The Misuse of §§ 278 ff and its Implications for Social Activism

In front of our very eyes the Austrian State is carrying out a hideous experiment. At the cost of 10 animal protectionists the State is seeing how far they can use the Austrian Criminal Code against people involved in social activism.

The so called §§ 278 ff is being used for the first time by the Ministry of the Interior and the Police against non-government organisations.

This law is intended for dealing with organised crime of a severe nature, such as human trafficking, drug dealing, and forced prostitution and so on. These kinds of criminal organisations are characterised by central figures who give orders to lower ranking members to break the law and then reap the financial gains themselves.

Enacted appropriately, this law makes it possible to charge and convict central figures in criminal organisations who, would otherwise remain out of the law’s reach.

Enacted inappropriately, this law can be used to repress any form of social activism

After detailed study of this law, we can see in the following summary how this is possible: The central point to this law is that individuals and groups which function autonomously and in secret can be accredited to another organisation as long as both have the same aim or philosophy.

Individuals and small groups which function secretly and autonomously do not take orders and act independently. Nevertheless, according to the State Prosecution’s interpretation of this law, it is possible to convict individuals for illegal activities carried out by persons not even known to them. It is only necessary to prove that the two parties share the same aim and ideology.

Taken to its logical conclusion this law used in this way means a kin liability for social activism. The kin liability was used in the Third Reich to make relatives of those accused of crimes also guilty.

The present situation means that every person who, belongs to a political movement, i.e., shares and is active for the common goals and philosophy of this movement can be prosecuted under article 278a should any criminal activity take place which has been motivated by the common goals and philosophy of that movement. This is regardless of whether this person has committed a crime or not.

This is why it has been possible to hold the 10 animal protectionists on remand for so long without any concrete charges.

They are not being charged with the incidents of damage to property listed by the prosecution. By charging the 10 under article 278a the prosecution do not need to find the people responsible for these offences. To prosecute the 10 they merely need to demonstrate that they share the same goals as those that motivated the criminal offences; in this case an end to animal exploitation.