Ingo Blechschmidt did not come alone to the Augsburg District Court. The climate activist had a whole entourage with him, friends, supporters, young people from the Augsburg climate camp. However, he came without a lawyer, against the allegation of trespassing and slander against a public figure, he defended himself on Monday without legal assistance – but without success. Blechschmidt, meanwhile involved in protest actions against climate sins identified by activists throughout Germany, was sentenced to a fine of 140 daily rates of 15 euros each, after a hearing with a bias against the judge, numerous interruptions and lectures on climate change, the total is 2100 euros – the public prosecutor had even applied for a six-month prison sentence, suspended on probation.
Blechschmidt, together with two other activists, occupied the Swabian government last autumn. At the time, the 34-year-old threw a rope out of the window, on which an activist climbed up the outside of the facade, secured on the inside by Blechschmidt and an accomplice. The activists protested against the partial clearing of the Meitinger Lohwald by the Lech steelworks. They accused the then district president of corruption because the authority had granted an exemption under species protection law, which they believed made the partial clearing possible in the first place. The government of Swabia denies that a special permit was required for the partial clearance at all. The Federation of Nature Conservation has now complained about the exemption at the Augsburg Administrative Court.
Blechschmidt admitted the squatting and the rope action, but he didn’t want to know anything about trespassing. Neither the government of Swabia nor anyone else suggested that he should leave the seat of the authorities. As far as the allegations of corruption are concerned, the prosecution relied primarily on a press release that the climate activists sent out in the course of the protest. In it they accused the district president of corruption – but they failed to provide proof of the allegations.
Blechschmidt denied sending the e-mail with the press release, even though it was shown to have been sent from his e-mail account. “A lot of people have access to my email account,” said Blechschmidt. “Many people also know the number combination of my bike lock and know the PIN of my bank card.” However, an administrative employee of the Swabian government testified as a witness that the accused had also called out the window during the action that the top official had allowed himself to be bribed.
Blechschmidt said he could have stood in front of the Swabian government building and held up a banner in protest. But then, with luck, he would have gotten at most a small report in the local newspaper. The aim of the activists was to reach a broad public with the squatting and the rope action. It was therefore not surprising that Blechschmidt also used the court process as a stage: he thanked the witnesses from the police or public order office, for example, by saying that he too was orderly, but that in the course of the future distribution battles for food due to global warming he would soon not be rule of law in Germany will be more. He also unsuccessfully submitted an application for an inspection of the Ahr Valley, the flood disaster there shows the relevance of climate change.
“Repentant insight” does not exist
The bias motion against the judge had already been rejected because she would not allow him to use a laptop or cell phone for defense out of concern that he would use it to communicate outside of the courtroom. With great patience, she also had Blechschmidt position books on climate change on the table in front of her. However, she refused that Blechschmidt wanted to have a police officer involved and two employees of the Swabian government summoned as witnesses to prove that nobody had asked him to leave the house. Further witnesses are not necessary, the question of guilt is clear.
The public prosecutor said in her pleading that there were sufficient democratic opportunities to legitimately express one’s protest. A fine is no longer sufficient to have an effect on the accused, who has a previous conviction for defamation. “Repentant insight” does not exist, the judge also saw it that way in the verdict. It is also not to be expected in the future that the activist will only submit petitions to achieve his goals. However, she ruled out a suspended sentence. Blechschmidt does not even want to accept the fine. In a press release, he announced that he would appeal.