Thank you for your reply, I was really confused that what happened to her was because of her asking for a demonstration. I asked a German friend to read up on it but I don't think that is necessary anymore. :)
Do you think involuntary psychiatric committment and forced drugging is a reasonable reaction by the government to a protester/activist who is paranoid about surveillance in an age of ubiquitous surveillance?
> Do you think involuntary psychiatric committment and forced drugging is a reasonable reaction by the government to a protester/activist who is paranoid about surveillance in an age of ubiquitous surveillance?
Yes, it's a perfectly reasonable backdoor to discredit, shut up and punish troublemakers without involving courts, which have tend to have tedious rules about things like "evidence of wrongdoing," "habeas corpus" and peoples' "rights."
After all, government knows best. This is not normal times; in this crisis, citizens' lives are at stake, so the government should be able to do anything, as long as they loudly claim their intentions are pure. Anyone who opposes the government isn't a criminal, because that would guarantee them some due process; they're an insane person who needs to be involuntarily treated. For their own good, of course.
Do you know the German legal system? The authorities may be able to put a person in a psychiatric facility for a short time (even then requiring a medical doctor to sign off on it), but afterwards, the local court is immediately involved. I don't know if the measure was warranted in this particular case, but your assertion isn't right: there are lots of people criticising the government and they don't all get locked up.
