In part II (named "The Charta of the European Union") of this constitution-to-be, it says in article II-62:
QUOTE
Article II-62: Right to live
(1) Every human being has the right to live.
(2) Nobody may be sentenced to death or executed.
(1) Every human being has the right to live.
(2) Nobody may be sentenced to death or executed.
This article alone sounds great. But in the annexes, which will be part of the Constitution as well, there are explanations as to what is meant by the articles.
-- Article II-62 is the charta's second article, the first 60 articles of this constitution are about the basic principles of the european union. You should keep this in mind during the next part of my post...
QUOTE
Explanations
... to article 2 (the constitution's Article II-62): Right to live
[this article appears again here but I won't type it again because I've done it already above]
[...]
3. The charta's article 2's commands equal the given articles of the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC) and its additional protocols. According to Article 52, sentence 3 in the charta, they have the same meaning and consequences, so the "negative defintions" of the EHRC have to be seen as part of the charta:
a) Article 2, sentence 2, EHRC: "A killing will not be seen as a violation of this article, if it is caused by a use of force, which is necessary to,
I) defend someone against illegal use of force,
II) arrest someone legally or to prevent someone who has lost his or her freedom in a rightful decision by a court from flight,
III) beat down an uprising or revolution.
[explanations about national death penalties during times of war]
... to article 2 (the constitution's Article II-62): Right to live
[this article appears again here but I won't type it again because I've done it already above]
[...]
3. The charta's article 2's commands equal the given articles of the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC) and its additional protocols. According to Article 52, sentence 3 in the charta, they have the same meaning and consequences, so the "negative defintions" of the EHRC have to be seen as part of the charta:
a) Article 2, sentence 2, EHRC: "A killing will not be seen as a violation of this article, if it is caused by a use of force, which is necessary to,
I) defend someone against illegal use of force,
II) arrest someone legally or to prevent someone who has lost his or her freedom in a rightful decision by a court from flight,
III) beat down an uprising or revolution.
[explanations about national death penalties during times of war]What worries me about these explanations is 3.a.III, the use of force to beat down an uprising or revolution.
I've observed the news for quite some time now and every time a larger demonstration turned violent, some politicians began to talk about the threat an uprising would be for Germany.
If the constitution is ratified by all member states of the European Union, this constitution with all its protocols and explanations will be official law by november 2006, just in time for the G8/WTO-conferences in Germany in 2007, where I will be on the streets of either Berlin or the place where the meetings will be - and as I have learned from reports about other G8/WTO-conferences, it's not only the protesters who use more violence than necessary [actually, zero violence would be fine for me] but also the police. In Genua, 2001, the police cleared the Media Centre and the school where most reporters slept in (most of the people in these two buildings were badly injured even though they only started resisting the police when it was clear that they would use excessive force anyway) and the next day, an italian cop killed a protester with a headshot. Afterwards noone could clearly tell whether the cop was allowed to shoot the protester by italian law or not; whereas the killing would definitely be allowed by the negative definitions I quoted above (the police can always give the story the "was necessary"-twist afterwards)...
