavirus. Thank you very much!
Rolf Gössner’s full award speech is also available on the VdJ website: www.vdj.de/mitteilungen/nachrichten/nachricht/dankrede-des-preistraegers-dr-rolf-goessner/
Dr Rolf Gössner , lawyer and publicist, member of the board of trustees of the International League for Human Rights (www.ilmr.de) and deputy judge at the State Court of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen. Co-editor of the bi-weekly magazine for politics/culture/economics „Ossietzky“ (www.ossietzky.net) and the „Grundrechte-Report. Zur Lage der Bürger- und Menschenrechte in Deutschland“ (www.grundrechte-report.de) and member of the jury for the negative prize „BigBrotherAward“ (www.bigbrotherawards.de) . Expert in legislative procedures of the Bundestag and state parliaments. Author/editor of numerous books and essays on internal security (secret services, police, judiciary), civil rights and the democratic constitutional state. Honoured with the Theodor Heuss Medal, the Cologne Charlemagne Prize for committed literature and journalism, the Culture and Peace Prize of the Villa Ichon in Bremen and the Hans Litten Prize of the Association of Democratic Lawyers (VdJ; www.vdj.de) .
Header image: Jakob Gatzka (BUXUS STIFTUNG)
Contact: info@fritz-bauer-blog.de