Talk:Paragraph 175

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Paragraph 175 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Paragraph 175 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 9, 2004.
This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class.
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Germany To-do:
Maintained The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help:
Jmabel (talk • contribs • email)

Hi, I've expanded the article. But since I'm German (and actually live in Germany), I don't know if my is English is quite correct and idiomatic. So someone should check this article linguistically ;-) -Lysis 02:33 21. Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've been monitoring your changes to the article, and it looks as though you've done well (linguistically, that is). Keep up the good work :) -- Grunt 02:34, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Liberals? Supreme Court?

Two phrases in the opening section of the article are ambiguous:

  1. "support of leading Social Democrats, some Liberals, and the Communist Party": does liberals here mean a particular party (e.g. the National Liberal Party) or should it be small-l liberals?
  2. "supreme court": would that be the Constitutional Court (the Bundesverfassungsgericht) or the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) or some other body I don't know about?

Jmabel 05:47, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

ad 1) "Some Liberals" refers to the Deutsche Demokratische Partei (German Democratic Party, or DDP). The liberals of the 19th century were split during the Weimar Republic into a left wing and a right wing. The left wing (the DDP) was pro free market, but also radically democratic, the right wing (Deutsche Volkspartei/German People's Party, or DVP) was like Bismarck, i.e. nationalist and anti-socialist. Both were only small parties, but hardly any government coalition was possible without them. They don't exist any more. Nowadays, the Free Democratic Party covers both wings. The nationalist right-wingers have become a rather meaningless minority within the party, whereas in Austria they are the party majority (see FPÖ).
ad 2) "Supreme court" refers to the Constitutional Court, not the Federal Court of Justice. --Amys 21:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1935

Our article currently says "In 1935, the Nazis exacerbated the law so that the police could pursue any homosexual act whatsoever (even an embrace or a kiss)." While I am aware that this was the actual Nazi policy, now that I've read and translated the 1935 statute, I see nothing in the text that gave sanction to that policy. This sentence predates my involvement in the article. Unless someone can give evidence for the statement as it stands, I intend to reword to make clear that the Nazi persecution of homosexuals went even beyond the harsh letter of the law. -- Jmabel 18:55, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

That's not really the case. The problem is the interpretation of the word Unzucht, which is not renderable in English. Roughly it means "fornication". But in German you can also speak of an unzüchtiger Blick (a lewd glance). By deleting the word "unnatural" in the legal expression "unnatural fornication between men", the term Unzucht took on a completely different meaning, not being constricted to anal intercourse anymore. It would now refer to any "lewd act". This interpretation was not specific to Nazi Germany. Rather, the courts in the Federal Republic understood the term in quite a similar way. Compare this note:
zu § 175: Durch Streichung des Wortes "widernatürlich" wurde die traditionsreiche Einschränkung auf sogenannte "beischlafsähnliche Handlungen" (Anal-, Oralverkehr) beseitigt. Der Straftatbestand war erfüllt, wenn "objektiv das allgemeine Schamgefühl verletzt und subjektiv die wollüstige Absicht vorhanden war, die Sinneslust eines der beiden Männer oder eines Dritten "[zu]"erregen"(RGSt 73, 78, 80 f). Eine gegenseitige Berührung war ab jetzt nicht mehr erforderlich.
Nach Kriegsende hielt der BGH an der erweiterten Auslegung fest, gleichzeitige Onanie wurde ebenso wie der Zuschauer beim Triolenverkehr nach § 175 bestraft. Der BGH leitete aus dem Merkmal "treiben" die Forderung nach einer Handlung, die "stets eine gewisse Stärke und Dauer haben" (BGHSt 1, 293 ff) müsse, ab. [1]
The last paragraph roughly says:
After the end of the war the Federal Court of Germany (BGH) retained the expanded interpretation (that no physical contact had to take place). Masturbating next to each other was punished according to paragraph 175 the same way as the spectator of a Menage a Trois was. The BGH derivated from the German word treiben (roughly "carry on to commit") the demand that the punishable acts had to "have a certain intensity and duration".
--Amys 01:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to clarify that in the article itself. BTW, any chance you could help with that one sentence I've been unable to translate confidently & left in the original German? I'd pinged Carlo Ierna, but I guess he's not logged in for a while. -- Jmabel 06:57, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Draft penal code (E 1962)

