Continue reading after the ad
—
He did it. And what the AfD MP said before was outrageous.
Do you find Ramelow’s approach acceptable?
It is definitely not prosecutable. Because there is the right of indemnity. That means: MEPs must not be held responsible for what they say in plenary. Otherwise there would be constant litigation between them. Immunity, i.e. the prohibition of criminal prosecution, can be lifted, but indemnity cannot. Incidentally, I am a little impressed by the way Bodo Ramelow did it as Prime Minister. The population will see it differently. Some will find it right, others will say: No, he should have let it stay. But Bodo Ramelow is that kind of guy. He went this way. And I like to represent him.
What is the legal situation like in concrete terms?
Well, the problem is that Bodo Ramelow later repeated what he said in plenary to the MDR. You can interpret that in different ways. I say: the television viewers who did not follow what he said in the state parliament, he had to repeat it for them so that they could understand the interview. And since he doesn’t think much of Möller, he said that he would stick to his assessment. In any case, it is not as simple as the AfD member concerned thinks it is.
First of all, Ramelow’s immunity must be lifted by the state parliament. What if he then loses in court?
The Immunity Committee of the Bundestag does not regularly lift immunity because of insult. Let’s see how the Thuringian state parliament decides. There is also an interesting decision by the Thuringian State Constitutional Court. Otherwise, the following applies: Essentially, there is a threat. The proceedings could be discontinued – for example in return for a fine to be paid to a refugee aid organization. That should annoy the AfD three times. But I don’t really want to talk about that. Because I don’t see any criminal responsibility here. I think the AfD MP does not feel offended anyway. He just wants to damage the prime minister’s reputation.
A fundamental question: We live in times when politicians, but also other people in public life, are often pelted with dirt. Are you not allowed to defend yourself?
Of course, a politician can defend himself if he is pelted with dirt. All basic rights also apply to him. I could have filed so many complaints, but whenever the public prosecutor asked me about it, I replied: No, I don’t want that. Insults may not be prosecuted without a criminal complaint.
Can a politician who is permanently insulted be insulted back?
It’s always a question of proportionality. If someone throws a swear word at my head and I say that you are yourself, then that is acceptable. Personally, I think: those who hand out have to be able to take it.
Did you deal?
That’s not my style. Only once did I have to control myself very much. It wasn’t until I was in the car that I said: “I would have loved to give him a beating.” If I want to get people upset, I’ll do it differently.
And how?
Most of the time I react with irony. In 1990 or 1991 in Eichsfeld I was confronted with a poster that said: “Thieves, fraudsters, murderers, killers”. That meant my party and I. So I gave the author the tip to adhere to the legally correct order of increase next time. Murder is more serious than manslaughter; so murder must come last. This is my way of fighting back. And it can be effective.
–
