Tags

,

The abolition of Freedom: then and now

Basic ideas of law and right were altered, if not abolished, during the Third Reich. No one is surprised by such a statement. But many would be if told that something very similar is happening today. Radical redefinitions of law are happening all over the so-called “first world”.

Freedoms of speech, religion, expression, and education, to name a few, are being made to bow down before new imperatives such as gender equality and anti-discrimination. This is being done by both laws and judges. Whether the constitutions of the nations that they are embedded in will be abolished, rendered meaningless, or show enough vitality to beat back these frontal assaults remains to be seen.

In this day it is not really understood that those constitutions commit their governments to protect the fundamental rights they proudly list. The most dangerous assaults of all are laws that defy the spirit if not the letter of those charter documents, but are enforced as though they are what they are not, which is valid law. Such laws unrighteously extend the scope of government’s power into realms forbidden it by both natural law and bills of right. They seek to alter the nature of society and more ambitiously, human nature itself.

The psalmist referred to such governments as “thrones of iniquity,” which frame “mischief by law.” (Psalm 94:20, KJV). These have no alliance or fellowship with God. That is, they and their laws have no claim on the conscience of men. Their laws are upheld not by right but by might.1

Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with you? They gather together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood. Psalm 94:20-21 (NAS)

The effect of these assaults on human rights will be just as radical as what happened in Nazi Germany, but it will be less noticeable as it is happening slowly, over time.2 Most will never wake up to how greatly the world has changed around them. They will not realize that the change in law has effected a change in society.

American states are getting a taste of it as judges, not the people, rewrite and annul their constitutions and laws. A worldwide, top-down revolution is in process.3 Some countries are finding that their ambitious social and political goals are impossible in the face of individual rights as they have been traditionally understood.

Such nations are forging ahead on what they imagine to be a new road. Old ways are being abandoned or destroyed.

New inroads into family and private lives are being made. Germany is such a country.

He who controls the past. . .

ErnetRudolfHuber

Ernst Rudolf Huber (1903-1990)

To understand the present, we have to understand the past and how its influence lives on. How we still live, in other words, in its shadow.

A very important person, both before and after World War II, is the subject of this post. That he could be important in both eras is very telling.

In the Nazi era, Ernst Rudolf Huber spoke of the non-existence of individual fundamental rights and freedoms. He was one of the Kiel School of law teachers and legal philosophers.4 Abolishing fundamental rights left the government absolutely free legally to direct and punish however and for whatever purpose they saw fit. These were obviously very important aspects of “law” in those days.

When Huber was truly a young radical, he wrote in his book “The Constitutional Law of the Greater German Reich” that personal liberties had to disappear:

The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state. The member of the people, organically connected with the whole community, has replaced the isolated individual; he is included in the totality of the political people and is drawn into the collective action. There can no longer be any question of a private sphere, free of state influence, which is sacred and untouchable before the political unity. The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.5

2000-2008_Head_FCC_GunterHirschIn 2002, the then President of  the German Federal Supreme Court of Justice, Professor Doctor Günter Hirsch, made a major speech of what happened as a result of such legal theories. He went into detail, naming individuals, including Huber:

Theodor Maunz, Ernst-Rudolf Huber, Ulrich Scheuner, Ernst Forsthoff – the list of prominent university lecturers the Nazis were able to refer to is long.

He spoke of how such eminent legal minds deprived Jews of their civil existence, of how judges committed 50,000 judicial murders, and how the “crown jurist of the Third Reich,” Carl Schmitt, taught that the Fuhrer’s degrees were not only beyond judgment, but were themselves “supreme justice.” Thus from the most eminent legal minds of the age, we hear quite clearly that there are no constitutional or moral restraints on a government’s power. This is the essential prerequisite to the abolition of personal rights. And this is the shadow of the past upon modern Germany, and falling too on many other nations.

Further, Professor Doctor Hirsch vowed that the German judiciary was now on a fundamentally different basis:

that the resistance fighters…were not sentenced to death for high treason by a proper court in a lawful trial but became the victims of a judicial murder, was a late rehabilitation of the victims by the German Federal Supreme Court and may show you, their families,

that the German judiciary have found their way back to Radbruch’s doctrine [stating] that there is a higher law than the written law.

But is this actually true of Germany? Is there a higher law that sits in judgment over the written law? Can men now use in German courts what Radbruch called the “valid legal proposition” of Acts 5:29? In his Fifth Minute Radbruch boldly stated: “that you are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)—and this is not simply a pious wish, but a valid legal  proposition“? Or is it true that faith, too, must now yield to positive law?6

Men like Ernst Huber, whose enthusiastic labors provided the veneer of legality under which the Third Reich committed its atrocities, lived on teaching and writing after the War. His monumental constitutional history of Germany appeared from 1957 to 1991 (in eight volumes), for instance. Perhaps knowledgeable readers can let us know whether he ever repudiated his earlier writings. Others such as Carl Schmitt resisted all attempts at de-Nazification.

