- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
A Berlin court has convicted a pro-Palestinian activist of condoning a crime for leading a chant of the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a rally in the German capital four days after the Hamas attacks on Israel, in what her defence team called a defeat for free speech.
The presiding judge, Birgit Balzer, ordered 22-year-old German-Iranian national Ava Moayeri to pay a €600 (£515) fine on Tuesday, rejecting her argument that she meant only to express support for “peace and justice” in the Middle East by calling out the phrase on a busy street.
Balzer said she “could not comprehend” the logic of previous German court rulings that determined the saying was “ambiguous”, saying to her it was clear it “denied the right of the state of Israel to exist”.
You must log in or register to comment.
People 100% do use it both ways. That the court convicted and fined them without showing which one it actually was. And rejecting their defense stating that it wasn’t intended in that way. Is very troubling.
It’s absolutely plain to see that Germany is erring too far in a different direction so it’s not seen as attacking Jewish populations in any way. But as a result they are helping push back other vulnerable populations. I don’t think it’s the good look they’re hoping it was.
It’s State racism.
Racism isn’t just picking on some ethnicities and attacking those who are members of it, it’s also deeming some ethnicities and their members as special and deserving of superior treatment versus others: back in the day they were openly NAZI the German state deemed the Arian Race as special and criticism of it AND OF THOSE WHO SELF-PROCLAIMED TO REPRESENT IT (the NAZIs themselves then, same as the Zionists do now for Jewish ethnicity) as a crime.
Ever since Israel has started the most genocidal stage of their destruction of Palestinians, Germany has progressivelly uncovered a mindset of racism and authoritarianism with far too many parallels with their “old ways” only this time around it’s a different “superior race” and it’s a different group of ethno-Fascists that is illegal to criticise.
That the mental and moral posture of old is still alive and well even IN DEFENSE OF EXTREME GENOCIDE - even if now the beneficiaries are a different group of murderous ethno-Fascists claiming to represent a different ethnicity than last time around - is genuinely alarming for me as an European: if now Germany puts ethnicity above Humanitarianism even in the face of Genocide, accepts the same old logic as the NAZIs used from ethno-Fascists that they represent a whole ethnicity and uses the law to silence criticism of that Genocide and those ethno-Fascists, they will likely do it again, and next time around the victims of the genocidal ethno-Fascist that Germany supports might be a lot closer to home than Gaza.
Germany has progressivelly uncovered a mindset of racism and authoritarianism with far too many parallels with their “old ways”
There’s been plenty of pro-Palestinian protests in Germany. Most of the news you’re hearing regarding this are from Berlin (as in the state, not “the federal government” or something), where previously there was a great tohuwabohu from people like you over Nakhba protests being outlawed. Very similar lines of argument already back then.
And it’s also been bullshit back then: The Berlin police outlawed them, and courts upheld that ban, because in each and every previous year the Nakhba protests turned violent. Organisers did not have the protesters under control, public safety got endangered, and organisers could not demonstrate how this time it would be differently.
So, rather unsurprisingly, Berlin also reacted harsh to the protests post 7th of October. Elsewhere everything went very differently, not the least because the Palestinian diaspora elsewhere in Germany is saner.
What I don’t get though is what you people are trying to achieve by pushing that kind of narrative.
I would simplify that further. White supremacists simply adore the idea of a country being of one “ethnicity.” That’s why Israel’s best allies are actual Neo-Nazis.
Israel is a multicultural democracy with dozens of ethnic groups who are all guaranteed equal rights under the law.
But some are more equal than others lol
Don’t they spit on Christians there and call it a tradition?
And rejecting their defense stating that it wasn’t intended in that way.
That all happened on 11th of October, IIRC that was before the IDF went into Gaza, at a protest ostensibly about violence at schools, at which no slogans regarding violence at schools were chanted.
Maybe she really meant it in a completely harmless sense – but did those others chanting with her? She’s leading a chant, some political awareness and responsibility should be assumed. If she really did mean it as a message of peace, let those 600 Euro be a lesson in clear messaging, then.
