Is forceless groping illegal in Germany? Is groping punishable in Germany? Assuming that no force is used, and all people involved are adults. Hypothetical case: Bob enters a bus and sits down next to Chuck. Both are adults, and they don’t know each other. Suddenly Chuck makes Bob a compliment and gropes Bob’s crotch. This inflicts no physical pain on Bob, and Chuck is in no way holding Bob down. What I found out so far, as a layman (please correct me!): § 174 StGB (and § 174a, § 174b, § 174c), § 176 StGB (and § 176a, § 176b), § 179 StGB and § 182 StGB define sexual abuse. Bob is 18+ years old, and there does not exist any kind of power gap, so I think § 174/176/179/182 do not apply. § 177 StGB and § 178 StGB define sexual assault (Sexuelle Nötigung) and rape (Vergewaltigung). § 177 (1) makes clear that it has to involve force/violence (Gewalt), a threat (Drohung), or exploiting of a defenseless position (Ausnutzung einer Lage …). Chuck is not using violence, nor is he threatening, nor is Bob defenseless, so I think § 177/178 do not apply. Most of the other paragraphs from the 13. section seem to be about prostitution, pornography, and exhibitionism; these obviously don’t apply. I read that sometimes § 185 StGB (insult) can be relevant, but this would require the intent to insult (e.g., making snide remarks while groping), so this does not seem to apply in the hypothetical case (Chuck even compliments Bob!). § 223 (bodily harm) does not seem to apply (the groping doesn’t even hurt). Bonus question: Would anything change if Bob says to Chuck that he should stop it, but Chuck does it again?
§177 "Sexueller Übergriff; sexuelle Nötigung; Vergewaltigung" was recently changed. It now includes: (2) 3. der Täter ein Überraschungsmoment ausnutzt, this loosely translates to: "[in case] the perpetrator exploits a moment of surprise" Suddenly Chuck makes Bob a compliment and gropes Bob’s crotch. From your example it's clear that Chuck did overcome any possible resistance by surprising Bob. Bonus: This was also added in the same change (2) 1. der Täter ausnutzt, dass die Person nicht in der Lage ist, einen entgegenstehenden Willen zu bilden oder zu äußern, "[in case] the perpetrator exploits that the person is not able to make up or state their mind in an opposing way" Hence you can't have consensual sex with someone who's intoxicated (e.g. drunk with 1.1‰), not even when you're drunk yourself. In the latter case two individuals would technically rape each other.
No, it’s not legal, § 7 Ⅰ | 1 AGG (“employee” includes applicants, § 6 Ⅰ 2 AGG), unless the the job requires a certain sex, § 8 Ⅰ AGG, example: porn actor. If you’re a good lawyer, you can argue that a women’s shelter hires females only, but only as far as the specific position includes interaction with patrons (i. e. janitor, or accountant must still be open to everyone). Advertising unwarranted gender-discriminatory positions is already illegal, § 11 AGG. There are some people who abuse their legal rights and apply for such a position, include a discreet statement about their sex, and after receiving a rejection file a lawsuit for damages, § 15 AGG, usually 3 months worth of wage.
§145d StGB makes it illegal to pretend that a crime did happen or will happen, but only if one deceives the police or a similar agency. It is also a crime to deceive about the participants of a crime. Pretending to have been sentenced and presumably to have been released after serving a sentence does not quite fit that law.
No, you are not allowed to destroy or deface other peaple's property (§ 303 StGB) the attempt to do the same is also punishable To whom it belongs to is irrelevant. The Freedom of expression is restricted by Artical 5 (2): the provisions of general laws of which § 303 StGB is only one of in the right to personal honour as well as § 185-188 Criminal Code (StGB) - Insult and Defamation So insulting someone because you disagree with their viewpoint also exceeds the Freedom of expression. Section 303 - Criminal damage (1) Whosoever unlawfully damages or destroys an object belonging to another shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine. (2) Whosoever unlawfully alters the appearance of an object belonging to another substantially and permanently shall incur the same penalty. (3) The attempt shall be punishable Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences] (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution. Section 185 Insult An insult shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the insult is committed by means of an assault, with imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine. Section 186 Defamation Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him, shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true, be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence was committed publicly or through the dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)), to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine. Section 187 Intentional defamation Whosoever intentionally and knowingly asserts or disseminates an untrue fact related to another person, which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him or endanger his creditworthiness shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine, and, if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine. Section 188 Defamation of persons in the political arena (1) If an offence of defamation (section 186) is committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) against a person involved in the popular political life based on the position of that person in public life, and if the offence may make his public activities substantially more difficult the penalty shall be imprisonment from three months to five years. (2) An intentional defamation (section 187) under the same conditions shall entail imprisonment from six months to five years. Sources: § 185-188 Criminal Code (StGB) - Insult and Defamation § 303 Criminal Code (StGB) - Criminal damage Article 5 - Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
