Would Germany extradite someone for looking at blasphemous content online? Hypothetical question. If someone watched or looked up something online that is offensive to a particular world religion, and he was in an "unfree" country and then he travelled to Germany, would Germany extradite him upon request from the country he was in? What if it was very offensive/blasphemous? Hypothetical question.
Germany would not extradite to Saudi Arabia. India and Kuwait might, because they and a few other countries have extradition treaties with KSA. To put this squarely in the realm of illegal (it's not clear that accidentally encountering Shiite material online is a crime in KSA), assume that the person deliberately watched porn then fled to India. Generally speaking, this is a severe enough offense to allow extradition under the India-KSA treaty. However, India gets to review the request for exceptions. Under article 3, the central question is whether this is a political crime. There are enumerated acts that are not deemed to be political. Watching porn is not a listed exception. Accordingly, India could determine that this is a political crime, and refuse to extradite. If the crime is advocating atheism, however, then under Article 3 (1)(j), this is presumably not an excludable offense, because atheism is officially terrorism in KSA per Royal Decree 44 (I can't find an official copy). On the third hand, India may still reserve the right to apply their definition of terrorism. Even if there were an extradition treaty between Germany and KSA, German law Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters of 23 December 1982 §3(1) would currently preclude extradition because Extradition shall not be granted unless the offence is an unlawful act under German law or unless mutatis mutandis the offence would also constitute an offence under German law. There might be acts that are offenses in both countries, but not e.g. "watching porn" or "advocating atheism". The boundaries of blasphemy under German law are not clear to me. Section 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch imposes a maximum of 3 years in prison for blasphemy, so it could be an extraditable offense. Sect. 6 of the "Cooperation" law also sets forth exclusions for reasons of political and religious persecution. Also, KSA would have to assure Germany that the death penalty would not be imposed.
A school district has been sued for something like that. In Church of God, Etc. v. Amarillo Indep. Sch., 511 F. Supp. 613, plaintiffs successfully sued the school district "to enjoin the enforcement of the Amarillo School District's absence policy which limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays to two days each school year", where "A fundamental tenet of the Church of God is that members must abstain from secular activity on seven annual holy days". The school district imposed an absence polity where "School work missed may be made up whether an absence is excused or unexcused", and "Excused absences shall be granted to students for a maximum of 2 days for religious holidays in each school year". The court concluded that "This policy poses an unquestionable burden on the Plaintiffs' religious belief", and "This burden is not ameliorated by the make-up work provision. The provision does not require a teacher to evaluate the work made up. It in fact directs the teacher to enter a zero for that work". In this case "Summary judgment is granted and judgment rendered enjoining the enforcement of the Amarillo Independent School District's excused absence policy insofar as it limits the number of excused absences for religious holidays". This is not a matter of religious discrimination, this is a First Amendment issue. The policy is in violation of the Free Exercise clause. Eliminating spring break per se is not a problem: doing so and providing no excused absences is the problem. In the above case, there was clear a religious principle of the church to the effect that one must be off the clock on the holiday. As far as I know, there is no requirement to abstain from work or school on Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday or Good Friday. Nevertheless, in recognition of New Jersey state law which allows any student to take off a religious holiday – including Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday, and dozens more – the Board of Education has prepared a list of such holidays, which includes Wiccan, Hindu, Baha'i, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Church of Scientology (and so on) religious holidays.
