and the Gestapo mashes in

You’re trivialising Nazi rule.

And that’s precisely why noone in Germany is listening to you. I can only surmise that you’re a Hasbara agent trying to paint the Palestinian cause in a bad light.

Nope UN Resolution 242. Jordan grabbed the area during Israel’s war of independence (1948), annexed it in 1950, then Israel did its six-day thing, conquering the territory, and the UN said “nope neither of you can keep it it’s still Palestine”.

Much of applicable law in Palestine is Jordanian law, though: It’s a modern system and culturally appropriate enough, so why replace it when you can tinker. Not that it matters much, Israel is applying its own martial law to the whole area because it didn’t annex it but occupy it, which in principle should make the settlements illegal under Israeli law but you know only democracy in the Near East and all that.

That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words “cause harm to yourself or others”. That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.

Did some further googling and it appears that what I remember might apply to a) school councillors and the like, and b) law enforcement getting reports about type of treatment after they dropped someone off. Why law enforcement is doing EMT stuff is of course yet a whole another topic.

While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt.

And that’s exactly how German law sees it: Breaking confidence is permitted in certain cases, but not mandated. On the flipside, if you’re e.g. a cop or a child care worker, when you see certain things you are required to pursue them, that’s different in e.g. the Netherlands where cops are free to ignore you if you light up a joint in front of them, and tell them about it, and don’t even hide it in a brown bag. People taking confessions including therapists are neither of those, though, so they do not have that kind of duty.

Law will never be able to cover, in detail, the balancing process necessary to actually reduce harm in any specific case. It is a very blunt instrument.

You’re exchanging one absolute for another. The original absolute btw, not being that absolute because catholic priests can tattle anonymously (if the state allows for such things, different topic), and then themselves confess. But it should never be a “hear X, do Y” kind of deal. That doesn’t serve the situation.

Source? I have literally never heard that.

Don’t know where I got it from, but second google hit: https://www.amahahealth.com/blog/can-i-talk-to-my-therapist-about-my-illicit-drug-use/

But, there is a condition - your therapist is also bound by the ethical duty of reducing harm, so if they find out that your drug use can cause harm to you or someone else, they might have to report you to the authorities.

So if they figure that you are in a state where you might be leaving needles behind at playgrounds, they have to report you. They have no leeway to say “I can convince this guy to be more mindful”. That alone wouldn’t be that bad, but if you’re in a downward spiral, “causing harm to yourself”, they also have to report you. Which, given the state of the US criminal justice system, is going to do even more harm. The whole thing is unethical AF.

There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit.

[citation needed]

I mean not the matter of habit covering up thing particularly when it comes to the Catholic Church, but e.g. Lutherans also take confessions and over here the EKD very much had not that kind of issue: Abuse exists, as it does everywhere, but it did not have institutional backing, much less wide-spread. When one instance of one superior covering for one subordinate came to light they stepped on it hard and passed new laws that include mandatory reporting – but not when it comes to confession. “See something, do something”, yes, but not “Take confession, do something”.

It’s that kind of thing the Catholics should be criticised for – somehow the Lutherans had several magnitudes less of a problem, and yet reacted magnitudes more decisively when it comes to stopping it, making sure that church structures don’t turn into a criminal conspiracy. Lifting or not lifting the seal won’t do anything to institutional rot. You’re focussing on the wrong thing.

These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?

So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.

You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?

Over here in Germany, therapists may break confidentiality over planned or grave crimes, but are not required to. It’s always a balancing act and from what I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.

Mandatory reporting doesn’t solve problems and while doing that causes a ton of others. There’s a gazillion things you can do to address things, making snitching mandatory is about the least useful and most damaging.

The often mentioned “silent majority” are actually latent fascists who were previously apathetic.

You saw the silent majority on the streets when that “remigration” talk leaked out of closed AfD circles: The streets were literally not big enough to contain them. 70% oppose any other party going in coalition with them (unsurprisingly, the rest are AfD, BSW, or FDP voters), about half want to see them banned, which is a question more nuanced than “I want them gone”.

I guess that after a ban, the BSW could gobble up most of that support for them. And while Wagenknecht is a clown and at least veering towards Nazbol she’s far less of a danger to democracy.

Solve anxiety. The hatred, the desire to put down others, all that is caused by anxiety short-circuiting people’s minds, acting on, put very hand-wavily, reptilian instead of higher mammalian instincts, including social ones¹. Without underlying anxieties fascism has nothing to latch onto, and nothing to make even worse so it can propagate and perpetuate itself.

Key anxieties to address nowadays, and feel free to add your own, are economical security, “will I be poor in the future”, as well as social alienation, “can people be trusted”. Both require overcoming neoliberalism. Also, yes, solve anxieties regarding the future of the planet but that’s more about saving the planet so we may continue to live on it than anti-fascism for the simple reason that eco-fascism is overall negligible as a political force.

How? First of all, stop acting from anxiety.

¹ Is that where the “lizard people” thing comes from?