A commentary by our author Klaus Bastian
Berlin, July 25, 2026: The well-known Islamist Abdul B. allegedly attacked the CSD parade. One woman died, and 31 people were officially reported injured. The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) had previously classified him as a high-risk individual. Nevertheless, a court released him from pre-trial detention on May 12. That same judicial system had detained Georg Thiel for 181 days for refusing to provide a statement of assets. Additionally, a civil engineer served 30 days in prison after sending an insulting email to Manuela Schwesig. Three days before the CSD attack, investigators also searched the family homes of seven youths; the initial trigger for this action was a racist insult directed at a classmate.
The courts granted a high-risk offender another chance
Abdul B. had attempted to join the so-called Islamic State. The Tiergarten District Court sentenced him to a juvenile term of one year and ten months. The court even determined that immediate suspension of the sentence on probation was not justifiable. Nevertheless, it lifted the arrest warrant and granted a six-month probationary period prior to the actual suspension of the sentence. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had sought a longer sentence and continued detention.
Image: AI-generated
Moreover, the authorities were aware of the risk they were taking. The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) classified Abdul B. in the highest risk category. Experts warned that he might leave the country again or carry out an attack. Nevertheless, he remained at liberty. The State Criminal Police Office (LKA) even filmed him leaving his home at 8:58 p.m. on the day of the attack. However, officers did not review the camera footage until later. The attack began about an hour later.
The justice system shows no leniency regarding words and statements
Georg Thiel owed the broadcaster WDR 651.30 euros in mandatory broadcasting fees. Because he failed to disclose his financial circumstances, he was placed in coercive detention. The state held him for 181 days, thereby nearly exhausting the statutory maximum duration. Technically, he was not imprisoned for the debt itself; yet, without that outstanding claim, the enforcement proceedings and the detention would never have occurred. Even the Federal Constitutional Court did not intervene.
The justice system reacted with similar relentlessness to an email sent to Manuela Schwesig. A civil engineer called her a “storyteller” and accused her of peddling “nonsense.” The court imposed a fine of 30 daily rates at 100 euros each. Because the man did not pay, he spent 30 days in prison. Additionally, on July 22, investigators searched the homes of seven youths. The case stemmed from an allegedly racist insult directed at a classmate. Officers seized phones, computers, and storage media. This intrusion thus affected the parents’ private lives as well, even though no allegations of wrongdoing had been made against them.
Proportionality Must Not Be a Foreign Concept to the Justice System
The Berlin case is not an isolated slip-up. In late September 2020, a convicted ISIS supporter was released in Dresden after fully serving his juvenile sentence. Although subject to supervision, he attacked a gay couple just five days later. One man bled to death; his partner survived with severe injuries. At the time of his arrest, the perpetrator was once again carrying a knife. According to the Federal Court of Justice, he was already scouting for further victims.
Of course, pretrial detention, coercive detention, imprisonment in default of a fine, and searches are based on different legal provisions. Yet this distinction does not resolve the imbalance. The state employs its full coercive power in cases involving unpaid fees, insults, and offenses committed by schoolchildren. In contrast, when dealing with known Islamists, it relies on suspended sentences, social support, and surveillance footage that is analyzed only after a delay. While this judicial approach may be formally explicable, it is increasingly difficult to justify to society. It demonstrates severity where there is little threat to life or limb, yet places its trust in hope and good intentions when dealing with known high-risk offenders. This does not represent a convincing application of proportionality; it is a dangerous loss of state priorities.
Author: Klaus Bastian – Blackout News
Sources: Tagesschau (27.07.26) – Gerichte in Berlin (26.07.26) – Bayerische Polizei (22.07.26) – Welt (18.12.24) – Bundesgerichtshof (15.02.26)