Oh, those 600 Euro: Couldn’t find any proper reporting so working back from the average net wage she’s got sentenced to a week (Germany doesn’t do short prison stays, it’s 1 day lock-up == one day disposable income). I also can’t find what statute she’s been sentenced under – I guess general endorsement of crimes? The maximum there (three years) matches with what I read, a week is pretty much the lowest possible sentence while still being considered guilty. tl;dr: Definitely a slap on the wrist.
Both ways? It is unambiguously a call for genocide.
How is that?
Do you have any facts to back that claim up? Because I’ve heard a number of people say it without that intention. It absolutely can be ambiguous. You would need evidence of a person’s actions outside the claims to understand whether or not it was intended that way. But that’s not what you’re advocating for.
A Bavarian court ruled in June that the phrase expected to be used in an upcoming demonstration in Munich did not constitute a crime and could not be banned outright, finding that the “benefit of the doubt” around the slogan must prevail.
Yes, both way. People do see it in one way though, and that one way also openly call for genocide. Whoops 🤷
It only means genocide to Israelis because they can only fathom Israel as a mono-ethnic state with all others genocided. Anyone supporting a free and united Palestine supports the multicultural community that has been in the area for millennia.
You don’t know much about the region do you?
I know the area has been populated by Jews, Christians, and Muslims for as long as there have been Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Everybody doesn’t always get along but it wasn’t until the late 40s that countries began expelling large amounts of people based on religion or ethnicity.
Someone here literally never heard of the Crusades
Correction: to many Israelis. Definitely not all. Anti-apartheid Israelis exist.
No it is not unambiguously a call for genocide.
Using it both ways should not be a problem regardless.
There is nothing wrong with being against a less than 100 year old settler state that’s actively engaging in genocide. The land and the people do not have to be under the jurisdiction of a racist ethnostate.
What would actually help is not continuing to conflate Israel with Judaism.
calling for the destruction of a country is never ok, and is always a problem
deleted by creator
Countries change all the time, it means nothing. Like the other person said, they’re just imaginary lines. USSR was destroyed and nothing happened to the people in it when it happened. Ottoman Empire split up, Germany was split in two, Vietnam was split in half then recombined, Korea split in two, China, all of these things have happened within the lifetime of my parents and my grandparents.
A country is simply a line on a map ruled by a government. They are not infallible beings that we must bow before in reverence.
What sort of person would call for the continuation of say North Korea?
Countries are not just lines on a map. They are people. Calling for their destruction is calling for the death of those people and their culture.
You cannot decide after saying it that calling for the “destruction” of a country means merely changing the borders or system of government. The word implies violence.
Countries are not people. People are people. Comparing genocide and the dissolution of a state apparatus is disingenuous.
Likewise cultures cross national boundaries all the time. Colonial countries are imposed on top of existing cultural groups who rarely if ever fit neatly within a states border.
So by your logic calling for the destruction of Gaza or Palestine should be allowed as non-hate speech as well. Because it’s only referring to “the dissolution of a state apparatus”.
Based on your comments elsewhere, you’d automatically color those as the calls to violence they quite clearly are, yet you’re willing to go to great length to argue that somehow calling for the destruction of Israel isn’t.
thank you!!
Calling for the destruction of a STATE is fine. I for one am glad that the racist state of Rhodesia is no more. I am sure a lot of Czech and Slovakian people are glad to get rid of Czechoslovakia. It’s not the same as calling for the destruction or removal of people.
No reasonable person would hear “destroy Mexico” and think “oh, he must really dislike the government and state of Mexico”. They will automatically assume that you mean to bring about the destruction of Mexico *\including the people who live there*.
if you truly intended to advocate merely for the immediate dissolution of the state, you would have said so.
Free Palestine is not a call for the destruction of Israel. It is a call for a Free Palestine.
Yes.
“From the river to the sea” on the other hand is a call for the destruction of one or the other. Neither is ok.
Free Ireland did not mean the destruction of the Protestants. End to Apartheid South Africa did not mean the destruction of the Afrikaners and the other whites. A free democratic Palestine can and should be the national home for Israelis and Palestinians with equal rights freedoms from the river to the sea.
So for the people who think like you do, it’s an explicit rejection of a two state solution, and publicly declaring that the only path to peace is one state shared by everyone.
