Email This to a Friend
Can You Call Someone ‘Anti-Semitic’ on a Blog? Not in Germany
A recent court ruling protects hate speech from those who condemn it.
In a tortuous ruling that threatens to have a chilling effect on discussions of “new” German anti-Semitism, the District Court of Cologne recently upheld a restraining order that forbids author Henryk Broder from describing the discourse of a virulent critic of Israel as “anti-Semitic” in a post on a popular German blog.
The case opposed the famously caustic Broder, one of Germany’s best-known political commentators, and Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, the daughter of the late Heinz Galinski, one of the leading figures in Germany’s small postwar Jewish religious community. (For background, see my earlier article, “What Is a Jew in Germany Permitted to Say Against a Jew in Germany?”) Some (see, for instance, here in the Jerusalem Post) have called the ruling a “partial victory” for Broder, since the court allowed that he might still describe Hecht-Galinski’s remarks as anti-Semitic in other contexts, provided the grounds for the description are “sufficiently” explained. But until such time as this qualification has been put to the test, it is hard to see it as much more than a legal fig leaf designed to cover up the seriousness of the court’s infringement of free speech rights.
Thus the court’s own press release underscores that, “by virtue of this ruling, the statement that the plaintiff makes anti-Semitic remarks has not been prohibited outright. A similar statement that is sufficiently well grounded [mit dem erforderlichen Sachbezug] would be permissible.” It then goes on to specify, however, that whether a charge of anti-Semitism is sufficiently sachbezogen — literally, “objectively oriented” — is up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. In light of the potential costs involved — Broder was required to pay some €3600 in court costs, to say nothing of legal fees and lost time — who under such circumstances will be prepared to run the risk of uttering the charge?
In an open letter to Germany’s WDR public broadcasting service published in May on the popular collective blog Die Achsen des Guten [The Axis of Good], Broder had written that Hecht-Galinski’s “specialty is intellectually vapid anti-Semitic anti-Zionist phrases [antisemitische-antizionistische gedankenlosigkeiten].” The text now appears on the blog with the word “anti-Semitic” replaced by “xxxxxxxxxxxxx.” Under the terms of the court order, should Broder restore the original version, he would incur either a €250,000 fine or a six-month jail sentence.
To help non-German-speaking readers appreciate what is at stake in the court’s ruling, here are two samples of recent statements by Ms. Hecht-Galinski:
I know how the Israeli-Jewish lobby operates. There is one [an Israeli-Jewish lobby] and there’s nothing to say to the contrary. In the meanwhile, they describe themselves this way. (WDR radio, May 3, 2008)
[The] Jewish-Israeli lobby and its networks are at work … [around] the whole world and thanks to America the power [of the "lobby"] has become so great. (Deutschlandfunk radio, March 9, 2007)
(Longer quotes are provided in “What Is a Jew in Germany Permitted to Say Against a Jew in Germany?”)
Ms. Hecht-Galinski has also defended two German bishops who compared the West Bank to the infamous Warsaw Ghetto, where Nazi authorities herded the Jewish residents of Warsaw during the German occupation of Poland. In an interview with the German public radio station Deustchlandfunk, Hecht-Galinski described the bishops’ comparisons as “very moderate [sehr moderat]” and regretted the fact that the head of the German Bishops Conference, Cardinal Lehmann, had apologized for them. Hecht-Galinski has indeed herself repeatedly ventured such comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel and even suggested that it is somehow urgent to do so. Moreover, when asked to introduce herself on the WDR radio program that was the original subject of Broder’s letter, Hecht-Galinski described herself as a “critic of Jewish and Israeli policies and human rights violations.” Jewish and Israeli: making as clear as possible that Ms. Hecht-Galinski considers herself to be a critic not only of the state of Israel but also of, well, Jews.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
John Rosenthal’s writings on European politics and transatlantic relations have appeared in English, French, and German in such leading publications as Policy Review, Les Temps Modernes, and Merkur. He holds a PhD in philosophy and he taught political philosophy and classical German philosophy before turning to journalism. More of his work can be found at Transatlantic Intelligencer.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
16 Comments
1. Hyphenated American:Europe lost its mind….
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:41 am 2. Jean:What remains to be seen is if the case will be ported to the constitutionnal court of Karlsruhe. I’m not sure if the other courts can interpret the constitution, and this is a constitutionnal issue.