Since I haven't actually seen this, and since it is mentioned only in passing, I didn't think this was appropriate to add to the references, but if anyone finds it useful, the Draft penal code (E 1962) was apparently translated into English and published. (The translation used in this article, however, is our own.)

  • The German draft penal code E 1962. With an introd. by Eduard Dreher. Translated by Neville Ross, South Hackensack (New Jersey): F. B. Rothman, 1966

[edit] May 15, May 17

Yes, the article dates the law from May 15, 1871, then calls May 17, 2002 the anniversary. I'm clueless, too. I translated this from the German. I've asked the obvious question on the German-language discussion page. -- Jmabel 06:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, the 17th of May (17-5) is not the anniversary of paragraph 175. It is a symbolic play with numbers. Compare the German Wikipedia article 17. Mai (Holidays and days of remembrance):
"Day of shame: formerly, the 17th of May (17.5. in German notation) was ironically called the 'holiday of gays' in Germany, an allusion to paragraph 175, which punished homosexuality (it was liberalised in 1969 and finally abolished in 1994)." --Amys 21:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Review by a German-speaker would be very welcome

I've done my darnedest to translate this. In some places, my text doesn't follow the original German exactly. There are several reasons for this:

  1. In some places, the original German had some pretty hairy sentences. I've done my best to make them less obscure.
  2. I've added context in some places, where the German Wikipedia assumes knowledge of German history that I thought would be unfamiliar to most English-speakers.
  3. The article was changing even as I translated. In fact, it was moved when I was about halfway through it.
  4. Don't shoot me, but... my German is decent, but I don't have the confidence here I would have in English or Spanish (or maybe even a couple of other Romance languages). I may well have made errors. Review by a native or near-native German speaker would be very welcome.

Jmabel 07:04, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've written most parts of the German article and will review the English translation within the next few days (you've really done good work as far as I can see!). I've already corrected some slight mistakes. But I hope, you will check my corrections, too, with respect to linguistics, because I'm never sure if "one can say that in English". One last question: Is it really necessary to provide so much German vocabulary in brackets? I don't think, it necessarily helps understanding to know the legal terms in the original. --Amys 21:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've kept them because legal terms don't always line up exactly. If you are confident that the English term is a precise equivalent, feel free to delete the German. However, for example, I think it is absolutely necessary to include the discussion of Unsucht, on which so much turns, and I think honesty requires including the problematic Schutzhaft, which can be translated to two very different meanings in English, as we've discussed at Image talk:Gestapo anti-gay telex.jpg. It's one thing for me to translate it as "preventive detention", it's another to hide the fact that I'm translating an ambiguous phrase. -- Jmabel 23:55, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Age of majority 18 while age of consent was 21!

<moved from User talk:Jmabel> Hi Joe,

you've asked:

"Sex eines Über-18-jährigen (d.h. Volljährigen) mit einem Unter-21-Jährigen (Schutzalter)"...
How on earth did this work? Did this mean that if two 19-year olds had sex they were both guilty of a crime?

Theoretically yes, but read subsection 3 of the law:

"(3) With an involved party who at the time of the act had not yet reached the age of twenty-one years, the Court can refrain from punishment." (Your translation)

Apparently, the government had sensed the absurdity that a 18-year-old could be found guilty for sex with someone under 21 years of age. This probably had to be the case, because 18 is the legal age of majority in the German law codes, and you mustn't treat an 18-year-old differently from any other grown-up person, at least from a principal point of view.