I’d like to understand why you think a one state solution is the most viable path to peace?
Honest to god, my ideal peace solution was for a long time the two state solution. But I don’t think that is feasible any more. The Israelis killed that option by installing 700k settlers in the best lands of the place where a Palestinian state could have existed. These people will never vote to leave their homes, and they will never accept to be transferred to palestinian jurisdiction. The Israelis have also completely integrated the economy and the everyday life of the Palestinians in their apartheid system in a way that I just don’t see realistic to untangle. So, at this point, realistically, at best, “two state solution” in practice would mean Bantustans and Reservations. At worst, it is just a stalling tactic of “warfare by negotiation” to eat up the salami while pretending the other side has no interlocutor.
Put simply, the Israelis worked very hard for 30 years to create “facts on the ground”. Those are now just the facts. And Israelis have to reckon with the consequences of the facts they created.
The single democratic state solution on the other hand just cuts the Gordian knot. Human rights for all, a truth and reconciliation process, humanity has done this before. It’s not guaranteed to work, but nothing is, and what’s happening now isn’t working either.
It’s absolutely plain to see that Germany is erring too far in a different direction so it’s not seen as attacking Jewish populations in any way.
It’s kinda funny (not haha funny) how after all this time, Germany is still using state power to help keep a genocide going. A really weird ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’ sort of deal
Yeah, way too many western countries have knee-jerked the opposite direction so hard that they’re willing to support another Holocaust, albeit against a different minority.
Why must it be evaluated in the context of “the biggest massacre of Jews since the Shoah” and not “the biggest massacre of Palestinians since the Nakba?”
Because in this case it was said on the 11th of October, before Isreal began its genocidal attacks on Gaza but after Hamas murdered over 1000 Isrealis.
Israel began their genocidal attacks on Gaza 76 years ago.
Yes very good, but you asked why it wasnt evaluated in the context of "the biggest massacre of Palestinians since the Nakba?”, and I gave you the answer, because that hadnt happened at that point.
Before lsreal began its genocidal attacks on Gaza
Unless the case happened in 1948 than this part of your reply is inaccurate.
and I congratulated you on your pedantry, and now you have your answer as to why it wasnt considered in the context of the RECENT (note that bit) attacks on Gaza, as that would have been using something that happened in the future as the context for what was said.
That’s not an entirely unreasonable decision. The slogan is not one of peaceful coexistence but of maximalist territorial claims. It was a supremacist slogan when the Zionists coined it, and remains one when appropriated by the other side.
Being free in your homeland doesn’t imply anything about Israel except the dissolution of its apartheid, occupying systems. At least when used as a Free Palestine chant. When the Zionists say it, it does imply a supremacist mindset but mostly because we’ve seen them use it to justify a genocidal settler colonialist colony.
It’s like the difference between the US saying from coast to coast during the manifest destiny phase, and comparing it to Native Americans saying from coast to coast they’ll be free after they’re being put into reservations and have been getting pushed West.
How many other countries can you be fined for supposedly threatening?
The second part of the phrase determines what it means. “Will be Israel” is a supremacist slogan. “Will be free” is a call equality and an end to oppression.
Why fix the problem when you can persecute the symptoms.
Is there any historical significance behind the “River to the sea” reference?
Edit:
“Between the river and the sea” is a fragment from a slogan used since the 1960s by an array of activists with different agendas. It has a range of interpretations around the world, from the genocidal to the democratic.”
”The full saying is a reference to land between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean Sea to the west, encompassing Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
The river to the sea are the traditional pre British intervention borders. They’re not arguin saying Jews can’t live there there just saying they want their country back which seems to be a fairly reasonable request.
New Germans same as the old Germans.
The old Germans watching the new Germans support Israel:
Tell us more about your missed historylessons
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. German wankers.
Free speech in Germany is dead.
That said, if I were in Germany, I would use a different phrase. Maybe “stop the genocide in Gaza, ceasefire now”.
That would just be way more effective in actually rallying support.
But I’m not in Germany, so Free Palestine, from the river to the sea.
