THE POLICE PROTECTED LAW-BREAKERS IN STUTTGART 
WHEN THEY ENABLED GERMAN RAILWAY INC. TO START FELLING TREES IN THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 30 / OCTOBER 1, 2010 IN THE ‘SCHLOSSPARK’ [PARC DE LA CHATEAU; CASTLE PARK].
 

THE EVENTS IN THE EVENING OF SEPT.1

AS IS KNOWN BY NOW, ABOUT 65,000 PEACEFUL STUTTGARTERS DEMONTRATED IN THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 30 AGAINST THE FELLING OF LEGALLY PROTECTED TREES IN THE LARGE DOWNTOWN PARK.

WITH A BRUTALITY THAT WAS NEVER SEEN DURING DEMONTRATIONS IN WEST GERMANY AFTER THE WAR, EXCEPT DURING DEMONSTRATIONS OF STUDENTS AND OTHER YOUNG PEOPLE,  THE POLICE  ATTACKED CHILDREN, SENIOR CITIZENS, MIDDLE AGED MEN AND WOMAN, YOUNGSTERS ON THAT EVENING. 

THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK WAS AGAINST A SIT-IN OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, AMONG THEM SEVEN-YEAR OLDS, SOME APPARENTLY ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR GRAND-PARENTS. THESE AND OTHER ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO WATCHED WHAT HAPPENED FROM NEARBY  WERE ALSO SEVERELY ATTACKED. SOME BECAUSE THEY WERE STANDING ON THE SIDELINES WHEN THE VIOLENT POLICE ACTION OF CLEARING THE STREET BLOCKED BY THE SIT-IN OF CHILDREN STARTED, OTHERS BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO PROTECT THE KIDS.
AT LEAST ONE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED THAT THE COMMANDER OF THE POLICE UNIT THAT BROKE UP THE CHILDRENS’ SIT-IN  ISSUED THE FOLLOWING COMMAND, “CLEAR THE SQUARE, NO MATTER HOW.”
THE POLICE USED VERY FORCEFUL WATER-CANONS AGAINST THE CHILDREN; AND TWO ADULTS WHO TRIED TO SHIELD THE KIDS WERE SEVERLY INJURED AND ARE CURRENTLY BLIND AND IN HOSPITAL; ONE OF THEM WILL HAVE BOTH PUPILS OF HIS EYES REPLACED BY ARTIFICIAL ‘LENSES’ OR ‘PUPILS’ BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER HE WIL THEN BE ABLE TO SEE,  AS THE RETINA HAS ALSO BEEN DAMAGED.

THERE WERE OTHER INCIDENTS, AGAIN DUE TO POLICE VIOLENCE. THE GIESSEN DAILY REPORTED THAT BATONS, WATER CANONS, AS WELL AS TEAR GAS AND PEPPER SPRAY (FROM A VERY CLOSE DISTANCE, SMACK INTO THE FACE)  WERE USED AGAINST PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS. IT ALSO REPORTED THAT POLICE OFFICERS ON HORSEBACK WERE SEEN GALOPPING INTO THE CROWD:
A COMMISSION ABOUT TO BE SET UP BY THE GERMAN PARLIAMENT WILL INVESTIGATE THESE OCCURENCES WHICH THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT, MS. MERKEL AND OTHER POLITICIANS OF THE GOVERNING COALITION DEFENDED IMMEDIATELY, JUSTIFYING USE OF FORCE BY THE POLICE WITH VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF “SOME DEMONTRATORS.”

THE CORRESPONDING ACCUSATION MADE BY THE STUTTGART POLICE  THAT “BOTTLES HAD BEEN THROWN” WAS NOT REPEATED LATER ON IN THE MEDIA AND WAS APPARENTLY DROPPED, AS IT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED. ON THE CONTRARY, IMPARTIAL WITNESSES WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROTESTS TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY.
 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 30 AND  ON THE FOLLOWING DAY - OCTOBER 1

When the demonstration of September 30 in protest against the intended felling of all trees in the ‘Schlosspark’ had been forcibly dissolved, the police immediately started to shield the felling of trees that was still only possible under police protection, against possible obstruction (blockade of trucks, etc.). 
The opponents sought an injunction against the illegal felling of protected trees in the courts.

When a speedily adjourned hearing occurred, German Railway Inc. withheld a decisive document nor did they mention its existence. Thus, the judge did not know that in the afternoon or evening of September 30, a letter by the supervisory authority regulating German Railway Inc. had arrived which expressly forbade all tree-felling action as long as the plans of German Railway Inc. had not been examined thoroughly by this supervisory authority, the Federal German Railroad Authority.  