I understand that you are wondering why illegal immigrants are not more often deported by the authorities. This answer has grown a bit out of proportion because I also try to explore the general refugee situation. That seems appropriate because the large number of migrants makes the question of deportation more pressing. We would not be very concerned about just a handful. Numbers First of all, while in 2015 about a million migrants entered Germany, only 282,000 asylum requests were decided; a lot of them probably dated from 2014 (the asylum seekers often needed weeks to even file their request due to adminstrative overload). Of those 282,000, 90,000 were rejected. The others have been granted asylum or refugee status (there is apparently some distinction). This means that the vast majority of ("true" or "alleged") refugees who came to Germany in 2015 are waiting for their request to be processed. Legal And Police Situation Did many of those 90,000 stay in the country? I don't know. Possibly. Some may still be tolerated ("geduldet"), i.e. the deportation may have been postponed according to par. 60a AufenthlatsG. The remaining ones are indeed obligated to leave the country. They are informed of the decision and have to leave within a period of time between 7 and 30 days. If they don't leave, they will be subject to criminal prosecution because they violate par. 95 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz. Of course it's usually not known to the authorities that somebody is still &mdash; illegally &mdash; in the country. Short of raids or coincidental run-ins with the police, e.g. because of traffic violations, illegal immigrants fly under the radar here like in all other countries (I suppose you are aware of the current discussion in the U.S.). I assume that illegal immigrants are not high on the priority list of the police, given that the cost/benefit ratio of actively searching them is probably quite bad; criminals solely due to status violations don't do much damage as such, compared to other criminals. One must assume though that some of the illegal immigrants will steal or deal drugs for a living, since they cannot officially work or receive subsidies; that exposes them to the authorities as much as other criminals, making it more likely to be caught. Deportation So the question which remains is what happens to the relatively small portion of migrants who are here illegally and who are found out. It seems easy: Deport them! The law provides the option to deport them without notice (because they would flee upon receiving a notice). Deportation to the EU Border State Migrants coming through other European Union countries should be processed at the port of entry, according to the Dublin Regulation. That was how Germany, with no external borders, cowardly used to shield itself from migrants. There is some legal debate whether an asylum seeker who against all Dublin Regulations reaches Germany (or even just the German border) can legally be turned away. A legal scholar in an interview in the current Spiegel magazine claims that every request must, according to European law, be at least checked first before the asylum seeker could be sent back to the port of entry. The big problem here is that the current crisis overwhelmed the EU border countries, in particular the already struggling Greece (which has only 11 million citizens). German courts have forbidden to send asylum seekers back to Greece and a few Balcan countries because of their dysfunctional asylum processing. Apart from the legal situation everybody just acknowledges that the Dublin Regulations were not meant to deal with the current number of refugees. Therefore, sending refugees back to Greece is currently not an option. That means asylum seekers will have their requests processed in Germany for now, a procedure which takes many months. There are no new numbers; mid-2015 the time was already about 5 months. Now it seems that you need already months to just file the request. The administration is hopelessly understaffed. New clerks need substantial legal and adminsitrative education so that it takes months or years from the top-level budget decision for new positions to when they are put to work. Deportation to Their Home Country Back to the question where to deport illegal migrants to. For citizens of safe countries, that seems obvious. (As discussed, migrants from unsafe countries will be granted refugee status, or they will at least be temporarily tolerated.) But the migrants often destroy their papers and simply refuse to tell where they come from. Some countries flatly refuse to provide replacement documents for their own citizens; they also refuse to take anybody without papers back, effectively making it impossible to deport migrants to them who do not cooperate. That seems to be the case for some North African countries (cf. this German Spiegel article). The German government will probably have to pay the countries in exchange for them to take their citizens back. Of course, deportations happen, and they are not pretty. Looking a little closer, a multitude of practical and legal problems emerge. First there is the fairly extreme effort to charter a flight and provide a couple police men, a doctor etc. to accompany the person. The migrants are frequently desperate, some hurt themselves to a degree which makes it impossible to transport them. If they are too desperate or