That doesn’t fucking rhyme, dude. People like the chant because it rhymes and is fun to chant. It’s not that deep.
I am fully aware of that.
But in the German context, I am not sure if it is effective.
Perhaps someone can make a nice rhyme against genocide.
“Germany sides against genocide”, or something. Maybe something that rhymes in German.
Forget rhymes, just use “Nie wieder” (never again).
You can’t say “stop the genocide in Gaza” in Germany either. People have been fined for that before. Apparently it counts as “hate speech against jews”.
Source please!
Damn, then it’s even worse than I thought.
Good old Germany, going back to the days of the State deeming some races as superior and having special laws to punish and silence those critical of the actions, no matter how murderous, of those the German State has deemed to represent a superior race.
You can take the NAZIsm out of Germany but you can’t take the profound racism and the authoritaristic tendencies out of the heart of the German Power Elites.
The only thing the Germans learnt from the Holocaust is that the Jews are entitled to carry out their very own Holocaust.
You should not equate jewish people with Israel. There are lots of Jews who are against Israel, and even more who are opposed to Israel’s genocide.
I know that Israel itself tries to equate Israel with Judaism and Jews, but it smacks of anti-semitism.
It’s the wretched German government who are equating Jewish people with israel.
The non-racist lesson they could have taken from the Holocaust is: “Never again shall be this be done to anybody”
Instead the German elites (who, remember, were brought up in the very same time and environment as the NAZIs, with for certain many who quietly sympathized with some NAZI views) very openly chose for their country to learn a different lesson, one that preserves the Racist view of Human Beings: “Never again shall Germans do this to Jews”
This “lesson” in Racist format then anchors the utterly immoral and anti-Humanist idea that for Germans a Genocide is unimportant if not done by actual Germans and if done by people claiming to represent Jews, then Germany has a moral obligation to support them.
The Humanist version of the lesson, on the other hand, is wholly incompatible with closing one’s eyes to Genocide, much less to supporting those committing Genocide, no matter what the ethnicity of the mass murderers or their victims.
Complete BS.
who, remember, were brought up in the very same time and environment as the NAZIs
You know that was 100 years ago don’t you. Our politicians aren’t that old. Practically unheard of to have someone old enough to not have had exposure to the 68 movement.
very openly chose for their country to learn a different lesson, one that preserves the Racist view of Human Beings: “Never again shall Germans do this to Jews”
“Openly”? I suppose you have receipts for that? Why, if that’s the case, did the first deployment of German troops outside of Germany after the war regard stopping a genocide where Jews very much were not involved?
This “lesson” in Racist format then anchors the utterly immoral and anti-Humanist idea that for Germans a Genocide is unimportant if not done by actual Germans and if done by people claiming to represent Jews, then Germany has a moral obligation to support them.
I guess that’s why we stopped sending weapons to Israel. There’s not going to be Israeli security without Palestinian freedom, there’s not going to be Palestinian freedom without Israeli security. We understand that, and have always worked behind the scenes, diplomatically, with developmental aid, you name it, to actually solve the conflict like that. Then, after the fucker killed Rabin, first Israelis were all like “now we’re doubling down on peace!” – and then it deflated. People gave up, even the leftists began to buy the right’s vision of peace – aka “antagonise Palestinians until they give up”. Netanyahu happened. I guess it would be wrong to talk about Israel sliding into fascism, they’re not unified enough for that – but fascists are still given free reign. And, with any luck, they’ll be reigned in again. Bibi certainly isn’t popular.
Don’t expect any grandstanding from Germany over this. We’d very much rather slink back, smile awkwardly, wait for Israeli civil society to regain their composure and sanity, and then be able to resume the peace project, without having to patch up things first.
The way in which Germany “repudiated NAZIsm” and “made up for their crimes” was defined way back in the 50s and that hasn’t been updated as made clear by the use, still today by German politicians of the phrase “Never again shall Germans do that to Jews” (or equivalent: plenty of politicians in Germany openly talk about Germany’s obligation to support the Jewish People) rather than, as I pointed out, the Humanist version (of acting to prevent and stop Genocide) which is the one which would be expect in Modern Days.