By the way, you are not the only one who is bewildered by that, but I've looked up the law text on different internet sites, and they all agree on that point. --Amys 19:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<end moved text>

I've added a paragraph to the article to address this overtly. -- Jmabel 22:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I've made a terrible mistake. I found that on a German website:
"Am 1. Januar 1975 wurde das Alter der Volljährigkeit von zuvor 21 Jahren auf 18 Jahre herabgesetzt."
This means, the age of majority was 21 until Jan 1st, 1975. I would avoid the discussion altogether by simply talking of "sex with males under 21". The details can be found in the law text anyway. It is not such an important issue, because the paragraph was hardly ever applied after 1969. (The gay movement of that time was not very much interested in legal issues either indicating that the paragraph 175 was not causing fear any more.) --Amys 23:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I took out the following paragraph, because, as we now know, the age of majority was 21 in 1969, so the formulation is somewhat mistaken:

Among other things, this law led to the strange situation that if two 19-year-old males had sex, they were both technically guilty of an offense. Because the German age of majority was (and as of 2004 is) 18, they were both subject to trial as adults; because the law criminalized homosexual acts with a person under 21, they were both in violation of it. In practice, in such a case, a judge would certainly have exercised his or her prerogative to refrain from punishment of an individual under 21 who violated this law.

I have also shortened "sex between a man older than 18 years with a man less than 21 years old", because this is very bewildering to the readers (I've done the same in the German article a few days ago). Since the law was only effective until 1973 (when the age of consent was lowered to 18), it isn't really an issue worthwhile being adressed in a whole paragraph. --Amys 23:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sodomie vs. Sodomy

There is a little misunderstanding concerning the following issue:

(officially concerning "sodomy" but, in effect, dealing with zoophilia)

"Sodomy" (Engl.) and "Sodomie" (German) don't mean the same. They are kind of "false friends". Few People in Germany actually know that "Sodomy" in the U.S. refers to "anal intercourse", because this meaning has been totally lost in their own language. If someone talks of "Sodomie" in German, he always means acts of zoophilia, and most would be quite amazed (perhaps even shocked ;-) that in other countries people understand this word in a different way. Compare the German entry to Sodomie. (The reference to the medieval and the international meaning of "sodomy" have been added just some weeks ago.) --Amys 23:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix this in the article. My rather puritanical English-German Dictionary (Cassell's 12th edition, circa 1968) doesn't list any of these words, so I had nowhere handy to go for this. -- Jmabel 00:14, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) Looks like you beat me to it. -- Jmabel 00:16, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German Empire

Don't want to be demanding ;-), but the section about the German Empire (1871-1918) is missing from the English translation. Mmh. --Amys 02:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I'll do it. Damn, thought I was done... -- Jmabel 07:21, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A confusing paragraph

§ 182 StGB contains numerous terms without precise, clear legal definitions; critics have raised concerns that families can misuse this law to criminalize socially disapproved relations (for example, because they are homosexual). In Austria an analogous development was carried out by striking out § 209 StGB from the Austrian legal code and adopting § 207b StGB.

  1. "...socially disapproved relations..." What is meant here? (1) "...socially disapproved relationships..." or (2) "socially disapproved relatives..." (or, worded more naturally "...relatives of whom they disapprove...")? Either way it should change: "relations" in this context is ambiguous.
  2. What is the passage about Austria doing in this paragraph? Assuming it means that an Austrian abolition of a statute was parallel to the German ones it must be in a separate paragraph (and I don't understand your problem with my having given it a section heading: there is no reason to assume it will not be expanded). As it stands, it would have to mean analogous to the existence of "...numerous terms without precise, clear legal definitions...", which makes no sense to me at all, so I assume that is not what is meant. -- Jmabel 07:40, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

ad 1) Relationships that are disapproved bei the "Umfeld" (parents, relatives, ...), because they violate social norms (e.g. heterosexist ones).

