Corona protests: Banning demos in front of politicians’ houses, right?

Opponents of the corona measures have repeatedly marched in front of politicians’ homes with torches, drums and whistles. The authorities responded with blanket bans. Rightly?

For their protest against the Corona policy, demonstrators are increasingly gathering in very special places: in front of the private homes of politicians. Prime Minister Winfried Kretschmann met in Baden-Württemberg a week ago, and Mayor Daniel Szarata in Halberstadt in the Harz Mountains.

The demonstrators make noise with whistles and drums. In the Harz Mountains, they also had torches with them – as in December at a march in front of the house of the Saxon Health Minister Petra Köpping. And the examples multiply. Other politicians affected include Boris Palmer in Tübingen and the mayor of Gera, Julian Vonarb. Baden-Württemberg’s Interior Minister spoke of “psycho-terror”.

Ban on gatherings for several weeks

The district offices in Kretschmann’s home town of Sigmaringen and in the Harz Mountains have reacted – they have banned meetings by general decree in the immediate vicinity of politicians’ homes. The bans apply preventively for several weeks: in Sigmaringen in the vicinity of Kretschmann’s house, in the Harz Mountains in a number of places.

The Corona protests also pose a challenge to the authorities because – contrary to what is required by law – they are often not registered. This makes it difficult for the authorities to impose conditions or to issue bans. The organizers do not give you any information about the place, time and number of participants and essentially have to rely on past experience.

Other cities have also recently reacted with general assembly bans for corona protests in certain locations, which apply for several weeks. In the case of the city of Freiburg, the Federal Constitutional Court did not object to such a general decree in an urgent decision. However, it remained unclear whether such a precautionary ban on assembly is compatible with the Basic Law.

Protected by freedom of assembly?

The decisive factor here is the freedom of assembly guaranteed in Article 8 of the Basic Law. It protects the right to “assemble peacefully and without arms”. In spring 2021, the administrative court in Hanover decided in summary proceedings that a protest by critics of the Corona policy in front of the home of the Prime Minister of Lower Saxony did not fall under the protection of Article 8. Because an “unpeaceful” demonstration had been planned: even the choice of the meeting place at the residential building shows that the prime minister was directly and personally intimidated.

Lawyer Karoline Maria Linzbach from the University of Bonn, on the other hand, doubts that “purely psychological pressure” is enough to classify a demonstration as unpeaceful. “Rather, actions of some dangerous nature, such as aggressive excesses against people or things or other acts of violence are assumed,” she writes in one Guest post on “Legal Tribune Online” to protest marches in front of private houses. The authorities who deal with corona protests in front of politicians’ homes usually assume that freedom of assembly applies.

High hurdles for a ban

However, the freedom of assembly can be restricted – also through bans or dissolutions. The hurdles are high, however, because freedom of assembly is an important legal asset in a democracy. A ban requires an “immediate threat to public safety or order”. This can be any violation of the legal system and the rights of individuals.

In the case of the Corona protests in front of private houses “it’s about the general right of personality of politicians and also physical integrity – namely when the protests have psychological effects that manifest themselves physically, such as in states of anxiety,” says the lawyer Eva Maria Bredler from the University of Munster.

“In addition, the inviolability of the home can be affected if protesters climb over a hedge or a fence, for example.” The district office in Sigmaringen justifies the ban on gatherings in front of Kretschmann’s house with his personal rights and those of his family: “Pressure should be exerted on Mr. Kretschmann in his private life.”

Just intimidation?

Bans must also be proportionate in individual cases. This means that a balance must be struck between the rights of the politicians concerned and freedom of assembly. It should be noted that freedom of assembly also protects the right to freely choose the place of assembly. A specific location can be essential for the purpose of a demonstration. In 2012, for example, demonstrators simulated aircraft noise in front of the home of the then Governing Mayor of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit. They wanted to make it clear to Wowereit what they would have to experience as residents if Schönefeld Airport were expanded. The administrative court in Berlin had declared this protest admissible.

“I think it’s crucial whether – when viewed objectively – as in the Wowereit case, you really ‘only’ want to emphasize your communication concerns, or whether you’re also aiming to intimidate,” says the lawyer Linzbach. “The more personal it gets, the less protection a meeting and the expression of opinion it aims to claim can claim for itself.”

If the majority of the demonstrators are concerned with a form of “revenge”, with “holding politicians to account”, this rather suggests that it is primarily a personal attack and not a bold criticism of the corona measures. This was also shown by the drums and torches that they brought with them, reminiscent of military processions.

Criticism of power and its limits

It is also important in the context of the consideration that criticism of power – i.e. criticism of political decision-makers – is decisive for the functioning of democracy. Politicians therefore have to endure more than private individuals. But that doesn’t mean that they have to put up with targeted attacks on their person or pure mood mongering.

“Politicians are also dependent on having a place to retreat,” says Bredler. “The torch marches are aimed specifically at creating fear and terror. Other politicians are also observing this and thus go beyond the individual case. These are images that go through the republic. And that must not be normalized.”

Only recently, following a constitutional complaint by Green Party politician Renate Künast, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that effective protection of politicians is also in the public interest. A willingness to participate in state and society can only be expected if those who get involved and make public contributions are guaranteed adequate protection of their personal rights.