(quick disclaimer, i am not nor defending the law, merely suggesting use it against the oppressor:
While legality is always stacked against social revolutionaries in the liberal (propretarian really) state, it still offers an angle in the political struggle as the liberal state itself, including the idea of property, depends on legalirty)
This eviction was clearly illegal, as the outcome of the legal procedings after the introduction of the squatting ban make crystal clear: the
the basic right to 'private life' (in the form of the 'home', as enshrined as 'domestic peace' can not be decided upon by the executive (the cops, the prosecutors), but requires the judiciary (a judge) to weigh the matter when infringed upon, even if the method of establishing the home is illegal as such.
This arguments are however only relevant, if brought forward, which can only be done by those whose rights are infringed upon. That's those who lost thewir home because the state overreached , the evicted squatters.
Important detail: domestic peace (and the home) is established the instant one moves in, not by posting picas on the internet. Nor does moving in have to happen covertly three days earlier. Legally speaking , the cops catching squatters in the act allows them to prosecute, maybe to arrest outside of the home, but not to enter the home 'without permission of those who use it'), especially when those squatters (as it happens) are not going anywhere.
(another disclaimer: the legal proceedings required for this approach are by no means a replacement for direct action, but when successful, can considerably improve the chances of direct action to succeed.
and another: using the law to delegitimize the state does not delegitimze the political claims of those who do. Law is just a political instrument, not a philosophical ultima ratio)
domestic pieces
(quick disclaimer, i am not nor defending the law, merely suggesting use it against the oppressor:
While legality is always stacked against social revolutionaries in the liberal (propretarian really) state, it still offers an angle in the political struggle as the liberal state itself, including the idea of property, depends on legalirty)
This eviction was clearly illegal, as the outcome of the legal procedings after the introduction of the squatting ban make crystal clear: the
the basic right to 'private life' (in the form of the 'home', as enshrined as 'domestic peace' can not be decided upon by the executive (the cops, the prosecutors), but requires the judiciary (a judge) to weigh the matter when infringed upon, even if the method of establishing the home is illegal as such.
This arguments are however only relevant, if brought forward, which can only be done by those whose rights are infringed upon. That's those who lost thewir home because the state overreached , the evicted squatters.
Important detail: domestic peace (and the home) is established the instant one moves in, not by posting picas on the internet. Nor does moving in have to happen covertly three days earlier. Legally speaking , the cops catching squatters in the act allows them to prosecute, maybe to arrest outside of the home, but not to enter the home 'without permission of those who use it'), especially when those squatters (as it happens) are not going anywhere.
(another disclaimer: the legal proceedings required for this approach are by no means a replacement for direct action, but when successful, can considerably improve the chances of direct action to succeed.
and another: using the law to delegitimize the state does not delegitimze the political claims of those who do. Law is just a political instrument, not a philosophical ultima ratio)
See you in court ;)