ad 2) I think the passage about Austria (I haven't written it) wants to hint at the fact that the relation between the abolished § 175 and the potentially abusable § 182 is the same as that between the abolished § 209 StGB and the newly adopted § 207b StGB in the Austrian penal code. There was a major discussion on this topic in the German wikipedia, because we couldn't find out, if the § 182 was expanded the same time the § 175 was voided (which would suggest that it had a kind of surrogate function without explicitly mentioning homosexuality). Therefore, this paragraph is full of sinister allusions. And the passage about the Austrian code is probably one of these allusions (§ 207b StGB being a surrogate for § 209). --Amys 20:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ... and a small thing

In the original German, at one point there is a note "RGSt 73, 78, 80 f". I now see that is not a footnote to one of the references given. Is it a reference to a statute book? Is there some same way to carry this information into the English-language article? Legal citations are generally a good addition. (And would this all be clear to a German-speaker, or does it deserve a link there as well?) -- Jmabel 08:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The RGSt (Reichsgerichtsentscheidungen in Strafsachen, "Imperial court decisions in penal matters") is a collection of case law. Don't know if the source is useful for the English reader. But if one takes it up, one should cite it the same way as in German. --Amys 20:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German Empire

Two passages that gave me enough trouble that I didn't even really try; Amys, can you help me?

"Am 1. Januar 1872 wurde aus dem exakt ein Jahr zuvor in Kraft getretenen Strafgesetzbuch des Norddeutschen Bunds das Strafgesetzbuch des Deutschen Reichs." I translated as "On January 1, 1872, the penal code of the North German Confederation became the penal code of the entire German Empire," which I believe is accurate as far as it goes, but I couldn't understand what is said to be a year after what else.

After the first mention of the WhK is the phrase "nun eine Honoratioren-Bewegung": what does that mean? -- Jmabel 08:49, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Don't know how to translate exactly, but "Honoratioren" means "notabilities" (?), that is, the WhK was not designed as a mass movement, but as one that consisted of doctors, publishers and other honorable men that were publicly known. --Amys 20:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] re: German Empire

but I couldn't understand what is said to be a year after what else.

"Am 1. Januar 1872 wurde aus dem exakt ein Jahr zuvor in Kraft getretenen Strafgesetzbuch des Norddeutschen Bunds das Strafgesetzbuch des Deutschen Reichs."

The penal code of the North German Confederation became the penal code of the Empire exactly one year after it [the former] had first taken effect.

Arguably the original text has some slight ambiguity as to whether the code was in fact adopted entirely unchanged.

(unsigned)

OK, I'll edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 20:01, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
You can make a relative clause out of this: "Am 1. Januar 1872 wurde aus dem Strafgesetzbuch des Norddeutschen Bunds, das exakt ein Jahr zuvor in Kraft getreten war, das Strafgesetzbuch des Deutschen Reichs."
"On Jan 1st, 1872 the penal code of the North German federation, which had taken effect exactly one year before, became the penal code of the German Empire."
This would be the literal translation. --Amys 21:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Two additional things (zoophilia/bestiality and Nazi emphasis)

Should 'zoophilia' be used consistently, or 'bestiality'? On the one hand some tolerant folks might regard the latter as needlessly pejorative, but on the other it more explicitly refers to actual practice rather than mere desire, cf. the difference between pedophilia and pederasty.

Second, I do think that the introductory paragraph needlessly emphasizes the events of the Nazi era (which are of course also discussed later). The law had a 120 year history, and I think you are falling into the same sort of error that the German legislature did when they retroactively pardoned those convicted under this statute by the Nazi regime, but not any others.

