Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2018/2, S. 76ff. 

• Mandate content in legal advice and the claim of  a bank to  be informed about the legal concerns of its customers.  
•   Under the pretext of  due diligence,  banks are increasingly demanding information  concerning  the  legal interests of their customers.   The following applies: legal professional privilege and the right to privacy must be respected. 

Trust and secrets as basic elements of a liberal order 

«There is nothing makes a man suspect much, more than to know little» schreibt Francis Bacon und gibt gleich selber den Rat, wie dieser Argwohn zu beheben sei: «and therefore, men should remedy suspicion by procuring to know more» («Suspicion», in: The Works of Francis Bacon, Vol. 1, Philadelphia 1844). 

It has  not been  created and, to the  author’s knowledge,   has never been the subject of  a research project as to whether Francis Bacon’s works  belong to  the  reading canon of the compliance departments of banks.   However, it  seems that  the banks, consciously following Francis Bacon  or  unconsciously confirming him,  try to follow his advice strictly.  

 A few days ago, as always at this time of year,  invoices were sent to   clients  in my office. As with many other law firms, billing is  done quarterly.  Bound by the lawyer’s code of conduct, every service from a mandate is recorded. The client has the choice whether he   wants these  services  described in  detail and  listed as an attachment at the end of the invoice, or the invoice from  the list of the individual  services  wants to receive separately. 

Mr. X, a client, received the invoice without details because he  wanted  it that way  .  After a few days had passed,  Mr. X called somewhat perplexed. He  had  ordered the payment  from his  bank in Zurich  , but his account manager had  contacted him immediately that  the payment could  only be triggered if the payment had been   made. would receive  the corresponding lawyer’s invoice. The compliance department had asked for it. 

Even before  it could be explained to Mr X  that he  was  neither contractually nor legally obliged to do so, he stated that  he  had already sent the  invoice to the bank, but that the  compliance The department  would still not be  prepared to  approve  the initiation of the payment because it first had to “know” the content of   the   invoiced services. 

It  doesn’t happen often, but with this answer,  the phone receiver almost fell off. In order   to be absolutely sure, the   client was  asked in writing whether he  had really been correctly understood, that the  bank   would have to know the content of the  mandate  before  it fulfils its contractual obligation to  trigger payment. The client confirmed this and was surprised himself. Shortly thereafter, a telephone conversation took place with  the bank’s account manager, in which the latter  confirmed that  the bank  needed this information,  actually meaning that  the  bank  had it  wanted. 

Later,  when I got home,  I dug out my old edition of Bacon  . And lo and behold, in the Meditationes Sacrae (1597) 77  the Latin saying “ipsa scientia  potestas est” appears, which his secretary at the time,  Thomas Hobbes, later described in Leviathan as ”   scientia potentia  est”   (albeit with less conviction). It  is  this quote by Bacon that has been quoted again and   again since then and is a popular subject of PowerPoint presentations and hobby state philosophers sometimes  more, sometimes less taken out of context.  . 

So, according to  Bacon,   knowledge is power.       Consequently,  power   can  be  protected by protecting  the knowledge   that constitutes  power.  This  elementary  task falls  to  the mystery.  From  the biblical  beginning,   in which God deliberately  does not  reveal to Adam and Eve the knowledge of the world, to the priestly castes  of ancient  Babylon  and Egypt, to    the medieval  monasteries    ,  about the emergence of state secrets  parallel  to   the emergence    of nation states  and   continuing to  this day,     secrecy has   a  power-establishing  task. In the   context of the     rule of law,   however, this power-establishing task   changes to   a  power-limiting  function: secrets  apply  not  only to the powerful, but    above all      to  the   powerful. state  power. The individual is  protected by   the state power by providing   him with   secrets  materially (e.g.: personal rights, informational  self-determination, banking secrecy), but  also  formally  (e.g.     Prohibition of torture)     and   granted  as  part of his rights. The  concession of the state   to  its citizens to   have    secrets is the consensual  foundation  of the rulers  with    the governed  in a    constitutional state. . The omniscient and thus  omnipotent  state is   rejected, because without omniknowledge     and without the   right  to omniknowledge  there     is  no  omnipotence    . The possibility  of secrets  then  allows  a distinction to be   made  between  public  and private  life.  While  in  the former  everyone   can see  and participate,   the latter forms  a  protection of the  individual   from  his  fellow human beings. Between  these  two  pillars, protection    from the state   and protection from fellow human beings,    lies  the breeding ground for  individual  freedom  in a  liberal  constitutional state.        Crucially,  this   area  protected  by  secrets  must  not  arouse  suspicion. If he does do so for  reasons  of curiosity  or   the desire for power, which   is all too  human and should not    be   preventable,  the law intervenes  and protects  over  the      Mystery  through  the individual. The individual is  thus   shielded against  the suspicion  of the state  and his fellow human beings.            