violent, the pilots may not fly for safety or ethical concerns. Other passengers complain on regular flights. Doctors refuse to cooperate, or testify suicidal tendencies. Migrants have suffocated in police custody during a deportation attempt. Conclusion Legal Situation I cannot see a wide-spread disregard for the law by the German government. If anybody is violating European law, it's Greece and possibly some Balkan states on the migration land route. But in all reality these smaller countries are totally overwhelmed, so the situation is more a factual impossibility to obey the law, which cannot be helped as long as the facts are what they are. Note that the Dublin Regulations do not forbid Germany to welcome immigrants or accept requests for asylum. On the contrary: according to the legal scholar in the Spiegel magazine Germany has an obligation to at least minimally process asylum requests, once the asylum seekers have reached the border. (And since sending them back is not an option, the request is processed in Germany entirely.) There is no violation of the law there. Practical Aspects of Deportation; Alternatives At the end of the day forced deportations are an expensive, undignified, violent affair; I would simply consider it unsuitable for mass deportations. The authorities quickly reach the limit of what is doable with the current budget, personnel, and with respect to human rights &mdash; there is a legal and ethical limit to applicable violence against basically peaceful individuals. (I assume that Donald Trump has no idea what he is talking about when it gets to the ground work. "He has a big mouth and nothing behind it", as we say here.) Bottom line: If somebody doesn't want to leave, there is little you can do in a free country. I do not think that the government has deliberately decided to ignore the law; it's rather that the law is hard to enforce. That happens a lot, if you think of it. If one is adamant at making migrants leave, the only mass solution I can envision is to make it attractive to leave. I can imagine that 10,000 or 20,000 Euros per person is a sufficient incentive for migrants who did not flee from acute danger. I also think that it would be a good deal, long-term. Of course one will have to ensure that the migrants indeed leave, and do not come back too soon, or nothing would be gained. One could perhaps pay the premium through the governments of their home country, possibly in the form of real estate or a pension. That would combine an incentive for the home countries with one for their citizens. This economical calculus would only work if the home countries stayed stable for an extended period of time (or the returned migrants would have to migrate again, this time with a good reason). It must be the goal of the European countries to aim at stability in those regions. But that is the goal anyway, I hope; its importance was fairly prominent in recent months.
The article "Enforcement of Religious Courts' Judgments Under Israeli Law" (Asher Maoz, Journal of Church and State 1991) is useful in understanding the legal underpinnings of this question. The beginning point is the Palestine Order in Council 1922 (this is from the UK Privy Council), where religion-based courts are established, so sect. 52 is about Muslim courts, 53 (later repealed) is about Jewish courts and 54 is about Christian courts. Section 53 was replaced with Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953, stating that marriage between Jews follows Jewish law, and says that rabbinical court has exclusive jurisdiction. Article 6 of that law allows a district court enforce a final judgment by a rabbinical court by imprisonment. Muslim courts similarly have exclusive jurisdiction over Muslims, though it is wider (it pertains to all matters, not just marriage). Actual enforcement apparently involves the Chief Execution Officer. Basic Law 15 gives the Supreme Court supervisory power over all courts, including religious courts. So rabbinical courts don't have unfettered power to do whatever they want (under Jewish law), but there is direct state sanction of imprisonment as a penalty for not obeying a rabbinical court decision, there is non-religious execution of court orders, and there is secular supervision. Since civil marriage is non-existent in Israel, there is no choice (if you want to have the wedding in Israel) but to go to the recognized religious authorities, which seems to make Cyprus a popular wedding venue. A Roman Catholic divorce is not possible in Israel, a Muslim one is, and I really cannot tell about the various Orthodox Christian churches.
What you're asking about is extraterritorial jurisdiction, and it will depend on the country and crime(s) involved. As an example, under Australian law, it is a crime to engage in sexual activities with minors barring specific exemptions, which are not relevant to this example. There are countries where the age of majority is less than that in Australia. If you were to travel to this country, you are not necessarily committing a crime there. However, Australia's sex tourism laws make it a crime to do this anywhere in the world. This is enacted (I believe) under the foreign affairs power of the Commonwealth Government. It will largely depend on the legal system of your country, as to whether laws have extraterritorial effect. In general, however, laws do not have extraterritorial effect unless explicitly stated.