This is not unique to Germany, as all over the West modern liberal politics remains riddled with ethnic prejudice: looking at people as members of ethnicities, determining how deserving of better or worse treatment they are by their ethnicity rather than from their actions and beliefs as human individuals, and presuming positive or negative traits for all people of a given ethnicity. It’s just that nowadays they call benefiting people for belonging to certain ethnicities “positive discrimination” and the list of ethnicities which are discriminated for and against is different than before. The racist foundation of looking at, judging and acting towards human beings based on their ethnicity, is alive and well, and the biggest change was in the list of ethnicities deemed “good” and those deemed “bad”.
Germany and other countries would never have supported “The Jews” if they had not remained racists: they would have supported those who were the victims of Germany as well as their families: nobody is inherent deserving of being supported by Germany if they lived far away all their lives and were not impacted by the actions of Germany, just because they belong to the same ethnicity as most victims of German actions. By exactly the same logic people who are NOT Jews and yet were impacted by the actions of Germany deserve support independently of their ethnicity. Curiously, people of Roma ethnicity - an ethnic group which was also a prime target of the NAZIs - did not at all receive the level of support as was extended to anybody who was merely a member of the Jewish ethnicity even if not affected by past German actions: even in the duty of compensation by the German state for past crimes, their racialized view of human beings and discriminatory views for different ethnicities resulted in extremely racist practices, the pinnacle of which was visible when Israel, by then entirely under control of an ethno-Fascist ideology, went full throttle on their ongoing Genocide of Palestinians and the German State kept “unwaveringly” supporting them.
Also a distinctive thing for Germany (at least in Europe) is the ongoing authoritarian streak that was already visible before all this, displayed in the tendency to keep civil society under surveillance and having broad, easily abused, free speech suppression laws under the guise of stopping the resurgement of Nazism.
The field in which AfD grew kept being plowed for a long time in Germany: it’s only normal that the architecture of discrimination that sustained a quiet, systemic, “benevolent” (claiming to be “positive”) racism would eventually and once again give birth to the loud, obnoxious and malevolent kind.
“Never again shall Germans do that to Jews”
Can you even produce the purported original German that sentence is supposed to be a translation of. One thing I can tell you with confidence: It sure as fuck won’t be catchy.
The general slogan is “Nie wieder”. Sometimes lengthened to “Nie wieder Krieg” (never again war) or “Nie wieder Faschismus” (never again fascism).
went full throttle on their ongoing Genocide of Palestinians and the German State kept “unwaveringly” supporting them.
Where “full throttle” means “stop weapons exports”. Got you. Very coherent.
The field in which AfD grew
…can be chalked up squarely up to neoliberalism. Why, if this is all due to stuff that did not change since the 50s, is the AfD so much stronger in the east than in the west? Again, very coherent of you.
There’s a very simple explanation here: You decided, for some reason, that Germany is racist AF and are working backwards from there to justify that conclusion. Literally grasping at straws.
When the politicians rant on and on about an ethnicity, any ethnicity, they’re racists: people’s ethnicity is wholly irrelevant for non-racists.
Such racism is further confirmed if they support special treatment for certain countries because of the dominant ethnicity of those living in those countries. Again, people’s ethnicity is wholly irrelevant for non-racists, double so when it comes to the treatment of others.
Yet constant reminders of the dominant ethnicity of Israel and of the duty to support that ethnicity is what you see in Germany, quite uniquely in Europe even though there is some level of racism going on everywhere in it.
If you don’t think treating people and countries differently depending on their ethnicity - literally discrimination based on ethnicity - is Racism, then you’re either a Racist yourself or an ultra-nationalist so deep into the rabbit hole of “defending” your Fatherland that words have no meaning anymore.
Beyond that, my opinion is not about Germany as a whole, it’s about it’s political elites, a large part of its Press and a segment of it’s population: to believe that “all Germans are this or that” whilst claiming to be against ethnic discrimination would be incredibly hypocrite of me so I try to avoid falling into such tribalist traps - I see the State acting in some ways, I see politicians and some of the Press shaping opinion in that direction and I see a lot of people who grew up being unwittingly indoctrinated by the normalization and even legal-encoding of such ways of thinking about other human beings and who hence got certain ideas on their minds, which doesn’t mean that they’re bad people or “all like that”, not even close.