Back to the bank and its compliance department. One could  now go on  for pages about the impudence of a Swiss  bank to  want to see the bill of a  Swiss law firm, about the lack     of a contractual  or legal       The fact   that  if the  bank’s request had  gone directly to  the lawyers,  it  would have been an incitement to violate attorney-client privilege   The   fact that this  generates costs for the customer,  the  fact  that it is not the bank’s  task to prevent  the execution of payment orders  from the receipt of payment orders   other information that does  not affect the customer-bank relationship dependent on 78.   However,  there is enough literature available on all this, the position of legal professional privilege in a constitutional state has been dealt with  in detail and the mania of the banks, with   which  they carry out  their supposed duties of care is now also well known. 

The finger was therefore placed on suspicion. It  is   this suspicion, together with the now almost hysterical fear, that is most likely to shake the  foundations of the liberal constitutional state.   Should suspicion of  the state and the citizens among themselves (again)  increasingly  be legally permitted and should the suspicious be given further “rights of intervention”  vis-à-vis   the secret bearers, then  The legal seed, always understood as a construct of defensive rights, which create spaces of freedom, should quickly face its end  . The image of man on which our legal system is based is based  on an individual  who is not accountable for his actions,  as long as they take place  within the legally permissible framework.    Neither to  the state nor to its fellow human beings. 

The much-heard formula “I have nothing to hide”, which    understands the call for  state intervention rights, especially  after terrorist attacks, is the gateway for individual   restrictions. .  Apart from the    fact that  everyone has  something  to  hide (and sometimes just shame),  this formula admits to the suspicion of  having a legal justification. The sufficient suspicion in criminal law,  without which no coercive measure may be ordered, is symbolic of the fact that it  takes more than suspicion to uphold the right  to  Keeping secrets. 

However,  while the suspicion of the state has been increasingly reduced since the  beginning of the Enlightenment  (admittedly with major relapses in the  20th century).            Voices are  becoming louder who  loosen these barriers for fear of terror and catastrophes.  want. This conflict is   far from  over and its outcome is likely to be  groundbreaking for  the  continued existence of the liberal constitutional state of Western character.  The fact that things  can be done differently is shown by the  bonus system now implemented in China, which  evaluates every private  and  public action of individuals in relation to state doctrine and  consequently rewards or sanctions them with bonus points. 

In  the shadow  of this conflict,   however,   increasing  requirements  on banks  and financial intermediaries  have  led  to  state  control mechanisms, with  all  their  restrictions,   now being  transferred to  private individuals. . The verification  of incoming and outgoing money   has  become    mandatory  for banks and is  understood  as a  measure  against  terrorism  and money laundering. However,  the fines and the negative  consequences  in the form  of image losses  due to   media  crucifixion, which   threaten in the  event of failed  due diligence obligations, lead  to   banks    becoming more and more cautious  and   so that they  become  more and  more suspicious.   Under  the umbrella  of compliance, they   assume state  control tasks  and become  state  implementing agents.    However, while  the state  can  only   become  active in the event  of a  concrete  suspicion,   banks  also refuse  harmless  and completely  legal  transactions if  they  themselves   would, nota bene at  its own  discretion,   take risks. As     a result, the ” chilling effect”       achieved extends  control  by   the state  and, in fact, by   private individuals in areas protected   by  secrets. Incidentally, private individuals   themselves  have    discovered the possibility of   playing off the suspicion  (especially  of  the banks) against  the law: in another    case,     a   private  law dispute  of  another  client a   London court  a  world wide  freezing order (WFO) against  his assets.   Of course, this instrument cannot  be used  directly  in Switzerland, 79   requires exequatur. However, the other side  threatened   to   send the WFO and  all  documentation  directly to the banks in order     to    bypass           the state courts. enforce. These  account freezes  would  not have   been carried out     by   state  courts  or  public prosecutor’s  orders, but    by the intervention   of the banks  at  their own  discretion. The result , however ,   would be the same  and it shows the   results  to which   the increasing  suspicion  can  lead. Only  the indication that  such  an  approach  would   trigger  criminal  consequences prevented  the other side from   doing so  in this case. How  the banks,   on the other hand,   would  react if  they  were  “only”  informed about  the  ruling by telephone  and without  presenting the WFO remains  to be seen.              