The case you identify is not unique. For example, the Unitarian church in Denver has done much the same thing. There is not a legal right to sanctuary in a church. But, as a manner of law enforcement discretion and public relations and customary traditions of law enforcement respect for churches that long predate the formation of the USA, law enforcement routinely acts as if there was a right to sanctuary in churches (in the absence, for example, of an active shooter situation or a hostage crisis or a kidnapping with a missing victim). I am not aware of any case in which immigration officials have taken push to shove and breached a claim of sanctuary by a church protecting an illegal immigrant in a church. In England, where there was an established church, the established Anglican Church historically did have a right to intervene in certain ways in the criminal justice process (e.g. the "privilege of clergy"). UPDATE (February 21, 2017): My original answer was not entirely correct so I am updating this post. It turns out that in 2011 that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement made what was previously a mere custom into an official policy, something I was not previously aware of. The answer, it turns out, is policy and tradition. A 2011 Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy defines churches, schools and hospitals as "sensitive places" where enforcement actions should be limited. And the tradition of sheltering those who need it goes back to the Middle Ages, said David Poundstone with the Mountain View Friends Meeting. The official policy is set forth here. The policy is in the public domain and given the interest this post has generated I post it in full below: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have made available Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to supplement existing guidance concerning enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations and clarify what types of locations are covered by these policies. The ICE and CBP sensitive locations policies, which remain in effect, provide that enforcement actions at sensitive locations should generally be avoided, and require either prior approval from an appropriate supervisory official or exigent circumstances necessitating immediate action. DHS is committed to ensuring that people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so without fear or hesitation. Do the Department of Homeland Security's policies concerning enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations remain in effect? U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have each issued and implemented policies concerning enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations. The ICE Sensitive Locations Policy and the CBP Sensitive Locations Policy remain in effect, and these FAQs are intended to clarify what types of locations are covered by those policies. What do the Department of Homeland Security policies require for enforcement actions to be carried out at sensitive locations? The policies provide that enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations such as schools, places of worship, and hospitals should generally be avoided, and that such actions may only take place when (a) prior approval is obtained from an appropriate supervisory official, or (b) there are exigent circumstances necessitating immediate action without supervisor approval. The policies are meant to ensure that ICE and CBP officers and agents exercise sound judgment when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation. What does the Department of Homeland Security mean by the term “sensitive location”? Locations covered by these policies would include, but not be limited to: Schools, such as known and licensed daycares, pre-schools and other early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools; post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities; as well as scholastic or education-related activities or events, and school bus stops that are marked and/or known to the officer, during periods when school children are present at the stop; Medical treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities; Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples; Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as funerals and weddings; and During public demonstration, such as a march, rally, or parade. What is an enforcement action? An enforcement action covered by this policy is any action taken by ICE or CBP to apprehend, arrest, interview, or search an individual, or to surveil an individual for enforcement purposes. Actions not covered by this policy include activities such as obtaining records, documents, and similar materials from officials or employees, providing notice to officials or employees, serving subpoenas, engaging in Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) compliance and certification visits, guarding or securing detainees, or participating in official functions or community meetings. Will enforcement actions ever occur at sensitive locations? Enforcement actions may occur at sensitive locations in limited circumstances, but will generally be avoided. ICE or CBP officers and agents may conduct an enforcement action at a sensitive location with prior approval from an appropriate supervisory official, or if the enforcement action involves exigent circumstances. When may an enforcement action be carried out at a sensitive location without prior approval? ICE and CBP officers may carry out an enforcement action at a sensitive location without prior approval from a supervisor in exigent circumstances related to national security, terrorism, or public safety, or where there is an imminent risk of destruction of evidence material to an ongoing criminal case. When proceeding with an enforcement action under exigent circumstances, officers and agents must conduct themselves as discreetly as possible, consistent with officer and public safety, and make every effort to limit the time at or focused on the sensitive location. Are sensitive locations located along the international border also protected? The