I've also fixed a couple of tiny typos and will try to review the rest of this later - German is my first language, but I think my English is pretty good too :-)

I would opt for bestiality, because as "Sodomie" in German, it denotes acts and not an inclination. Futhermore, both bestiality and sodomy are more similar in style. And both are very old terms, too. --Amys 20:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I basically agree, but think we should use "zoophilia" when referring neutrally to the practice and "bestiality" when referring to the criminalization of it. If the Nazi era is overemphasized: it may be because of my having left largely intact the original short English-language article as an introduction. I'll try to address this, but on a quick reread it doesn't look particularly disproportionate, when one considers the number of deaths in that era. -- Jmabel 21:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Someone else has pointed out (in an edit comment) that zoophilia is a "tendency", a state of mind, while bestiality is an act. I think that is probably correct, so it is definintely bestiality rather than zoophilia that the law punished: the act, not the desire. -- Jmabel 05:54, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Oops! I suppose it would be a good idea to at least browse the talk pages before making edits all pell mell (it was me who made the change!). Yeah, the dictionary defines bestiality as a sexual act and zoophilia as a tendency toward sexual attraction. Laws can only target acts, not tendencies or attractions, so... -Seth Mahoney 16:17, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] details on citing paragraphs

  1. In some places we say "Paragraph", in some places we use "§"; I was following the German-language article on this. I'm not sure what is proper. Could one of the Germans who has been participating please clean this up appropriately, because this is a cultural issue and I can't decide it; also, I am almost sure there is cleanup needed on this matter in the German-language article.
  2. Similarly, exactly when should we affix "StGB" and when not? Is there something differnt we should affix to citations of law before some date?
  3. In contexts like "§ 182 Absatz 3 StGB" I've opted to translate Absatz as "sub-paragraph"; normally I would translate that word as "paragraph" but in this context that would be terribly confusing. I think this decision is correct. -- Jmabel 21:45, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Formally correct is § 175 StGB (Germany), because there is also a § 175 StGB (Austria) with a wholly different content. And in Germany there is also a § 175 ZPO (with a rather meaningless content). Perhaps there are even some more §§ 175 (§§ denotes plural), of which I don't know. But we wrote of "paragraph 175" in Germany, because this paragraph is infamous and kind of a buzzword. ("§" is simply the short notation of "paragraph", but I doubt if all English-speaking readers will know that.) On the whole, it's rather a matter of taste. If someone else had written the article, he probably would have used "§ 175" or "§ 175 StGB". (One problem is that no English reader knows that StGB stands for "Strafgesetzbuch".) --Amys 23:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will start an article on this at German legal citation. Amys, could you have a look at that (and at its talk page) and see if you can correct any mistakes in the article and/or answer either of my requests on the talk page? -- Jmabel 01:35, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think there is no mistake. It's perfect. (Although I'm not a jurisprudent!) --Amys 02:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's a mistake, at least from the viewpoint of a lawyer. § means section, not paragraph (that's ¶). The article on German legal citation makes reference to there being a difference between British English and American English, but in the mind of any person versed in American Law, § means section. I would recommend changing all instances of "paragraph" to "section" because this is an article on a law and I really think that you should use the standards set in the field. Essentially any attorney in the United States (and I think any barrister or solicitor in England) would say "section" when reading aloud. Absatz would be paragraph (¶). Note the following usage from U.S. v. Gecas 120 F.3d 1419 (11th Cir. 1997): "Germany does not specifically punish crimes against Jewish persons . . . under its murder statute, § 211, Nr. 1 StGB. [FN6] Unlike the Israeli statute, section 211 on its face does not apply extraterritorially. . . ." (emphasis added). --Resipsa 15:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See [2] cited at German legal citation, this from a professional legal translator. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:14, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate?

I think we are at least very close to a featured article candidate here. Does anyone have concrete suggestions of where we might still fall short of that? -- Jmabel 00:41, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm venturing to nominate it. -- Jmabel 08:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronistic naming

Right now the article says, "Beginning in the 1890s, sexual reformers fought against the 'disgraceful paragraph,' and soon won the support of leading Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD), as well as some left-liberals (initially in the National Liberal Party and later the DDP but not the DVP)." Although I imagine this is sustantively true, I believe that listing KPD here is anachronistic: the KPD formed at the end of WWI. Does anyone know if we should simply snip out "KPD" and link to communism rather than to this particular party? Or do we need to edit more drastically to bring it in line with the facts? -- Jmabel 19:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit lazy, otherwise I would have reacted earlier, but the paragraph is very confusing. The National Liberal Party has never supported the abolition of Paragraph 175. It was the party of Bismarck! The Empire and the Weimar Republic are totally mixed up in one paragraph, that's the problem. I'll try to fix. --Amys 21:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I hope I have cleared up the mess. But someone should check my language again. ;-) --Amys 22:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trial and conviction numbers

I recently brought over some statistical tables on trials and convictions from the German version of the article. I think they are a valuable addition, but I'm not sure I've solved the layout problem well. If someone has a better idea, go for it! -- Jmabel 01:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German Democratic Republic

If anyone has got some spare time, the section about the GDR has been totally rewritten and largely enhanced in the equivalent German-language article. There is also an image for illustration now. --Amys 04:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New East German material

I'm running into some difficulties in translating the new East-Germany-related material:

  • What exactly is an "OdF-Ausweis"? I understand that an "Ausweis" is roughly an identity card, but what is "OdF"? For that matter, I don't ger "Für ungültig erklärter OdF-Ausweis" even once we have an English-language term for "OdF-Ausweis": I read this as something like "For invalid explanation OdF-Ausweis". Google gives "For invalidly avowed..." which doesn't help me anyway.
"OdF" stands for "Opfer des Faschismus" (victim of fascism), a legal category in the German Democratic Republic, for you were entitled to receive a pension on that account. This is not a very familiar acronym in German either, but I thought people would recognise that OdF is the abbreviation of the later given "Opfer des Faschismus". --Amys 00:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to do with "Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Halle". Any suggestions?

Jmabel 06:25, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC), revised 06:32, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

An internet dictionary translates "Oberlandesgericht" with "provincial high court and court of appeal" [3]. --Amys 00:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In any event, I've done what I can on this section. It is possible that I misunderstood something, I found this a bit tricky going. Someone may want to review.

Also, for some reason I'm having trouble capturing pictures from the web right now. If someone else wants to bring in the picture that illustrates this section in the German Wikipedia, please do. -- Jmabel 22:50, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Amys, I'm happy with most of your recent edits here, but why kill "Men over 21 could be punished for acts of homosexual intercourse. Homosexual newspapers and organizations were still prohibited," and the two places where I remark that changes in the criminal code were to bring it in line with what had already been decided by the courts? Are you saying these are factually wrong, or just trying to bring this exactly in line with the German-language article? The latter is not a requirement. -- Jmabel 01:41, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ahm, because:
  1. until the end of the 50's every kind of homosexual activity could be punished, and so, too, sex between adults.
    True enough; I'd just noticed that as a deletion from the eariler English version. And the matter about bringing the written law in line with case law? -- Jmabel
  2. I don't know if homosexual newspapers and organizations were really prohibited. That was an edit of an anonymous user in the German Wikipedia. I didn't check that. But I think it was difficult to publish a private newspaper anyway, regardless of content, and also to form a state independent organisation. But I'll try to check this in the literature.
  3. I don't think the Volkskammer only reacted to the court decision. In fact, all important decisions in East Germany came from the ruling socialist party (and the court may perhaps only have reacted itself to developments within the Socialist Unity Party). It may sound funny, but in the end of the 80's the Socialist Unity Party forced gay emancipation from above, opening a state-owned gay disco in Berlin, furthering the first gay movie of the GDR, forcing the youth clubs to have regular gay dance events (even against the will of those who were in charge of the clubs). One reason may be that the Socialist Unity Party wanted to prevent the gay movement to become an opposition movement organising within the church. --Amys 02:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting. 2 comments then: (1) what you just mentioned (after "It may sound funny...") probably belongs in the article in some form and (2) regardless of whether the Volkskammer were reacting or not, if they were bringing written law in line with case law, rather than changing the effective law, that deserves mention. (And if they weren't, that should be clearer.) -- Jmabel 02:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
OK, put it in back if you want. But concerning the comments I have made about the policy of the Socialist Unity Party at the end of the 80's, I first want to have a look again in the relevant literature (actually I'm not from East Germany, though I live in former East Berlin since 1999! ;-). The information is from a brochure I have read some years ago (cmp. [4]), and perhaps it's a bit beyond the scope of the legal matters dealt with in this article. --Amys 02:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It is, but I doubt that the English-language Wikipedia will have any other article in the near future in which to cover material related to the treatment of gays in East Germany, so this is where to put it. -- Jmabel 04:26, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Some comment as to the "OdF-Ausweis": The one to whom this card belongs got it first, because he he had been in a concentration camp (KZ Theresienstadt). But he got it only because he'd said he was there because of political reasons. Than it was found out that he had been there because "he was a criminal" (§ 175), and thus the card was invalidated. The Berlin Magistrate even announced to take him to the court for deceit. --Amys 04:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Offtopic question