Finally, the “side effect”  should be mentioned that the information, which is  demanded and obtained out of suspicion,  itself has a value per se. This is particularly evident in this  specific case. The  mandate content required by the bank  is unrelated  to the statutory due diligence obligations.  Rather,  the bank  demanded additional information to which it was   not entitled in order  to generate more knowledge about its customer.  But if knowledge   is  indeed power and Bacon   is right, then it  quickly becomes clear how this  knowledge  puts the bank in a privileged, i.e.  more powerful position  . It may freeze the client’s funds and  refuse payments without consultation   and without being requested by the  courts,  for example in the  case  listed here only hypothetically,    that the content of the mandate contains advice in criminal proceedings and  that this fact  alone is uncomfortable for  the bank  . The customer can defend himself against this approach, but this defense is costly  and time-consuming and even a victory in court does not guarantee  the  It is not possible to survive the facts  of the case unscathed. 

 So  it remains the case  : If suspicion is  allowed, it unfolds a power-protecting function, because in order to (supposedly)  counter  it,  the abandonment of secrets is required, which  actually  should have a power-limiting effect. Francis Bacon himself  wanted to combat suspicion with more knowledge.  For historical reasons, however, he has  not been able to  recognize the elementary necessity of secrets for the existence of the constitutional state  . And yet, in the introduction to  his text on suspicion,  he  seems to  have sensed that sooner or later  the suspicion of  the state restricts freedom and leads to  dictatorship. leads: “They [suspicions] dispose kings to tyranny [… ].» 

 Incidentally, the bank  paid after being emphatically informed  that  the content of the  mandate  was legally protected and that it  had  no claim to know it.

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2019/1, S. 34ff. 

• The relationship between politics and truth 
• The claim   that  politics  uses truth as the basis of its actions is important, but more important is a fundamentally critical attitude towards politics. 

Fake news and alternative facts.  These terms have been haunting the media since  Donald Trump took office. The term fake news may have existed for over a hundred years, but  it  was only through social  media that  it  became a  certain prominence.  In addition,  Donald Trump  regularly uses it to  discredit what  he  sees as false reporting. The term “alternative facts”, on the other hand, is a word by  Kellyanne Conway, advisor to Donald Trump, who thus obviously made false statements by the then White  House press secretary. , Sean Spicer,  tried to justify the  number of visitors at Donald Trump’s inauguration in front of the Capitol. “Alternative facts” was voted “Unword of the Year 2017”  in Germany and Austria.  

Both terms,  especially with  regard to Donald Trump, have provoked enormous outrage in intellectual circles.   Critical voices rise  and warn that these terms would pose a threat to  the democratic order,  and  comparisons are drawn to Orwell’s 1984.  In  addition,  various media keep constantly   updated lists  of  Donald  Trump’s alleged lies and never tire of emphasizing how  often and how intensively he lies.  

The core of   the outrage, from regulars’ tables to   feature pages, is the  following: The President of  the   United States lies and tries to justify his policy with facts that are not the  Truth. It is criticized that  politics (specifically: Donald Trump)  no  longer feels bound to the truth, but tries to seduce  the people  by lying. A Pied Piper who does not  play the flute, but strives for the alternative facts. And because truth is such  a noble value,  almost everyone  feels called to join this crusade in defense of truth. From  the pulpits of  the media houses, the fight to defend the truth is  proclaimed and armed with facts and investigative journalism is drawn   into the field.  

