Bespoke translation by yours truly. Original article [A] by Danisch
Things are getting ever more absurd in Germany.
As readers write to me, the televised duel between [the chancellor candidates] Robert Habeck [Green Party] and Alice Weidel [AfD] has been cancelled as demanded by Habeck. Habeck apparently is scared of Weidel.
What they are less scared of is [female] pensioners. The Berliner Zeitung has, as "Open Source", an article by a Clivia von Dewitz (never heard of her, according to Google there is a judge with that name)
Is this already incitement of masses? A 74-year-old woman pays a high price for her anger at Robert Habeck
That means that criticizing the government itself is supposed to be an aggravating factor in sentencing even without any legal provision that explicitly criminalizes government criticism.
What's very worth reading is the explanation for the origin of § 130 StGB (I've already written something on the origin of § 188 StGB, going in a similar direction):
Related, you find
Originally, it was a paragraph against leftists who incited class struggles.
And they turned that into a paragraph against right-wingers who criticize leftists, so they turned that into a right to express one's opinion.
There is even a book about it, as well as the Prussian Criminal Code from 1851.
So the original purpose was preventing animosity within the state. And they turned that into the opposite, namely that you are no longer allowed to criticize the state being taken over by foreigners.
[Female] Pensioner convicted for criticizing the government
Things are getting ever more absurd in Germany.
As readers write to me, the televised duel between [the chancellor candidates] Robert Habeck [Green Party] and Alice Weidel [AfD] has been cancelled as demanded by Habeck. Habeck apparently is scared of Weidel.
What they are less scared of is [female] pensioners. The Berliner Zeitung has, as "Open Source", an article by a Clivia von Dewitz (never heard of her, according to Google there is a judge with that name)
Is this already incitement of masses? A 74-year-old woman pays a high price for her anger at Robert Habeck
The district court of Düsseldorf convicted a [female] pensioner for incitement of masses to a daily fine of 53 euros over 150 days, 7950 euros in total, because she criticized the migration policy of the federal government on Facebook with the following statement: "Blah blah blah. We need skilled workers, not asylum seekers who just want to live a comfortable life here without respecting our values and culture. Send those who are already here to work. We don’t need loafers and freeloaders, let alone knife artists and rapists."
That was a reaction to an article published on Facebook on October 8 2023 in which Federal Minister of the Economy, Robert Habeck (Greens) was pictured and quoted with the statement "Germany relies on immigration to cover its demand for labor". The amount of the daily fine can be explained by the fact that criminal charges have already been filed against the convicted individual in 2022 for defamation against public figures, which is now legally binding.
The prosecution considered this Facebook comment to meet the criteria of § 130 par. 1 Criminal Code [StGB] (incitement of masses [Volksverhetzung]), because hatred has been incited "in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace". In their closing argument, the prosecution, which appeared in court with two prosecutors, demanded that the "massive political criticism" be taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
[...]
The judge, Tobias Kampmann, surprisingly ruled that parts of the statement targeted segments of the population in a way that constituted a call to hatred, thereby fulfilling the requirements of § 130 par. 1 StGB. His reasoning was, if you kept reading such statements over and over again, you would eventually start believing them. What are we supposed to make of this?
[emphasis added by Danisch]That means that criticizing the government itself is supposed to be an aggravating factor in sentencing even without any legal provision that explicitly criminalizes government criticism.
What's very worth reading is the explanation for the origin of § 130 StGB (I've already written something on the origin of § 188 StGB, going in a similar direction):
The historical background
In 1960, § 130 (incitement of masses) has been introduced to the criminal code. It replaced the class struggle paragraph from the Bismarck era. The Federal Republic [of Germany] in the 50s had a hard time even introducing the criminalization of incitement of masses into the criminal code. Again and again, the debates in the federal parliament in the 50s referred to the "inner coping with the horrible era of national socialism" is happening in a place other than the criminal code. Such as in the education of teachers and students. The reason for the introduction of the incitement of masses paragraph was in particular the protection of Jewish people in Germany in the context of the Holocaust.
The title of the new § 130 StGB, "incitement of masses", is a monstrous term that fits more into a totalitarian penal regime than in a free democratic law-bound criminal code. From the outset, the introduction of a special provision akin to a "Jewish Star Law" faced objections on the grounds of constitutional principles. The terms "incite" and "incitement of masses" as legal concepts could only "fit into the vague and thus arbitrarily partisan criminal injustice of a totalitarian regime." Jewish fellow citizens could not be protected from intolerance through criminal laws, they argued. Only after a wave of antisemitic and neo-Nazi incidents, particularly the "wave of smear campaigns" around the turn of 1959/1960, § 130 StGB was finally passed in 1960.
[...longer elaboration...]
Related, you find
1871 and earlier
§ 130 StGB, originally called "class struggle paragraph" ("class incitement") was worded as follows in the original version of the Reich Criminal Code of 1871:
Anyone who publicly incites various classes of the population to commit acts of violence against each other in a manner that endangers public peace shall be punished with a fine of up to two hundred talers or imprisonment for up to two years.
Its origin can be traced back to a press law from Restoration-era France, enacted in 1819 to counter incitement against class struggle. From there, it was adopted in Prussia as a regulation in 1849, then as § 100 into the Prussian Criminal Code of 1851 ("hatred and contempt paragraph").
So it has been turned precisely into its opposite.Originally, it was a paragraph against leftists who incited class struggles.
And they turned that into a paragraph against right-wingers who criticize leftists, so they turned that into a right to express one's opinion.
There is even a book about it, as well as the Prussian Criminal Code from 1851.
[§ 100 [Endangerment of Public Peace] Anyone who endangers the public peace by publicly inciting the citizens of the state to hatred or contempt against one another shall be punished with a fine of twenty to two hundred talers or imprisonment for one month to two years.
§ 101 [Defamation of the State] Anyone who, through public claims or the spreading of fabricated or distorted facts, or through public insults or mockery, exposes the institutions of the state or the orders of the authorities to hatred or contempt, shall be punished with a fine of up to two hundred talers or imprisonment for up to two years.]
So the original purpose was preventing animosity within the state. And they turned that into the opposite, namely that you are no longer allowed to criticize the state being taken over by foreigners.
Last edited:
