The government may have the right to stop a complaint regarding this law, but that doesn't mean that there is no moral obligation for the government to not stand in the way of law.
She's not deflecting blame. For one thing, it's not Merkel that made the decision. Secondly, the blame would have been less if the government stopped the complaint. That would have been the easy way out.
It is clearly Merkel who made the decision. The law requires approval at that level, she is the one who announced the decision, the buck stops with her.
This is really terrible news for Germany and the EU as a whole. Merkel has said "this is a bad law and we have the option to ignore it, but we will prosecute anyway". Who rules Germany now, exactly? Is it Merkel or is it Erdogan? And if it's the latter, which is what it looks like, then how much influence does Turkey have over the EU as a whole?
You obsess over singular persons having power to do something. But in reality, Merkel is not at all free to decide this issue. For that matter, the government as a whole is not free to decide this issue, regardless where "the buck" stops.
Nor is Erdogan calling any shots, because he is only using an option that German law provides to any organ of a foreign state. To any Human Being actually, considering that there are cases of personal defamation pending.
Nothing special about Erdogan, except that he is exerting that option rather spectacularly to his own detriment.
The sad thing about this issue is that obviously a lot of people don't bother to appreciate the complexity of the issue and want to frame it as a question of who is in power and who is calling the shots.
If you don't want to be ruled by dictators, start recognizing law and institutions at work, rather than attributing everything that happens to the power and will of singular persons.
I would point out that the German government explicitly is free to decide whether or not prosecution continues. I don't think it's a good idea that this is the case, but it is.
Most people seem to focus on the political side of this whole affair, but at the same time it is clearly a legal case as well (and a rather interesting one) with hundreds of pending legal complaints
I tried without "triple negation". Doesn't work as well. There is a moral obligation for the government to honor that law, but that in turn doesn't mean they have to give permission or that they don't have permission. Yes, the issue is that complicated.
StGB §104a explicitly states that the German Federal Government has to consent to any prosecution under StGB §103 (the "libel against foreign head of state" paragraph of the law). §103/104 is very special in that regard.
So yes, the government had to give explicit permission to prosecute in this particular case.
The gov't could have honored the law by just saying "we don't consent to the prosecution", they did not however, and Merkel as the head of the government has the responsibility for that decision; whether you agree with the decision to prosecute or not.
PS: German media is reporting that according to Steinmeier, German Foreign Secretary, the cabinet had a tie when voting on prosecution or not, with Merkel's vote breaking the tie in favor or prosecution.
The government has a moral obligation to consider the request and saying "we don't consent" does not satisfy the obligation.
Another important consideration is that exercising the right to deny the prosecution would have taken away power from the judiciary. Germany is in the process of making this point to Poland and Hungary, where the independence of the judiciary is under attack. A denial would have weakened that argument a lot.
Just no. The laws/paragraphs in question are special in that they explicitly state the German government has to allow the any prosecution under that law/paragraph.
Of course the gov't has a moral and also legal obligation to consider the request, consideration does not imply they have to follow the request.
If the government made a new law requiring gov't consent before prosecutions or if they tried to hinder a prosecution under any existing law not having such a "government must consent" paragraph, then you might have a point; here however, you do not.
She's not deflecting blame. For one thing, it's not Merkel that made the decision. Secondly, the blame would have been less if the government stopped the complaint. That would have been the easy way out.