One   may  agree with this goings-on, one may even endorse it  (who does not love the truth?), but one must  also recognize the great danger.   Without any justification,  politics is exposed to the demand to  be guided by truth.  But truth, this is  simply misunderstood, is not a concept for politics.   Truth is a philosophical, religious and partly metaphysical concept.  Politics,  understood as a struggle for domination, has  nothing to do with truth  . The idea that  politics should be guided by truth is,  of course,  not new. In Plato’s Politeia this is clearly propagated, but Plato does not make  the mistake of using the concept of truth in politics by  politicians or by a  democratic one.  To want to  fulfill order. In its  ideal political state, which is  subordinate to truth and  committed to it,  the rule lies with philosophers. They alone, who have recognized the truth, may govern and  impose one, namely their  , ideal state  on the governed.  It is not    without reason that   Plato’s concept, although philosophically appealing, has been called fascistic 35.   For the truth of one does not have to be  the concept according to which     another must  be guided in his way of life. This also applies, however much they resist it  , to the natural sciences with their epistemic and falsifiable/verifiable methods.  Truth is   absolute only if  it is accepted and recognized  as such. 

     Propagating that politics should be guided by truth ignores the fact that this  has never been the case historically.  Politics is  the struggle for domination  and in the struggle for  domination all means  are always used. And if  politics   is   not conducted by the means of the strongest, but by   democratic means,  then politics  is always an attempt to convince the majority.  .  That this  should  be done on the basis of truth is perhaps a pious wish, but certainly not reality  and  not a realistic undertaking.    Persuasion is always an act of trying   to  declare subjectivity to be  objectivity.  To what extent this  is  compatible with truth is  not clear. 

The misuse  of means for the purpose of domination  and attainment of domination is not prevented by the fact that the  politicians (  the rulers) adhere to   the truth, but that   whose striving for domination is limited by laws. It is the law and the  legally defined and legitimized institutions that prevent  the abuse of power, not a narrow-lipped confession that domination in  Truth would be coupled.  Donald Trump had to experience this for himself at this year’s Shut Down. The  lack of laws and legally defined and legitimized institutions may  well lead to rulers presenting their truth as true  and   acting  on it. .     Recall  Colin Powell’s remarkable appearance in the  UN Security Council in February 2003, a few weeks before the Iraq war,  and the lack of   order.  I would like to    ask   the President-in-Office of the Council whether he is   prepared to accept the Commission’s proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment and the protection  of  the environment. 

 But the law and its institutions alone are  not enough.  In  addition,  responsible citizens are needed who  are willing  to form  their own picture of the facts  and events  and thus arrive at a truth. What is needed are these responsible citizens who  critically and constantly question the promises of  politicians and politicians who treat fake news and alternative facts as   what  they do. are: opinions and interpretations of events. 

The attempt  to put politics and politicians on a leash of truth may  seem noble  and sublime, but the  result is  the  delegation of responsibility, away   from  the governed to  the rulers. The people, the original sovereign, hand over the  responsibility of   determining the truth to the rulers,  thereby empowering them to assume the position of   sovereign. This  may be very  convenient, this may    be very relieving and the hope for a good, fair and  truthful ruler may be lived. But at  the  same time it is not only the abandonment of the (sometimes  perceived as annoying) individual responsibility of   everyone, but also the abandonment  of sovereignty and the voluntary subordination to each other.   a concept of truth that, even if  ideally based on scientific facts,  is an imposed concept of truth. And as a result,  an imposed concept of truth may lead to  calm and relief, but  also to the  restriction of freedom and sooner or later   into  a fascistic entity in which truth and its definition  mutate into the  task of  the state and  are withdrawn from the individual. 