I ask you again: Can you even produce the purported original German that sentence is supposed to be a translation of. Can you show recipes for “politicians ranting on and on about an ethnicity”.
Yet constant reminders of the dominant ethnicity of Israel and of the duty to support that ethnicity
Reducing Jews to Israel is literally anti-semitic, hope that’s not what you’re doing there. That said yes Germany is supportive of Israel – that doesn’t mean that we condone crimes committed by Israelis, or support or condone Israel backing up those crimes. Never have. Germany has always considered settlers and settlements a serious problem towards peace, which is what we’d actually want to see in that area.
But I guess that’s too much nuance for you. You want to rant on and on about an ethnicity.
Nazi Germany never went away it seems.
Except these kinds of regulations on free speech are mainly targeted at Nazism.
Evidently not.
Where’s that evidence? What’s your sample size? Have you any idea what our Nazis would shout in the streets if they were allowed to?
Never did. Lmao, they literally had nazis in government after WW2. They had ex nazi ministers. All the nazi army generals stayed in the Bundeswehr. Their intelligence services were filled to the brim with Nazis and aided nazi criminals in escaping prosecution, literally tipping Adolf Eichmann to escape the Mossad. Their nazi built companies never paid for what they did. Hell, they’re still funding and naming public buildings after their nazi grandpas. There’s absolutely nothing true about this so called german “denazification” other than some superficial virtue signalling.
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceThe Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceGermany being antidemocratic as usual. Nothing new here.
Not following what you mean here as I am unfamiliar with Germany’s justice system, but how would a judge be democratic? Criminal trials having the whole country vote on what the individual result would be? Or are you saying they democratically voted for free speech, and this judgement did not follow that?
I would say this is consistent with Germany’s rules about not having Nazi emblems, which would also be against free speech one could argue.
Unfortunately I don’t think you can easily write a law that said, ban people calling for violence against people do to their race, gender, nationality, or other discriminating factor, except when we don’t want it too.
It’s is important to understand what law is used for these rulings.
Germany limits free speech by putting penalties on speech that calls for others to commit crimes. This is rarely actually enforced by police or judges when it is about minor things or clearly satirical/parody usage. On the other hand, when it’s clearly malicious intent and for severe crimes, there’s little tolerance.
Most commonly this happens when people publicly call for violent regime changes (attacking democratic/republican or feudal constitutional principles) or calling for violence against basic human rights, e.g. supporting genocide, deportations of specific groups, etc…
This actually serves as a strong base which is mostly used to combat domestic terrorism and unconstitutional organizations such as far right parties ( see dissolution of NPD).
Calling for support of an officially recognized terrorist organization is a surefire way to get into trouble. Hamas is, as in many countries, recognized as such by Germany. The judge now based their ruling on the belief that the chant is “clearly and obviously used to support Hamas” and as such supports terrorism.
What the article above does not tell: This ruling is incredibly controversial in Germany, and it is actually very likely to be overturned in a higher court. There even are precedent rulings of the same chant with entirely different ruling outcomes.
It really saddens me to see so many clearly well-meaning left-oriented people on Lemmy get outraged so easily without being informed. If you lack info, I feel such news should be approached with cautious neutrality until more info is gathered and an opinion is formed and voiced.
Yes, it’s fine to dislike this ruling and voice such an opinion. But calling Germany fascist or “freedom of speech is dead in Germany” based on such an individual event is just comically far from the truth.
We have checks and balances in Germany. Our system is not perfect, but whose is, and I firmly believe it’s still better than most out there.
Germany has no infinite freedom of speech, but I also firmly believe that being intolerant of intolerance is absolutely vital for a robust liberal society. So I’m fine with deeply disruptive and simply vile inciting speech being treated as criminal.
Thanks for the robust response. You seem like a reasonable person.
Or are you saying they democratically voted for free speech, and this judgement did not follow that?
Exactly what I’m saying. Germany is expanding it’s undemocratic arsenal of laws to suppress anything that doesn’t fit its political and foreign policy agenda.