Nov 9, 2008 - 1:48 am 3. Roy N:John has written another article about this that includes some more background and other useful information:
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articlePrint.aspx?ID=2601
I’d never hear of this person. I did some reading. Here are some things she has said.
“As a German Jew, I feel it my duty to denounce injustice,”
“The Israeli government is not ashamed to use my grandparents who perished in the concentration camps and mass graves of the Nazi regime,”
“This is unbearable, and I am by no means the only one who thinks that way; my Jewish comrades feel the same.”
“It is the Israeli government’s foremost duty to protect its citizens by every means available to its state-of-the-art high-tech army – but only along its own borders,”
The point of this stuff is not to say she is right, or even sane, but it seems clear that she sees herself as part of a European Jewish lobby, and that calling her anti-semitic is senseless. She may be a crazy apologist for terrorsim but she is not an anti-semite.
Nov 9, 2008 - 2:06 am 4. cedarford:Generally I like the Continental and Asian concept of defamation applying to “abusive criticism”, without “simple truth” being exonorating. Since crimes involving sex and plagarism involve a wide spectrum, it is quite easy in America to get away with the abuse an author in the media as a “noted plagarist” for one attritibution lapse in one book, or to label a person as a “sex offender” to damage their reputation based on a “public exposure” incident and plead out fine for being caught pissing in a state park at a beer party.
America is too easy in excusing the malicious nature of the legal defamation, all too easy on those that distort and misrepresent public figures in sliming them to make money or advance a political or special interest agenda.
That said, a good portion of Europe once did what was thought at the time to be a just and compassionate thing meant to prevent the rise of fascism…made ethnic criticism, questioning the official holocaust line, formin organizations that had revisionist WWII beliefs, or academic publications that questioned the “correct” view of past history – criminal.
We have seen how this has been used by other groups to criminalize or more pervasively, intimidate, those who question radical Islam and mass 3rd World immigration into Europe or Canada.
Canada’s infamous Human Rights Tribunals got their start thanks to the Canadian Jewish Congress seeking a legal tool against “holocaust revisionism and neo-nazis”. And in only 15 years they have seen use of the Tribunals expand to be a threat and tool of intimidation against anyone that has “incorrect thought”.
In the case of Israel, Zionism, Jews, overseas Jews in groups like AIPAC or Jewish Committee for Justice in Palestine you have major intellectual and back and forth “bigotry, anti-Semitism” allegations because of Israel being one of the few states (a handful of Muslim countries being the other) of a modern state being organized as a religious state. And doing secular actions based on sectarian belief.
Thus if you criticize Israel, usually you have some critique of Zionism implicit in the critique if it involves spreading more Settlements, human rights issues with Israeli Palestinians, or jobs restricted only to Jews. Then to Jews abroad if they, through lobbies, encourage Zionist activities that progressive European, non-aligned countries, and Asian nations find repellent.
The same critique can be laid out on nations where Muslims are privileged against other groups – and state activities cleanse, purge, or otherwise discriminate against other religions. Basically the basis of Saudi-bashing, though the Muslims don’t get bashed for it as much as Israel does..
Nov 9, 2008 - 7:29 am 5. Daily Pundit » The Europenis Diaries:[...] Pajamas Media » Can You Call Someone ‘Anti-Semitic’ on a Blog? Not in Germany In a tortuous ruling that threatens to have a chilling effect on discussions of “new” German anti-Semitism, the District Court of Cologne recently upheld a restraining order that forbids author Henryk Broder from describing the discourse of a virulent critic of Israel as “anti-Semitic” in a post on a popular German blog. [...]
Nov 9, 2008 - 8:57 am 6. Thomas:I do not have any intention to join the “let’s bash Israel” club because it’s is a sick, hard left inspired movement and that is beyond my interest.
I prefer to stay home. When hardcore Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist Jews incessantly inciting against America, defaming this country, wanting to “abolish the white race” (Noel Ignatiev), like Chomsky, Soros, the warriors at ACLU etc. I am outraged. I have well founded reason to say nasty thing to these children of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1919 for waging war against the Western civilization and against my adopted country, the US.