One  might object that  the         media’s   outcry  against  Donald Trump’s  alleged  lies  at least  makes each   individual  more sensitive  to truth and facts.   36.  This, however,  would   require that the media  would  indeed primarily  exercise    their  role as the  fourth  (control) power. And indeed, any  journalistic ” looking  at the fingers  of politics” is  helpful, but the stark  divergence  between  the listing  of alleged  lies  of Donald Trump compared    to    those  other  politicians           suggest that  it   is less  about  convicting a  notorious  liar  to  save democracy  (because  such  liars  are  present in all      In    this context,    it is important to stress the importance of the role of the social partners in the development   of  newspapers     and online  subscriptions.  Trump polarizes  and attacks  against  Trump are    just sales-promoting. Truth, in other  words,  is defended not   because   it is   the truth, but  because  its  defense    is  economically  valuable. And  as much   as the venerable  media houses  try to   present  themselves  as guardians    of the   truth, the  more it  becomes  clear that  they  too    Subordinate the search for truth  to their  economic  and power-political  interests.      Above all , however, the control function  of the media  cannot be     equated  with  the reputation that  politics must   be  guided  by truth .   The former  is capable of   revealing  certain  transgressions  on the part of politicians  and politicians, whereas  the latter   is  not  only  an  ideological  undertaking, but  also  implicitly  suggests that   the media      To master truth  and   always defend it  without  weighing  interests.    Various examples show that  this is not  always  the case   (keyword  Claas  Relotius).         

  If truth is  to be understood  in a political context,  it can only mean  an individual’s search for truth  as his protective mechanism against domination and against the collective  . The attempt  to  bring truth into  the politics and responsibilities of the rulers is not only absurd, but also dangerous, because  this individual concept leads  to  a concept  that can legitimize domination. This is fine, for  example, for religions and their  institutions, because they not  only derive their  legitimacy  from this self-defined truth, but also their doctrine and  doctrine.  their world view. Europe has  experienced several centuries of the rule of  institutions  such as the churches, with the claim   to  be able to speak truth and  define truth. It required enlightenment  and the   idea that truth  must  not be dictated and predetermined by third parties, who in the worst case also exercise domination.  , but that the  definition  of truth must be  an individual matter, as the responsibility of the responsible person to qualify the statements of others and  to  take action against them  .  or to agree with them). It is   therefore not surprising that  every  dictatorial regime, every proto-fascist order, sooner or later establishes  a universally valid truth that contradicts  the Individual  is not allowed (Orwell sends his regards). 

The talk and excitement about fake news and alternative facts  is certainly not aimed directly at creating such an order.   But by formulating  the claim to tie politics to truth,  the breeding ground is  created for  the possibility of  a policy and of politicians who are precisely   the  serve supposed truth in order  to gain domination  and   legitimize domination. What  can  still seem appealing at first glance is in the end the creeping development  to  de-individualize truth in order  to  make it suitable for the masses   and thus   to create  a To create a concept of domination   (keyword Plato). 

  The claim that  politics   must  be guided by  truth is only a little removed from the admission that politics may define truth. From  the former to the  latter,   only a few measures are needed; history  bears witness to many examples.   If this happens and a dominion receives (or acquires)  the privilege of   defining truth,  then the downfall of 37 freedom is  also initiated.  Freedom,   however one may define it   ,  always begins with being able to  define and classify one’s environment and the events in it.  Freedom without the right to live one’s own truth is  not freedom. The restrictions   imposed  on freedom in  a  constitutional state are a compromise based on the observance of  universal rules for the purpose of peaceful coexistence. ,  but not with the intention  of  prescribing concepts of thought and  truth. Thoughts  are free. And they must remain so. 

If  one demands of politics that  it should  be  true and  that  it should be   based on the truth,  one gives up responsibility.  If, on the other hand, one does not expect   truth  from politics,  one remains sharpened and critical of  all statements of the rulers or those who  want to become rulers.     Rather,  such a  sharpened and critical attitude forces individuals to  engage with politics, to get  actively involved and not in anticipation of a   good ruler to  give up responsibility and thus freedom. The individual thus becomes  a “Zoon Politikon” and a free human being.

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2021/2, S. 4ff. 

• The change of law  through the acceleration of the economy and social structures.   
•   The law  is  increasingly exposed to  social changes occurring at shorter intervals.  This endangers fundamental principles  of  constitutional law. 