No more “sacred, private sphere, free of state influence”

Did the truth of this statement by Huber end at “zero hour” in 1945, when the nation of Germany had a hopeful restart? Or does it live on? Has the sacred, private sphere of the family been obliterated? It is looking that way to us. Huber was certainly describing then when he spoke of a state no more “based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.” But is he not describing now as well? Can you not substitute gender mainstreaming now. . .and make the exact same statement as he did then?

The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of gender mainstreaming. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state.

Do you think we exaggerate?

This is what parents are discovering with the early sexualization of their children in German schools. They are discovering their children, the precious life that came from their love for one another, are not theirs at all. Their parenthood is not respected by the state. Some parents are protesting, literally marching in the streets proclaiming: “The state is going too far.”

StuttgartDemo_ParentsRights

Translation: Protect Parental Rights! Stop Gender-Ideologies and the Sexualization of our Children!

This atrocious invasion of children’s private lives and places, straight from Brave New World, is, state institutions say, “normal and should be allowed.” Yes, gender mainstreaming is a universal guiding principle of the German government, a goal it is pursuing with all its might. It is not about to let a little thing like the inviolable rights articulated in the Basic Law get in the way.

“No personal liberties that must be respected by the state”

You can substitute Jugendamt too, which quite openly operates in “a space outside the law.”

The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principles that the Jugendamt acts by. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state.

Do you think we exaggerate?

The 2009 report, League for Children’s Rights, quotes a well-known German professor. Professor Klenner says that the Jugendamt operates in a “space outside the law”. He draws starkly ominous conclusions.

The demise of the Constitutional State of Germany

klenner_klein

Professor Klenner

Prof. Klenner states: “Whenever court decisions are ignored without contradiction, this is regarded as a license for further arbitrary actions, so that consciousness of illegal acting does not arise at all. … The official tolerance is the determining event of transgressing the point of no return. This is immediately followed by more illegal acting and the lack of respect of the judiciary will follow immediately.” Many other experts share this opinion, but no remedy has been implemented as yet.

Proof is too tedious to Establish

On the contrary the position of the Jugendamt has been further enhanced by a recent amendment of Art. 1666 of the Civil Code that has just obtained legal validity. Whereas until now a proof of parental failure had been compulsory for the withdrawal of parental authority, this requirement has now been abolished and replaced by a mere “suspicion” of a danger for the child. In the document explaining the reasons for this new “law for facilitation of intervention of family courts in cases of danger to the welfare of children the Bundestag explains that the proof of parental failure is too tedious to establish.” {7. Bundestag document no. 16/6815 of 24 October 2007 — see p. 9.}

Suspicion alone grounds for violations of rights

This reasoning is a very dangerous step towards the abolition of the constitutional state.

Parents are put under general suspicion, and this suspicion is declared sufficient for a violation of the Right of Respect of Family Life, but also the Right of Liberty and Security.

The abandon of the basic maxim “in dubio pro reo (benefit of the doubt) is a violation of the fundamental Right  to a Fair Trial: It is no longer necessary to prove the guilt of the suspect. Once this  movement is started there is no way of knowing where it will stop, and to which offences it will be extended. Germany is about to leave the basic principles of international conventions on Human Rights.”

Constitutional states – the very concept of limiting government to protect the rights of individuals – must be abolished to create a new man. Karl Marx recognized this, as is well known. But that today’s governments do, too, is so shocking and disturbing that most would rather close their eyes and, like the ostrich, bury their heads in the sand. What can the righteous do when the foundations are destroyed? (Psalm 11:3) There must be a place they can flee to.

 

 

  1. As Gustav Radbruch put it, “A law is valid because it is a law, and it is a law if, in the general run of cases, it has the power to prevail. This view of a law and of its validity (we call it the positivistic theory) has rendered jurists (judges) and the people alike defenceless against arbitrary, cruel, or criminal laws, however extreme they might be. In the end, the positivistic theory equates law with power; there is law only where there is power.” (Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy, published 1945)
  2. There is a modern parable about this known as “Frog Stew.” See the Frog Stew article for more on this.
  3. As Gabriele Kuby puts it, “This global sexual revolution is now being carried out by power elites. These include international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union, with their web of inscrutable sub-organizations; global corporations like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft; the big foundations like Rockefeller and Guggenheim; extremely rich individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates, Ted Turner, Georges Soros, and Warren Buffett; and non-governmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the International Lesbian and Gay Association.”
  4. The Kiel School was a hotbed of National Socialist thought applied to law.
  5.  Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939), in Raymond E. Murphy, et al., ed., National Socialism, reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, selected by Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1952, p. 90.
  6. The theory of positive law is defined by Radbruch in his First Minute as: “This view of a law and of its validity (we call it the positivistic theory) has rendered jurists and the people alike defenceless against arbitrary, cruel, or criminal laws, however extreme they might be. In the end, the positivistic theory equates law with power; there is law only where there is power.