From: nitsche@carson.u.washington.edu (Gregor Nitsche)
Subject: Re: Violence update 13.10.92
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:32:09 GMT

In article <ldmitvINN6ej@dimebox.cs.utexas.edu> werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) writes:
> nitsche@carson.u.washington.edu (Gregor Nitsche) writes:
>
>||||parties concerned - SPD, FDP, PDS and Green - have protested that this
>||||denunciation is uncalled for.
>||> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>||>I thought denunciation only applied to crimes.
>||>Is it a crime to be against a change in the constitution? 
>||
[more discussion about the meaning of "denunciation" deleted]
>
>	sorry, Greg, but I don't buy it.  I see too many people playing
>	games with words, "not understanding" or using the argument of
>	the "definition by the book" to not recognize what is being meant
>	and what the intent and line of thinking is behind both words
>	and actions:
>
>
>	in this case, the word "denunciation" expresses the disgust
>	of someone who feels that "the bloodhounds" are being let
>	loose at them....  any argument there?
>
>	to refocus from that fact to questioning the definition and
>	correct use of "to demounce" is "Fensterwischerei" (a smoke
>	screen)....  by someone who thinks differently than the ones
>	who complain....   still on track ?
>
Unfortunately, this whole discussion has gotten a little bit out of context.
The main issue of my original posting (which was, however, not obvious in
the form Scott cited it - no criticism intended) was not to question this use 
of "denunciation", but rather the fact that elected politicians are complai-
ning about the fact that they are kept responsible by the electorate for
their opinions and decisions. I can understand that this idea is quite new
to PDS members; however, it is still beyond my understanding how members
of democratic parties (and particularly of the "basis-democratic" Green
party) can react so outraged about it.
>
>	to state that "Denunzieren" is usually used in connection with
>	crimes in German, is outright incorrect; it is used to describe
>	the (objectionable?) act of being a snitch, not so much to get
>	the laws obeyed, but rather "to incite some action be taken
>	against the parties being denounced"; in this case, clearly,
                                                            ^^^^^^^
>	it is a likely fear of the "denounced parties" of right-wing
>	violence directed against them, that has them object to what
>	the advertising said.  And I would not easily be dissuaded from
>	my believe, that those who phrased the political ad and paid
>	for it, were livid in anticipation of both fear in the target
>	group, as well as some possible actions which might be under-
>	taken against them by the hoods...
>
Well, the ad was addressed to voters, not to right-wing terrorists. With
arguments like that, you get dangerously close to Heiner Geissler and
friends (remember him calling Brandt "politischen Ziehvater der RAF"?)
Furthermore, I do not think that right-wing hooligans are even intere-
sted in the constitution being changed - so far, they have been the only
ones who have drawn political profit from the existing situation, and any
successful attempt to solve the current problems (whatever way) ould only
be at their political expense.

(By the way, as you are ocmplaining about people engaging in use- or
pointless linguistic discussions to build a smoke screen: I remember a
certain Werner Uhrig conducting long arguments about the possible use of
the word "annexation" in connecction with the German reunification. Re-
member that?)
[more stuff deleted]
>-- 
>  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet
>
>              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"

Gregor Nitsche
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german