When Marcel Niggli, editor-in-chief and publisher of ContraLegem, asked me if I would like to join the editorial staff of ContraLegem, it took me less than five minutes to accept. This may sound like a quick shot, a lack of consideration, but five minutes is a small eternity in today’s media society. Some may smile, perhaps disagree, even demand a somewhat in-depth clarification from a lawyer, but for a tweet that sends hundreds onto the streets and encourages them to attack people, storm state and private buildings and block roads, it really doesn’t take much longer. So five minutes for a decision is relative. One may rightly object that personal decisions have always been made in significantly shorter periods of time, one thinks of the famous “gut decisions”. But what is acceptable for personal decisions now also seems to apply to social communication through the immediacy of the means of communication (keyword: social media). The tweets already mentioned illustrate this perfectly. 

  It is therefore not surprising that  politicians are desperately trying to   keep up with the   speed of communication in the  media society and that political debates are  increasingly tempo  and  less  This is the  first time that  we have had a debate on this subject in the European Now,  social acceleration in communication is not a phenomenon of  our time, telegrams, telephones and faxes have always  exerted accelerating effects on the respective social structures. And  politics has  always been guided by this stream  of accelerating communication,  for example election campaigns at   the beginning of the 19th century.   It is    located  in  the district of São Paulo. 

What is new, however,  is that the judiciary allows itself to  be harnessed into this game of race.  Of course, if  politics  and its means  of  communication change,  the judiciary will (have to) adapt to it, but for some time  now  ,    It is a  question of  adopting the functioning of the policy tel quel. Focusing  on speed  rather than  content may  be  useful, perhaps even necessary,  for policy,  but it means  that the end rather than the means are  increasingly coming  to the fore.  when it  comes  to formulating and  debating political goals.  For an increasing concentration on tempo  allows only the  intended end  to be formulated, while the explanation of the  means and  the critical consideration of  the  end raise questions of   In this context   ,  it is important to stress the    importance of the role of the social partners in the  competition  because there  is simply no time  for this and because the   audience’s attention span is less and less sufficient for this. The  climate debate makes this very clear: the climate must  be saved and everything must  be subordinated to  this  goal. The discussion as to whether the proposed means (reduction of  CO2 emissions, subsidization of electric cars, etc.)   suitable 5and  appropriate, has little  chance  to develop. 

For the judiciary and the law in general, this  means that  they  increasingly focus on  the purpose and clear  legal institutions and guidelines that  slow down   the – rapid – achievement of  the  purpose.  could be dubbed. The ruling of   the Lausanne District Court – to  stay with the climate debate – which  had protected the occupation of a bank branch  by activists as a justifying emergency, instead of  dismissing it because of   Condemning trespassing   is only one prominent example (cf.  see  our videos 1a and 1b). The reference to  the justifying state of emergency,  which one  cannot get  rid of in any case, was less the result of a clean legal dispute, but arose from  the  The need arises  as a court  to somehow justify the  exculpation of young people,  which is perceived as politically and medially correct (we are not yet to the extent that judgments are given without justification). 

 It is undisputed  that justice  and justice are never completely detached from politics.    Don’t forget  that the country’s top judges  are  nominated by  political parties  (and  are coming under increasing  political pressure).   However, it  is problematic when the  judiciary and the law  adapt to  politics so much  (one is inclined to say: currying favor) that  the boundaries of  political debate  and  legal structures are becoming blurred.  Of course,  this is not a  plea for  justice and a law that  should not change  .  However  , they are intended to provide politics and society with the structures that  we know after so many bad  experiences in Europe’s  past that minorities are minorities.  protect,  guarantee the rule of law and  strive for a balance in the weighting of arguments.  If one  aims only at  the purpose,  the door  opens for a dynamic that  makes maximum demands and  has  no time  for compromises. This is because compromises  are possible  in terms  of means rather than ends.   It remains irrelevant whether the lack of  time is the symptom  of a  fast-paced world  or is used  as a means  of avoiding discussion.  If maximum demands  are then  accompanied by a moral claim to be on the right side of history, then  – despite or precisely because  of the  Claim to do good for all people  – a totalitarian path taken. Hell is known to be  full of people who  wanted good. 