The decision of German Railways Inc. to suddenly begin with tree fellin  action and with the destruction of the Northern Wing of Stuttgart Central Station (a protected historical monument) SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DICTATED BY THE DESIRE TO CREATE DECISIVE FACTS BEFORE THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY COULD REACH A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DECISION CONCERNING THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND THEIR MATERIAL IMPLICATIONS. 
 

HOW THE GOVERNING COALITION REACTED TO THE EVENTS IN STUTTGART

By mid-October, the press reported that the government had decided, in cabinet session, to introduce an Act in parliament that foresees stiffer penalties for “ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE POLICE.”

Already during the violent evening in Stuttgart and immediately afterwards, leading politicians and the head of state among them had “warned” DEMONSTRATORS against violent act, creating an impression in the media and among uninformed citizens in the country that such violence had occurred, while avoiding any mention on their part of police violence.

The police was being applauded and ‘thanked’ for the job they had done.
When the media had reported the fact that the new act was about to be introduced in parliament soon, the media reaction on that day and the next one was curious. Even on the relatively liberal WDR5 radio, the follow-up was a moderated broadcast which allowed listeners to call in. It’s topic? “Do you feel sufficiently protected by the police?” 

In view of what happened in Stuttgart, a question occurs in the mind: “IS THIS BLACK HUMOR, THE MOST BLATANT ATTEMPT TO FALSIFY THE TRUTH AND MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION, or an especially clever way to provoke a critical reaction by those calling in?” 

It is difficult to form an opinion here without understanding the role of so-called mainstream media. Many media prefer info-tainment and are interested in increasing -  or at least stabilizing, at a time of economic crisis - the size of their (paying and/or non-paying) audience because these numbers affect intake. Advertisers like large audiences. In addition, the interest of owners of the (private) media and their political orientation openly or in less open ways affects reporting. The liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung shows a clear bias, in its reporting, in favor of the high-speed project, clearance of the park and wrecking of the legally protected station building in Stuttgart. This would not have been expected a number of years ago. In fact, until a hedge-fund took over as owner, Süddeutsche Zeitung was a relatively critical paper occasionally and it was in fact the only remaining slightly left-liberal daily of nation-wide significance and with a nation-wide distribution in Germany,  since the very moment when the left-liberal Frankfurter Rundschau was turned into a provincial daily with the typical low level of professionalism that most of these provincial papers are known for.

From public television and even from public radio we have no longer very muh too expect. Critical broadcasts became much more rare in the late 70, in the 1980 and 1990s than had been the case in the early and mid-70s. But if we thought it couldn’t get worse, we were disproved. IT GOT A LOT WORSE IN THE LAST TEN YEAR OR SO; AND AGAIN – WITH REGARD TO THE FLAGSHIP OF CRITICAL REPORTING IN THE RADIO, WDR5 – SINCE THE TIME MR: PLEITGEN WAS REPLACED AS THE DIRECTOR BY MS. PIEL.  THE MODERATORS AND COMMENTATORS WE KNEW AS RELATIVELY CRITICAL HAVE BECOME A LOT MORE CAREFUL, IT SEEMS. AND INSTEAD OF BEING ENTRUSTED WITH TOUCHY TOPICS, THEY ARE MUCH MORE FREQUENTLY THAN BEFORE FOCUSING ON TRIVIAL BUT UNCONTROVERSIAL THEMES.

The programs that allow listeners to call in, even on WDR 5, are not as interesting as before. Of course the mechanism that governs the selection of people who can “VOICE THEIR OPINION” and DEBATE WITH THE MODERATOR AND/OR A SO-CALLEED EXPERT has hardly changed. THE APPLICATION HAS CHANGED, it seems. The trend is towards more control, a more restrictive policy, something which was always so obvious on public TELEVISION, of course, but that was that obvious in what we knew as the so-called “third programs”, programs that used to target the better-informed, often left-leaning listeners, especially in the case of WDR 3. The third program of WDR, in the form we knew it, has been dismantled; the “ersatz” provided, the new fifth program, became at best a watered-down version. Now it is watered-down a bit more and still a bit more, and often you can no longer recognize it and best turn it off. And still, listerners, all sorts of listeners continue to call in.