I have read in a German Wikipedia article that any sex with someone under the age of 18 is illegal in the U.S. Is this really true? I can't believe this. --Amys 03:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Pretty much true (although it's all at the state level, not federal, and the age of consent varies from state to state). The theory is that a minor cannot give meaningful consent to a sexual act, so that sex with a minor is a form of rape. Many of the states have rather convoluted laws, so that they don't make it criminal (say) for a 19-year-old to have sex with a 17-year-old. -- Jmabel 04:26, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ... greatly exacerbated its severity in 1935

66.167.139.105 10:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC): It was really unfortunate that the phrase "greatly exacerbated its severity" made it onto the main page. Featured articles are supposed to be "particularly well-written" and that sentence is not. Since "exacerbate" means "to make more severe" the sentence becomes "Nazi Germany greatly makes more severe [the paragraph's] severity ..."

But it's even worse than that. When you read the section of the article that that sentence is meant to summarize, fixing the wording isn't enough. The one-sentence summary is wrong. After a quick reading of the differences between the 1871 version and the 1935 version, I'd summarize the changes as follows:

  1. The law became more detailed with respect to homosexual acts, thought the law w.r.t. acts of bestiality remained unchanged.
  2. If both of the parties committing homosexual acts are under 21, punishment is at the discretion of the court (i.e. it became less severe not more).
  3. The punishment for certain severe cases is at minimum three months and could be up to ten years. Several cases include (1) "lewdness" with coercion; (2) "lewdness" initiated at the work place (analogous to sexual harassment laws in the U.S.); (3) "lewdness" initiated by an adult towards a minor; and (4) "lewdness" committed with a prostitute.

And then it gets even more complicated. The article points out that convictions based on Paragraph 175 increased by a factor of ten, and even those who completed their punishments or were acquitted ended up in concentration camps, where thousands died. These Nazi-era changes were separate from anything mentioned in Paragraph 175.

So a summary of the Nazi-era changes could be: "Nazi Germany changed the law in 1935; prosecutions increased by an order of magnitude, and thousands died in concentration camps, regardless of guilt or innocence." (unsigned)

The law was exacerbated in the sense that much conduct that was previously lawful was made illegal. A law that previously pertained only to acts of male-male anal intercourse was subtly altered to include any and all male homosexual conduct. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Left-wing vs. leftist

I have restored "leftist" rather than "left-wing". The claim that the latter is move NPOV strikes me as misguided, at best. I gather that the two terms have different connotations in different English-speaking countries. In the U.S., where I live, "left-wing" carries much stronger connotations of extremism: I've never heard an American call him- or herself "left-wing", I've only heard it used here as an at least mildly disparaging term, while plenty of people here embrace "leftist". I don't know which country the other editor was from, but this is going to be one of those cases where you can't please everyone. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Development in West Germany

I added some information about the § and afforts of the green party in 1986. It is a very poor english I am shure - if someone please can put it please in a proper english form? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.40.239 (talk • contribs) 11 Nov 2005..