This has become clear in  almost every major political debate in recent months, be it in relation to climate rescue,  women’s rights, gender debate or BlackLivesMatter: The  political actors and the media   do not formulate  negotiable maximum demands, stifle criticism  in the approach and  thus prevent any critical debate.   But those who make maximum demands and place only the purpose at  the centre of  political life  are putting the cart before the horse  .   For while a free society  should  debate the guidelines within which everyone should be  able to develop and  seize their opportunities,  recent  political discussions appear   Always results-oriented.  If one  breaks the whole thing  down to the original element  of every political discussion, that of justice and its core, equality, then   a change of    equal opportunities  emerges.  away and towards  equality of results. 

However, a society that  strives for equality of results  is by definition totalitarian, because equality does not allow other interests to  develop as a  result. All other results are understood as  annoying at best,  as an attack at worst. And a society that  of its own accord  defines  or  allows to be defined  equality of results (what  it must  do in order  to  achieve it) must also necessarily claim to 6the absolute truth   and  to know the good in itself.  Because only if the truth and  the good are known,   the desired result can be  legitimized. A  result that can be  achieved by all, which  is not based  on truth and goodness, is inevitably delegitimized by arbitrariness, so that it  begins to falter.  The fact that the definition  of truth and good is  also  exposed to arbitrariness is  , of course, another  piece of paper. 

 This development is reinforced  by the fact that  equality of results has  it easier in a world that  measures and quantifies everything. The development of recent  years shows that  decisions – including political ones – are increasingly based on  these measurements and quantifications, namely through collected data sets,    be taken.  Concrete results can be  measured, quantified and  bundled as data sets, while the question of opportunities always requires  lengthy  analysis. It should therefore come as no surprise that the increasing depiction of  human action in data sets  politically  and in the media   favours equality of results.  As a result,  measuring  and  presenting pointedly is easier to  understand than lengthy debates about whether there  are equal opportunities for everyone. 

Finally, the fixation on equality of results also avoids the  difficult confrontation with (personal) responsibility.  If the purpose is  clearly formulated and  the  desired result is defined, then personal  failure as  well as  personal success become  secondary, because  the lead lies with the    Collective. Questions about the individual use of  (equal) opportunities and the resulting  consequences become superfluous, because only the result counts.  However, this   also means that where the individual deviates and does not or does   not want  to   achieve the result on his own  , the collective claims to intervene. The debate on the question of  whether school canteens are allowed  to   offer meat shows that  such intervention can be achieved first  through  incentives (keyword “nudging”) and then through bans.  is carried out. 

If  one  steps   into observant  distance, it becomes  clear that  this  political  and increasingly  legal  development    ultimately amounts  to  a   concrete  result: the reversal  of a  long-standing  , in the   West hard-won  order  on the ideals    of the Enlightenment.   The question   of the “who”, the “actor” and his  characteristics    is increasingly becoming    the focus  of discussions.      For this, the discussion   after the action, the discussion  about    the evaluation  of a  certain  action  (or  omission)   is suppressed. This is  hardly  surprising, because the fixation on results favors the    “who” over      the    action, because  characteristics  (age, gender, skin color  , etc.)   are more   objectifiable – and  therefore  more measurable  – than  actions in  which  the subjective  element always   causes difficulties.      But  those who (again) begin to     evaluate people – especially    legally  – according  to  their  characteristics, cannot  avoid categories   (of people)  to  create. The     ever-increasing    number of genders  makes  this clear  and paradoxically emphasizes  (in an  inevitably  discriminatory  way)   the question  of  gender   rather than gender  to    overcome them.  But  then    political  and media  categories  of people (LGBT members, white  old  men, women, blacks, etc.)     The   road  to  Auschwitz has finally  begun. And   here, too, good  intentions  do not give  any  security not   to  end up there, but  rather  increase  the danger.    Anyone who  divides  people into categories –   even  if only  for  a  noble  goal    –   inevitably discriminates.      And so   we run the risk  that  law no   longer primarily evaluates  actions  (or  omissions), but  the qualities    of man. When the   Cyclops, blinded by  Odysseus,   asks  him  screaming  for  his  name,   he answers only  with  “Outis”.  Nobody. And this nobody  is  the foundation of   our  liberal  7Western civilization. The monster   is   not confronted with  the qualities of man, but it is  forced to   be content with   the action    of the individual  and     to deal    with  it.     .  No one  is  everyone, and therefore  irrelevant. The   plot is relevant   and it is not           for nothing    that   Odysseus’ torments begin when  he   reveals himself  in a  fit  of megalomania.          