The Frankfurt School, H. Marcuse, Adorno, Horkcheimer etc. in their position of university profs. they indoctrinated many generation of young people and they never hid their ultimate goal as George Lukacs put it bluntly:
“Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was
the culture: Western civilization itself.”
Criticizing these Jews is or isn’t Anti-Semitism?
Israel bashing is OK, but American Jews are permitted to wage war on us and we must not utter a single word of outrage?
You are all hypocritical liars who are bashing a few Jews overseas who survived the ovens and you pay homage to those who are working on the destruction of your country.
Talk to Chomsky about it.
Nov 9, 2008 - 9:57 am 7. Roy N:Thomas, in what sense are their ‘hardcore Stalinist Leninist’ related to their Jewishness? If the answer is ‘not much’ then I have to wonder why you choose to keep your outrage for Jewish people in particular?
Nothing un-American about abolishing the white race. Lets abolish them all.
Nov 9, 2008 - 11:32 am 8. Roy N:….All races, not all white people.
Nov 9, 2008 - 11:33 am 9. DoktorNo:Criticism of Israeli policy is not always antisemitic (and vice versa). But the line schould be drawed by honest discussion, not court rulings. If Herr Broder is wrong, someone schould respond. And if this person is wrong, then Broder schould make his own reply.
This is how civilised discourse works.
Nov 9, 2008 - 11:40 am 10. Roy N:Herr Doktor,
That begs the question of whether calling a German Jew whose grandparents died in the holocaust “anti-semitic” is inside or outside of civilised discourse.
The answer might legitmately be ‘It is outside’. I wouldn’t do it.
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:15 pm 11. BB:Perhaps it would be helpful to consider Natan Sharansky’s 3D test to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism : demonization, double standards, and delegitimization.
Nov 9, 2008 - 1:02 pm 12. tanstaafl:Oh, well, I better hurry up and call this ranter and raver…viciously, big time…
anti-semitic
…Farrakhan’s past statements about Judaism, which many have considered anti-Semitic. Nation of Islam officials have said Farrakhan’s comments are often taken out of context…
Right, beware the liars and dissemblers.
Louis Farrakhan has made a living out of Muslim based “anti-semitism”.
Farrakhan Says Obama ‘New Beginning’
Nov 9, 2008 - 2:11 pm 13. Judy, NYC:we are really way past blogs. the most effective means to deter neo nazi jew hating sub morons is to bash their heads until they are like open watermelons. or, just cut their tongues out. after which, put a fork in them and toss them in the nearest dumpster with the rest of the rotting garbage.
Nov 9, 2008 - 3:46 pm 14. jerryofva:I have developed several criteria for determining whether a person is ant-Semitic or just critical of Israeli policies.
First criteria: Does the person criticizing Israel support abortion, women’s equality and gay rights? If so, then they are anti-Semitic because Israel is the society that they would prefer to live in or support. Therefore, the only reason that they would show animosity toward Israel is animus towards Jews.
Second criteria: Do they rant about Israeli atrocities in Jenin where few died and are silent about the Lebanese Army’s attack on Nahr el-Bared which destroyed the camp, displaced 50,000 refugees and inflicted hundreds of casualties on innocent Palestinians? If so they are anti-Semitic and not merely critical of Israeli policy.
I think Hecht-Galinski validating anti-Semitism is typical of Jews looking to appease anti-Semites. She believes that by parroting the new-new-Nazi line she can convince them that many Jews are on their side so they will temper their abuse. This is a strategy that Jews have unsuccessfully tried for centuries. I continue to be surprised at the resilience of strategies that have historically failed to work.
Nov 10, 2008 - 6:23 am 15. deguello:Why are we still in NATO, defending nation that practice speech suppression and cultural repression?
Nov 10, 2008 - 10:19 am 16. Elle:I agree that Ms Hecht-Galinski is anti-semetic regardless of the murder of her relatives. She seeks to appease those who would happily murder ALL Jews regardless of their political views. In 1948 and 1967 there were no settlements, no fence, and none of the policies which became necessary when it became clear that murderous Muslims were officially demanding, not a two state solution, but a one state solution i.e. the total destruction of Israel.
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:47 amParenthetically,It is anti-semetic when whose like Thomas blame “the Jews” rather than left wing individuals, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who espouse policies that conservatives (and I am a proud conservative) regard as destructive to this country.