Comprehensible fan protest: Stadium bans are a double punishment and is quite questionable under the rule of law.
Photo: Imago/press photo Baumann
It is a topic that can always be heard when the interior and sports ministers of the countries meet: a central stadium ban commission is always required, which is to be associated with the German Football Association (DFB). For the first time, this was discussed after the Munich security summit last year when the DFB and the German football league finally adopted the position of politics. At that time it was the only somewhat tangible result of the meeting that Saxon Interior Minister Armin Schuster (CDU) described as a “big breakthrough”.
However, such a claim flies under the public radar for several reasons: Because hardly a normal mortal knows that there is something like a stadium ban commission. Because at first glance there is nothing against settling it at the DFB. And because – so much is supposed to open up by itself – stadium bans are the logical punishment when football fans behave next to it. But because that is not exactly stadium bans, it is not as unlikely that the sports and interior ministers will sit up for the same misunderstanding as the uninformed part of the public.
Double punishment
According to the “national concept of security and sport”, stadium bans are not a punishment for past misconduct. There are civil law procedures for this, which often end up with strict judgments, especially in the football context. For this reason alone, many fans and lawyers consider stadium bans to be unjust double punishment. But there are other arguments for this, the most important thing: stadium bans have a preventive function. The criterion of whether they are pronounced or not is the question of whether the relevant person is assessed in such a way that they will again become behavioral again in the future. But for that you have to see this person first, ask her questions, get to know people from her environment.
This necessary, because understandable process, is currently being carried out on site at the respective clubs. And that fears lawyers and the many social workers in football will no longer be able to happen if a central commission in Frankfurt am Main decides in the future. And that may still be in a political climate in which stadium bans are confused with fair penalties for misconduct.
The Federal Working Group (BAG) of the socially educational fan projects launched a working group months ago that criticizes these plans for politics. One should “not” risk “relationship work” on site, “it says. In addition, the clubs with their own fan thesis also simply have the better insights – and last but not least, of course, a strong self -interest in a peaceful stadium experience. As a compromise proposal to politics, social workers can imagine a “ombuds’ center” located at the DFB, “to which all persons and institutions involved in the process can turn to”. So also the police, if they have the impression somewhere that the fans would get away a little too well at a location.
Simple sources of error
Christian Kabs also worked on the bag paper. The employee of the Dresden fan project was already in an advisory capacity for many hearings on stadium bans. He cannot imagine how to judge a person without having heard them beforehand. Of course there are also cases in which he considers this hard punishment to be appropriate – but only after being dealt with in detail with situation and perpetrators. And he calls simple sources of error: »Once someone could prove that they were simply confused. He was on a long -distance trip during the supposed crime. “
Many things can be clarified better and pragmatically on site – at least with good will everyone involved. “We once had the case of a young person who had kinked a tree in his frustration,” recalls Kabs. “But he apologized and proposed that he could plant a new tree.” Good idea, not only found the Dresden fan project. However, the young fan received the ban on the stadium.
Kabs also affect the rule of law. “There is still no judgment that there is an investigation by the police.” The presumption of innocence applies. Did all of this have been considered in the so innocent demand for a central stadium ban commission? Kabs has his doubts: “In any case, we have the feeling that politics was not well advised at this point.”