A   judgment delivered this year by the European Court  of Human Rights (Vavricka and others v. The  Czech Republic), which  supports the obligation for children in the Czech Republic (regardless of the  COVID pandemic), clearly shows  that in order to answer the question  of whether the public interest (compulsory vaccination  for   the  purpose of Prevention   of  the spread of  a disease)  or the individual interest (right to  refuse vaccination)  is preferred, two categories were decisive: vaccinated vs.   Unvaccinated.   One judge rightly    pointed out in his dissenting opinion  that a serious debate on whether  the refusal of  vaccination for non-communicable diseases would be in the  The  same mass  had to be subordinated to   the common good (i.e.  the obligation to vaccinate)  as in the case of infectious diseases.   As a result,  the court decided on the basis of the categories vaccinated/unvaccinated, based on the   desired result, not  on the basis  of   the   chosen means. Think  of the  five minutes mentioned at the beginning: they  are never  enough to evaluate an action,  however clear, the subjective and  objective  To identify the facts of  this act,  to examine the causality of damages or profits.   However, five minutes are sufficient with the help of  technical means to  capture primary and secondary characteristics of a person. The central question  remains: do we want  legal consequences based on  the five minutes? What  may  be sufficient for a  personal decision and based on intuition  must not become the  yardstick of a legal system. 

  The creation  of categories  also has   the consequence that  those   assigned to them  are  understood  as a  collective. For       example,  the debate  on women’s equality  assumes that  all women   have  the same  concerns  and needs.  These  and similar  debates   are   conducted so sharply  that  it is   hardly possible  to    seriously discuss why  there  are  far fewer  women than  men  in      companies. Management positions    .  It  is  simply demanded that   this   must  change in the future.  Apart  from  the   fact that  all people of the  female sex  are  treated  as a  collective  with  identical  wishes  and needs,   it shows    a  worldview that  the clothing    a   management position  in a  company  as  the ultimate  goal  of professional  realization. As a result,   quotas  are  not  only    imposed on companies, but  also a   uniform  and by no means  undisputed  world view  is given to  women as an  ideal. The  debate   on     women’s equality   is a   good  example because  it is,   at its  core, a  political  debate that does not  promote   legal equality.   , i.e. equality   (which already exists), but  the social  equality  of women.    The fact that      legal  means   are required for this ( cf. Art. 734f CO) does not change  this, but  merely  clearly shows that  the law  (equal  rights  for all, which    is already     is politically  instrumentalised in   order to  achieve  equality of results at the  level  of   company (law) (as   many  men  as  women in certain countries).    Management positions). It is not  for nothing that       these  quotas  are  most strongly rejected  by women who already  hold  management positions. The performance principle   as  an inherent  part  of any  debate  about equal opportunities  gives way  here to   a    vehemently  demanded but   reduced  to  the gender  of the cadre  equality of results.  If one also wanted to     be   consistent,   one would have to    ask oneself why   a 50   /50 quota  in management positions  should    not  also apply  in other  professions  – and why  it should be   8  It     is  only  possible for management positions at all, and not  for all levels.              

Finally,  the renunciation of the ideals of the Enlightenment also means that morality now  takes precedence over law.  For enlightenment may no longer  be  en vogue  in a  collectivist world,  but at least it provides the ethical and ideological foundation that  makes a liberal constitutional state possible in the first place.   If one rejects the  ideals of the Enlightenment,  one  would at least  have   to have the courage to  reject  the liberal constitutional state and  to demand a system of values oriented towards characteristics rather than actions.  .    There are plenty of states that  serve as role models, past and  present. Whether the  groups that feel discriminated  against would be  better off  in these  models/states may of course be doubted.  What is uneasy,  however,  is the  fact that the  collectivist  currents in the  West go hand in hand  with the strengthening of collectivist  orders   in China, Russia and the   immediate Periphery of Europe and it  is  only irony of history  that  the collectivist-oriented  morality that permeates our political debates is the Kerkoporta, by totalitarian ideas penetrate the liberal value system of the West.