In Germany, had the store not called the police (or paramedics), they would have been charged for not doing so under Section 323c. Other jurisdictions will no doubt have similar laws. On arrival, being informed that you ran away - but thankfully paid with a credit card - the police will try to find you. They are not allowed to make a determination that you are just being foolish, but must assume you are a danger to yourself. At some point in the extensive bureaucratic matter, they will probably come to the conclusion that you have acted in a negligent manner. Once that has been done, you will be made liable for all entailed costs to the taxpayer. So your fear of being charged for threatening to commit suicide is the least of your problems. Your claim against the store is probably justified (the listed price is in most jurisdictions binding). Your reaction to that is not. Section 323c Failure to render assistance; obstruction of persons rendering assistance (1) Whoever does not render assistance in the case of an accident or a common danger or emergency although it is necessary and can reasonably be expected under the circumstances, in particular if it is possible without substantial danger to that person and without breaching other important duties, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine. (2) Whoever obstructs a person who is rendering or wishes to render assistance to another person in such a situation incurs the same penalty. Sources: Section 323c - German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB)
There is actually a rather recent law in Germany which would make nonconsensual distribution of images which could damage the reputation of a person illegal: §201a StGB [de|en] &quot;Violation of intimate privacy by taking photographs or other images&quot;. This law says that: whoever, without being authorised to do so, makes available to a third party a photograph or other image of another person which is of such a nature as to significantly damage the reputation of the person depicted incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine. But even if the person has not already done so, just threatening to commit this crime might also be a crime according to §253 StGB [de|en] &quot;Extortion&quot;: (1) Whoever unlawfully, by force or threat of serious harm, coerces a person to do, acquiesce to or refrain from an act, and thereby damages that person’s or another’s assets for the purpose of wrongful personal enrichment or enrichment of a third party, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine. (2) The act is unlawful if the use of force or the threat of harm is deemed reprehensible in respect of the desired objective. (3) The attempt is punishable. (4) In especially serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of at least one year. An especially serious case typically occurs where the offender acts on a commercial basis or as a member of a gang whose purpose is the continued commission of extortion. Considering the repercussions in the Saudi-Arabian culture and legal system for promiscuity, especially for women, it is hard to deny that there is a threat of &quot;serious harm&quot; in this case. So it might be a good idea to file a police report with the police of the federal state where the perpetrator lives. The police of most federal states allow to do that through their respective websites (look for the keywords &quot;Internetwache&quot; or &quot;Strafanzeige&quot;), so there is no need to travel to Germany to do so. This does of course require that there is enough information available to obtain the real identity of the perpetrator, which can be difficult with people you only know through online services.
Is receiving intimate stimulation while driving illegal? Under Michigan law, it seems illegal. What you describe is one particular case of a general family of scenarios where recklessness or negligence are elements of a driver-related offense. Thus, it would be inefficient and redundant to enact a statute to prohibit that specific hypothetical situation. MCL 257.626(2) sanctions the operation of a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, and as you mention It's pretty obvious to me why this is a dangerous practice MCL 257.626b sanctions the operation of a vehicle in a careless or negligent manner likely to endanger any person or property, but without wantonness or recklessness. A prosecutor might try to file charges also on the basis of MCL 750.335, which sanctions "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior".
Would it be legal in Germany for someone to display swastikas in a specifically Buddhist or Hindu religious context (e.g. incorporating them into the architecture of a Buddhist or Hindu temple)? Yes, it would be legal, since through the religious context it is clear that the conditions set in 86 StGB (Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional organisations) are not fulfilled. The Das Buddhistische Haus in Berlin, founded in 1924, may be able to give more information about how this was delt with in the aftermath of the war. Erlaubt wurden später aber Hakenkreuze, die den Nationalsozialismus objektiv nicht befürworten: Hakenkreuz im Verbotsschild in Kunstwerken, zum Beispiel politischen Karikaturen, in Auktionskatalogen, zur Religionsausübung der Falun Gong in Deutschland, als Anti-Nazi-Symbole von antifaschistischen Gruppen zur Ablehnung rechtsextremer Organisationen und Ideologien. Damit hob der Bundesgerichtshof 2007 vorherige Urteile gegen Verwender von Antinazisymbolen auf. However, swastikas were later allowed that objectively do not support National Socialism: Swastika in the prohibition sign in works of art, for example political cartoons, in auction catalogs, for practicing Falun Gong in Germany, as anti-Nazi symbols of anti-fascist groups to reject extreme right-wing organizations and ideologies. In 2007, the Federal Court of Justice overturned previous judgments against users of anti-Nazi symbols. Sources: Swastika (in German) the English version of this article does not contain the above quoted portions Das Buddhistische Haus - Berlin Frohnau (in English) 86 / 86a StGB - Criminal Code (in English)