A Berlin court is expected to rule on the case of a pro-Palestinian activist who called out the divisive slogan “from the river to the sea” at a rally, in what supporters say is an important test case for Germany.
The trial before a district court of a German woman with Iranian heritage, identified only as Ava M, is one of several since the 7 October Hamas attacks in Israel and the destruction of Gaza that have examined Germany’s limits on free speech.
The defendant, 22, is accused of “condoning the assault by Hamas” by using the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during a protest on 11 October near the Sonnenallee boulevard in the capital’s diverse Neukölln district.
Condoning a crime can meet with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine.
Views tend to diverge over who gets to define what can be said.
Very few of us absolutists around – incitement to immediate violence should, to my mind, be the only control (libel is a civil matter).
We must always remember that many of these places, despite having democracy bombed into them are at their heart police states. This is what Starmer hopes to reduce us to.
Adopting JS Mill’s approach we should only proscribe direct incitemen to violence.
Being a goy Zionist ( often wondered if that is allowed, a bit like male feminists ) I believe the same thing holds for Israel. Mind you some of the headbangers reckon that the “river” should be the Euphrates.
Perhaps if our CPS had acted in the same fashion, the claim of ‘two tier policing’ would be easier to defend?
As Germany is going all out to round up and punish anyone caught on film singing Auslander Raus this case will be an indicator as to whether “two tier” policing and justice is peculiar to the UK.
From the river to the sea, Palestine is Israeli.
Tough to call. The Kraut authorities have literally zero interest in allowing free speech. However they also seem to love bending over for the violent peasants they have imported, even more than the British government. Hence complaining about rape is treated more seriously than rape.
If the ‘river to the sea’ chanters get off it will leave Germany in the unusual position of making it illegal to deny the holocaust, but legal to call for another one….
a German woman with Iranian heritage,
I.e. an Iranian with a passport of convenience.
Germany has laws which reflect atonement for its Third Reich past but the mania, there as here, for describing all dissent as “extreme right” opens a massive overton window as a catch-all for anything the authorities choose to target.
In this instance it’s far from clear how the prosecution can argue that by using the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” the accused of necessity must be“condoning the assault by Hamas” when it could just be a simple aspiration for a seperate Palestinian state.
Sadly, though, what might previously have been unthinkable within the rule of law has now become commonplace.
Marginally off-piste:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/scientist-hate-crime-spanish-row-struck-off/
Yes, the horror of hurty words, but I can’t help thinking that her real crime was being careless with her geography: she called the young Portuguese lady a Spanish whore….
“a German woman with Iranian heritage”
There’s the root of a lot of these problems. If there were fewer people like this around, people would tend to hear more nice sensible things that they agree with, and there would be less work for the courts.
The offence is “using slogans of a terrorist organization”. I’d say (and we can argue about whether or not this should be an offence) that such an offence has been committed.
The legislation would have interesting effects, for example “Tiocfaidh ár lá” would be banned, but “Kill the Boer” probably not.
“a German woman with Iranian heritage”
Diversity is weakness, not a strength. As Robert Putnam found, the higher the levels of racial and cultural diversity in a neighbourhood, the lower the levels of trust – even between people of the same racial and cultural groups.
“German woman with Iranian heritage,”
Sahra Wagenecht is just such a lady.
– Very few of us absolutists around . . .
Well, it’s a luxury belief that crumbles very quickly in the face of reality; so yes, most people will have been disabused of the notion. There will be some level of tolerance for opposing viewpoints and “very tolerant” is the best you’ll ever get – and that will only be within a largely homogenous group.
There’s no point in being absolutely tolerant of an opposing viewpoint [cough*Islam*cough] that will inevitably spread and remove nearly all tolerance. Absolutism is inherently suicidal.
PJF – Absolutism is inherently suicidal.
I dunno, I think the divine right of kings was a more rational basis on which to organise society than the divine right of unimpressive foreigners to live off us.
Naughty Steve; you know the context is absolutism in free speech.
As to libel, here in the US, the Supreme Court needs to revisit Sullivan, where actual malice has to be proven. Some jurisdictions have the concept of “depraved indifference” as a standard, which seems to be current journalistic practice towards the truth.
PJF – Absolutely.
If anyone’s interested she go a €600 fine because:
https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2024-08/berlin-gericht-geldstrafe-pro-palaestina-parole
If various communities are going to have to rub along together that seems reasonable in the German context. If they don’t like the law they didn’t have to go to Germany, there’s plenty of countries in the ME where it isn’t a crime.
Very much agree with you there, BiND. If you choose to go to a country, you abide by its laws & customs. If you don’t agree with them, don’t go. The onus is on you to align with them not expect them to change for you
Germany’s a country I don’t particularly like since there was only one of them. So I try & avoid going to it. Or I make sure I have sufficient gas in the car to get to the other side without stopping.