sensitive locations policy does not apply to operations that are conducted within the immediate vicinity of the international border, including the functional equivalent of the border. However, when situations arise that call for enforcement actions at or near a sensitive location within the immediate vicinity of the international border, including its functional equivalent, agents and officers are expected to exercise sound judgment and common sense while taking appropriate action, consistent with the goals of this policy. Examples of operations within the immediate vicinity of the border are, but are not limited to, searches at ports of entry, activities undertaken where there is reasonable certainty that an individual just crossed the border, circumstances where DHS has maintained surveillance of a subject since crossing the border, and circumstances where DHS is operating in a location that is geographically further from the border but separated from the border by rugged and remote terrain. Are courthouses sensitive locations? Courthouses do not fall under ICE or CBP’s policies concerning enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations. Where should I report a DHS enforcement action that I believe may be inconsistent with these policies? There are a number of locations where an individual may lodge a complaint about a particular DHS enforcement action that may have taken place in violation of the sensitive locations policy. You may find information about these locations, and information about how to file a complaint, on the DHS, CBP, or ICE websites. You may contact ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) through the Detention Reporting and Information Line at (888)351-4024 or through the ERO information email address at ERO.INFO@ice.dhs.gov, also available at https://www.ice.gov/webform/ero-contact-form. The Civil Liberties Division of the ICE Office of Diversity and Civil Rights may be contacted at (202) 732-0092 or ICE.Civil.Liberties@ice.dhs.gov. You may contact the CBP Information Center to file a complaint or compliment via phone at 1 (877) 227-5511, or submit an email through the website at https://help.cbp.gov. The policy is drafted in a manner that it doesn't actually prohibit enforcement in a sanctuary, even in the absence of exigent circumstances, but it does call for a process to be followed if this is done, and discourages doing so without prohibiting this action.
I can't comment on what the legal situation would be in your home country, but as a matter of U.S. law, the hypothetical scenario you've described is not illegal. First, because you aren't a U.S. citizen and because you aren't operating in the United States, the U.S. government probably has no jurisdiction over you, your website, or your conduct. Even if it did, the most relevant statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1017, would not apply. The statute prohibits the &quot;fraudulent or wrongful&quot; use of the FBI's seal. But &quot;fraudulent&quot; and &quot;wrongful&quot; generally refer only to conduct where one uses deception or other means to obtain money, property, etc. to which they have no lawful entitlement. United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 399 (1973). Because you aren't using the seal to obtain anyone's property through deception, this use would not fall within the statute's proscriptions. Even if the government sought to prosecute you, you would have a valid First Amendment defense. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and it does not allow statements to be criminalized merely because they are false. United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012). This outcome should be unsurprising to most U.S. observers. I think most people would agree that the U.S. obviously cannot prosecute a Hollywood producer for making a movie dramatizing the FBI's efforts to shut down the Pirate Bay, even if it displayed the FBI's seizure message on a monitor in the course of the movie, and even if it showed the seal being used on a completely fictional website. The hypothetical you're describing is not materially different. In both cases, the seal is being used to falsely create the impression -- for entertainment purposes -- that the FBI has shut down a website. Saying false things for entertainment purposes is not a crime in the United States.
It depends Law in international airspace over international waters is the law of the country the plane is registered in - just like a ship is considered land of the registered/owner's country while in international waters. This is, according to the Britannica, also called the quasi-territorial Jurisdiction. So if this were a Lufthansa Flight, technically everything there happens in Germany under the Tokyo Convention and German Law (StGB §4) and the case can be held in Germany. For United Airlines it means, that the act happened in the US and if it was an Air Japan flight, it would be Japan, no matter in which airspace it happens. However, other laws might also make the law of other countries apply and put the people into the jurisdiction by virtue of law applying globally: if the perpetrator or victim were US citizens, any felony that happens between the two on that flight can also be prosecuted in the US, as they claim jurisdiction in those cases. Similarly, the UK and Germany have similar laws, in the latter case for only a subset of crimes (StGB §5, 6-11a). This is the principle of personal jurisdiction. But technically, the quasi-territorial jurisdiction can override that. And that again is overridden once the plane lands and enters the territorial jurisdiction of the harboring country. All involved countries can elect to prosecute or not, and there is no double jeopardy problem as we have separate sovereigns. Who is most likely to prosecute? Depends on the case, but in the least, the country of registration has Jurisdiction and will usually get the first crack at the case. However, extradition treaties and other treaties between two countries can give preference to the country of the nationals. BTW: we had pretty much the same question for murder on a plane.