Aral Balkan
Lyrial
Fynn Ellie Be
groff 🇺🇦
Maik 🇪🇺 
@mvsde @lyrial @aral Read the complete Text please.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/BJNR006510956.html
"Die §§ 3 bis 52 gelten im Spannungs- oder Verteidigungsfall."
"Sections 3 to 52 apply in the event of tension or defense."
And this is currently not the case.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/BJNR006510956.html
"Die §§ 3 bis 52 gelten im Spannungs- oder Verteidigungsfall."
"Sections 3 to 52 apply in the event of tension or defense."
And this is currently not the case.
stephie 
GondorThat's the old version. It was replaced by the recent decision.
The current version deleted that "apply of tension or defense".
Source:
https://www.fr.de/politik/genehmigung-drastische-wehrpflicht-aenderung-maenner-die-deutschland-laenger-wollen-brauchen-zr-94248132.html?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Artikel-Zitat:
"Das bedeutet schlicht, dass die Regelung des Paragraphen 3 nun grundsätzlich immer gilt."
@lyrial See alt text.
Reiner Jung 🇬🇱 🇺🇦 🇪🇺
Benjamin Braatz
Fnordinger@HeptaSean You’re wrong. Before the beginning of this year, this was only necessary in times of military tension or defence. Now the permission is necessary at all times.
@Fnordinger No, _you_ are wrong. The restriction to tension and defence was only _introduced_ in 2011. For most of us older people, the exact same rule was in place the whole time up until 2011. @prefec2 @lyrial @aral
@HeptaSean But it was only active in two scenarios as explained by §2 and further explained with sources in my orher reply to you
@HeptaSean The changes can be seen here https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/5521/v335580-2026-01-01.htm
While §2 used to say:
Die §§ 3 bis 53 gelten im Spannungs- oder Verteidigungsfall.
They now added §2 (3): “Außerhalb des Spannungs- oder Verteidigungsfalls gelten die §§ 3, 8a bis 20b, 25, 32 bis 35, 44 und 45.”
@Fnordinger For example, the Wehrpflichtgesetz of 1995: http://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl195s1756.pdf
§3 already said that you had to ask the Kreiswehrersatzamt for permission to leave the country.
The restriction in §2 was not there until 2011 (introduction of „Freiwilliger Wehrdienst“). As I said.
§3 already said that you had to ask the Kreiswehrersatzamt for permission to leave the country.
The restriction in §2 was not there until 2011 (introduction of „Freiwilliger Wehrdienst“). As I said.
@HeptaSean ah shit you’re right, my bad, I misread your initial message. There are still some issues I habe with that rule, but it is indeed the same problematic rule that existed before 2011.
Now the main problem is that they reintroduce Wehrpflicht-times rules during non-Wehrpflicht-times (at least officially), and that apparently the Careercenters don’t issue the permissionslips, because they have no official guidelines yet.
@HeptaSean But that’s my personal taste (I’d much rather not ask for permission to make use of a human right), politicians being dishonest and public officials being unable to make any sort of executive decisions.
sortius 
John Ulrik@aral If you asked German men of that age, I’d be surprised if even one in tens of thousands knew this.
@ujay68 @aral the law was enacted in January, but the media only started to report it a couple of days ago. No one has read the new law. I doubt that in parliament many have read it. Some claim that it is in violation of EU law, but I am not really sure.
What we need is a man between 17 and 45 who wants to leave the country for more than 3 months, for example a student.
Infoseepage@Infoseepage @prefec2 @aral PS. AFAICT, the regulation says the travel requests have to be granted with no scrutiny applied. So it seems more like a mandatory register of people abroad than a restriction, but still …
@ujay68 @prefec2 @aral But that's not the way it is written, right? It's written as "To travel, you must get approval and do X." If it was written as "All men who are German nationals between such and such an age must get a physical and register their current address," that would seem to be less legally objectionable.
@ujay68 @prefec2 @aral It really seems like there should be a process for getting a judicial judgement when a law pretty clearly doesn't harmonize with EU membership requirements. Otherwise, countries could pass all sorts of objectionable stuff, decline enforcement and then drag things through the courts for years
@Infoseepage Here’s the text of the law, for reference:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wehrpflg/__3.html
For what it’s worth and according to press reports, the relevant ministry says: “As military service under current law is based exclusively on voluntary participation, the relevant authorisations must, in principle, be granted.”
Montessori Space Programme 🛸@aral I'm genuinely beginning to wonder if this applies to me, I've been residing in another country for more than five years but I still have German citizenship.
Jon@anarchiv @aral huh. I didn't think about that at all.
I'm a dual citizen and haven't had residency in Germany for eight years now, so I didn't think it applies. But maybe that's not specified anywhere?
Sure as hell it applies to my brother, who lives in Berlin but is going to move to Oslo in summer. Feels completely surreal.
Patrick@anarchiv @aral it probably does not apply to anyone who doesn't have permanent residency in Germany. The requirement is limited by this:
"ohne dass die Voraussetzungen des § 1 Absatz 2 bereits vorliegen."
§1 Abs. 2 WPflG:
"Die Wehrpflicht ruht, solange Wehrpflichtige ihren ständigen Aufenthalt und ihre Lebensgrundlage außerhalb der Bundesrepublik Deutschland haben, wenn Tatsachen die Annahme rechtfertigen, dass sie beabsichtigen, ihren ständigen Aufenthalt im Ausland beizubehalten."
walfischbuchtAh, yes.
But 1)_they haven't even implemented -any- procedure for this yet. (Dep. of Def. wouldn't know on which pile/in which file your notification goes.)
And 2) you have to notify, yes, but the law doesn't (yet) provide any means to deny absence.
Regendans
Matti Järvinen@aral nice. Finland doesn't have that and we have a long border with Russia and Russian army bases just behind the border.
Of the fighting age? What's the fighting age in Germany 18-45?
Osma A 🇫🇮🇺🇦Finland absolutely does have that.
https://um.fi/passport-application-by-persons-liable-for-military-service
@nemeciii @aral
https://um.fi/passport-application-by-persons-liable-for-military-service
@nemeciii @aral
webhat@aral yeah, I think it's a bit more nuanced in practice. They've had a similar law on the books for years, from my understanding, and it's just a rubber-stamp. They officially need to ask for permission, and because there is no active war the Bundeswehr officially has to give them permission
Ukraine has a similar law, and because they are at war they won't give permission
Ali the Brave@aral
Under a capitalist society, freedom of movement can only refer to the movement of capital, and by extension, maybe, goods.
But never people.
And since now Western Empire sees irregular migration as a form of hybrid warfare, it is even worse.
It is not even "you can't move", it is "your movement is an act of war."
Misuse Case
Rose, The Sword Vixen@MisuseCase @ali @aral Capitalism was an imperfect transition from feudalism that can readily backslide once a ruling class establishes itself.
@threetails @ali @aral Well, maybe.
The point is that not every bad and oppressive thing is a product of capitalism. Some of those things predate capitalism or just plain don’t depend on it.
Gerd_Brodowski
Damian Yerrick@Gerd_Brodowski @ali @aral I understand "irregular migration" to refer to the act of crossing an international border by a human being without official permission from the authorities. The difference between "irregular" and "illegal" migration is seeking asylum is irregular but not illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_migration
This is a bog standard thing in countries where there is compulsory military service
https://um.fi/passport-application-by-persons-liable-for-military-service
@aral
https://um.fi/passport-application-by-persons-liable-for-military-service
@aral
lobingera
bws@aral i REALLY wonder why this is now so a big thing. The EXACT same rule applied up until 2011. so 15 years later introducing it back is suddenly the end of the world?
Also there are no fines/penalties specified if you don't do it...
Also there are no fines/penalties specified if you don't do it...
DrWhoZee@bws @aral Well, yes and no. The old rule only applied when the defense state had been declared, now it applies always. There was a rule that if you were eligible for service that you had to notify that you were moving abroad — but that was just that, a notification, not seeking permission.
In any case not seeking permission does not carry a punishment with it, it seems. So…
RBuzz
the hatter@aral Can't just write 'bone spurs' under the amount on a cheque payabe to the enlistment officer in germany, I guess.
Dave 🐶@aral This story gives me "Oxford 15 minute city" vibes (i.e. the story isn't exactly false... but my word has someone taken something and seemingly run a mile in the wrong direction about it)
ChefExperte@aral I understand people are upset but honestly, it's a law that you can just ignore and nothing happens.
And if there is war the Wehrpflicht was a thing before that as well.
And if there is war the Wehrpflicht was a thing before that as well.
Sneezy
Netraven
Earl@aral
Americans, who pride themselves on freedom and democracy, are not allowed to leave the nation without permission.
Example: Americans cannot travel to #Germany without a passport, which is government permission to temporarily leave the country. Yet Americans say they are free.
None of the world governments offer true freedom. Only God offers true freedom, through Jesus Christ the Lord, who said:
My kingdom is not of this world.