Re: your addition: I realize that lesbian sex was never explicitly mentioned in German laws, but as I understand it, the effect of that was to leave it in the same status as heterosexual sex (as far as age of consent). I'm removing mention of the matter either way, pending citation; if you have (or if anyone has) anything solid on this, I'll happily get it into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Other than that, I did my best to fix the English, but just to make sure: when you say (I've edited this a little, but not changed its sense) "In 1986 the Green Party and the first openly gay member of the German parliament tried to remove Paragraph 175 together with Paragraph 182," you mean to say that they tried to remove both, not to combine 175 into 182, right? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, who would that "first openly gay member" of the Bundestag in 1976 be? I'm unaware of gay parliamentarian from that era, and there is nothing on our Gay rights timeline, where I'd expect something on that. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cut pending citation

The following two sentences were recently added to the section on The Nazi Era. I've cut them. I'm not saying they are wrong, but they are uncited and a bit vague; since this is a featured article, and has had a great deal of review (both here and in the German Wikipedia) "According to estimations" without saying anything about who did the estimating really doesn't cut it. (Also, if these are to be restored, please let'd clean up the English; for example, there is no such word as "puted".)

  • "According to estimations, between the years 1933 to 1945 about 100,000 homosexuals were arrested in Nazi Germany from the force of paragraph 175."
  • "A total of 10,000-15,000 died according to estimations, in three main categories: some of them were arrested, sentenced and executed; some of them were sent to concentration camps, in which they found their death from abusing, hunger or disease; some of them puted in institutions and died in T-4 Euthanasia Program."

The article has precise numbers of arrests for 1933–1941. They add up to 46,559. If our current numbers are accurate, and if an estimate of 100,000 is accurate, that would mean more arrests 1942–1945 (three years) than 1933–1941 (nine years) and a sudden reversal of a falling off that happened with the start of the war. I'm not saying that is impossible, but I am saying that it is the sort of thing for which I would like to see a citation.

"A total of 10,000–15,000 died according to estimations": this would conflict strongly both with our own previous numbers (about 40% surviving, out of about 10,000 total). It would also sit oddly with the estimate of 100,000. If over 50,000 additional men were arrested in 1942–1945, and 10,000–15,000 died in the camps, that would mean well over 30,000 surviving pink triangle prisoners (maybe over 40,000) at the end of the war, which I strongly doubt. Since the T-4 Euthanasia Program was largely over by the end of 1941, it does little to reconcile these numbers.

Again, if these estimates come from some academic source that has done good research, then they belong, cited, in the article even if they do not sit well with our other numbers. But uncited, I don't think they belong.

That said, our citation standards were lower when this became a featured article. User:Amys (de:Benutzer:Lysis) clearly did a lot of very careful research, but he did not cite in the detail we would now. I'm hoping that he can come help sort some of this out. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version of June 28, 1935

I translated the Paragraph 175 into Chinese according to the English Translation. I found some confusion here:

a man who professionally offers himself for such an act as either the active or passive partner.
(under "Version of June 28, 1935" and "Version of June 25, 1969 (West Germany)")

It is about prostitution or a "skillful masturbation"?? Thank you. --Hkchan123 06:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As I replied to you elsewhere (but I now see that you have asked in two places), it is about prostitution. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dishonor"

Recently added, uncited: "This 'dishonor' was only refered to the deserters from the Wehrmacht, however, not to the homosexuals." Does someone have a citation on this? - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EParagraph_175_8de5.html"