THOSE ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT ON THE RADIO HAVE TO GIVE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL A PERSON talking with them in advance WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY. IT IS APPARENT to any wider-awake and critical listener THAT THE POSSIBLE PARTICIPANTS ARE obviously SCREENED AND SELECTED; AND OFTEN A BALANCE OF PRO AND CONTRA OPINIONS SEEMS TO BE AIMED AT.  The more radical views are excluded; however. IT IS APPARENT TO FREQUENT LISTENERS THAT SHARP CRITICS HAVE TO TONE DOWN THEIR CRITICISM OR CAMOUFLAGE THEIR POINT-OF-VIEW during the preselection (i.e. IN THE INTERVIEW THAT IS NOT BROADCAST). “Coming out” once they are able to talk to the moderator over the radio, these outspoken critics who voice opinions outside the mainstream spectrum frequently find themselves tossed out after the first brief critical statement. Certain moderator very curtly and even angrily tell them, “THAT’S YOUR OPINION” and switch abruptly to the next in line. Dull phoners who repeat what they have to say, on the other hand, often are allowed ample time. Of course there are fine examples of professional journalim when some reporters interview and politician and point out contradictions in their statements. 

But to allow citizens go rather far in their criticism is seen as les and less desirable, no matter how politely it is expressed. So the assumption that the topic referred to, a topic that in itself projects an image of “THE POLICE AS PROTECTOR” right in the wake of massive violence by a considerable number of policeman in Stuttgart,  was hardly intended to provoke sharp criticism is perhaps quite true. A bit of carefully weighed, soft criticism and letting off steam, perhaps – but balanced by contrary views. Such a program could HARDLY provide a fair deal for the Stuttgart demonstrators. For some, at least, this is disturbing. 
 

WHAT THE COURT SAID ON OCT. 14(AS REPORTED IN THE PRESS ON THE SUBSEQUENT DAY)

The court deciding the legality of the tree-felling action that took place in the night of Sept. 30 and especially on October 1 was the ADOMINSTRATIVE COURT  (Verwaltungsgericht) in Stuttgart. Its conclusion was unambiguous. The felling of the trees was not legal [“nicht zulässig”], it concluded finally.

The implicit conclusion is that the police, unwittingly or not, defended an illegal act by German Railway Inc.

The accusation of the chairman of German Railway Inc., Mr. Grube, that the demonstrators were acting illegally in trying to obstruct what now has been characterized by the court as an illegal act committed by the privatized  former state-enterprise German Railway Inc., now  lets him look pretty bad. When Mr Grube chided 65,000 participants of the Sept. 30 demonstrators who used their constitutional right to protest as law-breakers, he may well have revealed a strange view of democracy and civil rights. His main argument was that demonstrations must not stop “progress” – a progress represented by the lucrative property deals that will become possible when the large downtown park is cleared of all its 300 trees. Mr. Grube did not fail to say that such important projects as the one that he has in mind in Stuttgart must not be sabotaged “by the street”, a pejorative expression that in the German language is a synonym of “the mob”. Some will find it strange to see how wholeheartedly politicians, including especially the German head of state, sided with Mr. Grube and voiced similar charges in the direction of the protesters.
 
 

[PARTIAL QUOTE OF THE SUEDDEUTCHE ZEITUNG REPORT]

"Stuttgart – Das Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart zweifelt daran, dass die umstrittene Rodung von [bislang] 25 Baeumen am 1.Oktober  [, darunter der aelteste und vielleicht imposanteste in der Parkmitte, der für beide Seiten symbolische Bedeutung hat, denn immerhin geht es um die geplante Rodung aller dreihundert Baeume] fuer das umstrittene Bahnprojekt [in dessen Windschatten eine große, prospektiv aeusserst lukrative Immobilienspekulation auf dem durch das beabsichtigte Faellen der 300 Baeume freiwerdenden Terrain durchgezogen werden soll] zulaessig war. Am Donnerstag ruegte es die Deutsche Bahn [AG], weil sie in dem von der Umweltschutzorganisation BUND angestrengten Verfahren um die Baumfaellarbeiten ein wichtiges Dokument vorenthalten hatte. [...] Bei dem Schreiben handelt es sich um ein Schreiben des Eisenbahnbundesamts.[...]"
(Source:  N.N., "Rüge für die Deutsche Bahn: Verwaltungsgericht hält Rodung der Bäume in
Stuttgarts Schlossgarten für unzulässig", in: Sueddeutsche Zeitung, No. 239, 15. Oktober 2010, p. 6)