User:Kmalik2011/sandbox

Von: Saniax Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. November 2013 21:03 An: khan@khan-lang.de Betreff: Verdict 1 draft

Verdict of administrative Court Frankfurt Dr Bilal Phillips v Frankfurt am Main

1st Chamber of Frankfurt Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) Head Judge Reutter-Schwammborn Judge Metzler Judge Wilke Volunteer Judge Breitkreuz Volunteer Judge Dressler

The order issued by the Mayor of a Frankfurt on 20.04.2011 has been annulled. All costs will be bourn by the Defendant. (The court verdicts starts with the summary of the case)

According to Section 55 - Discretionary expulsion (1) A foreigner may be expelled if his or her stay is detrimental to public safety and law and order or other substantial interests of the Federal Republic of Germany. (2) A foreigner may be expelled in accordance with sub-section 1 in particular if he or she, 8. a) publicly, at a meeting or by disseminating literature, endorses or promotes a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity or terrorist acts of comparable importance in a manner conducive to disturbing public safety and order or b)  incites hatred against sections of the population or calls for violence or arbitrary measures against the same in a manner conducive to disturbing public safety and order or attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously disparaging or slandering sections of the population. These requirements are not given in the case of the claimant (Bilal Phillips). After considering all circumstances at the time of this decision, the Chamber is not convinced that the Claimant has fulfilled any of the requirements given in section 55 subsection 2 8.a,b through his statement during his public speech in Frankfurt, through his statements available on the internet or in any other way. The statements made by the Claimant are expression of Freedom of speech. It is questionable if the interpretation of the defendant according to which the claimant has asked for the death penalty of homosexuals is valid. The wording and the public statements made on 20.04.2011 give no room for such an interpretation. Also there is no evidence that there is no sincerity about the claimants statements. In his video homosexuality contemporary issues, the claimant describes the death penalty for homosexuals as part of the Islamic religious and legal order under the condition that the respective conduct  witnessed by four people. however he has not uttered a demand for the death penalty. Although the statements of the claimant can be understood as a promotion for the death penalty, they are more likely to be understood as the description of the punishment for homosexuals by the sharia without a demand for implication. According to the German Supreme Court, the more favorable interpretation for the claimant is to be taken. Although this opinion contradicts the values of the German constitution it is still covered by the freedom of speech. Merely the opinion that gods law is above the states law does not justify any sanctions since it is not the duty of the state to judge the opinion of a party but their conduct. The opinions might be of fundamental Salafi Islam comprehension especially considering that the claimant has been associated to the preacher Pierre Vogel. however the statements cannot be understood in a way that they would be exceeding religios opinions and going into a aggressive and detremental way, wanting to abolish the constitutional order of German law. only in that case they would exceed the limits of freedom of speech. Statements of the claimant can also not be understood as an attack upon human dignity. although the claimant describes homosexual behaviour as religious sin, he does not deny the right of homosexuals to be human.

The claimant also hasn't incited hatred through his statement. in this respect it is to be considered that the claimant said publicly, that his sister is homosexual and he doesn't hate her for that. The all over circumstances don't give any indication that the claimant neither by the way of his speech nor by the selection of his words has promoted hatred against homosexuals. It is to be considered that in the video homosexuality contemporary issues even according to the defendants opinion the claimant has made his speech in a calm manner.

The chamber also does not understand the statements as a claim for violence against homosexuals or for self justice. There are no valid grounds for the statement or the claim of the defendant that the claimant has promoted a religiously motivated violence or terrorist activities by being a (jihad prone) Salafi.