Two lawyers criticize that anti-Semitic slogans have been accepted cautiously: In general, priority is given to the perspective of the victim – but not to Jews.
“From the river to the sea” slogans at an exhibition in Zurich: But a case for the public prosecutor?
Table of Contents
Anti-Semitic attacks or events with anti-Semitic promises occur regularly in Switzerland. Just last week, the trendy left-wing Basel bar “Hirscheneck” caused disbelief by canceling their concert. The restaurant removed an event hosted by a musician from its program because he had helped start the “Artists against Anti-Semitism” campaign. There are differences in content, the “Hirschi” explained his decision on Instagram.
Authors of anti-Israel slogans do not always establish such a direct line with an anti-Semitic worldview. The background is often more diffuse and less clear. When anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrations took place in Switzerland after the start of the war as a result of the terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023, a slogan appeared that could be interpreted as an attack on Israel and the Jews. The most famous is: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
The PLO surrounded the formation in the 1960s. This describes the territorial demand for a Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. The area includes modern day Israel. So the slogan is often understood today as a call to exterminate him and exterminate the Jewish people. Criminal charges quickly arose.
Ads came to nothing
Several crimes were discussed: the anti-racism provision according to Article 261bis of the Criminal Code (StGB), which criminalizes discrimination and incitement to hatred, as well as the crime of incitement to crime or violence according to Article 259. The third option was the criminal provision regarding support to a terrorist organization (Article 260ter).
But the public prosecutor’s offices in Basel, Bern and Zurich came to the conclusion that the slogan could not be punished. In several cases they issued non-acceptance orders. This means that no investigation has been opened and no charges have been brought. The ads came to nothing.
Now the public prosecutor’s offices are receiving harsh criticism for this: they have used a narrow approach “to come to the conclusion that criminal responsibility is ruled out in all situation.” Lawyers Mia Mengel and Vera Rottenberg come to this conclusion in a legal presentation that has not yet been published. In other words: If the public prosecutors had really tried, there would not have been a conviction for to spread the slogan “From the river to the sea” rejected at all.
The demand to speak is certainly weighty: Rottenberg has notably made a name for herself outside the legal profession as a longtime federal judge (1994 to 2012). The statement was commissioned by the Foundation Against Racism and Abuse (GRA), of which Rottenberg is a member of the board of trustees.
“When in doubt, go for the hardest”
Mengel and Rottenberg do not claim in their paper that criminal charges against them and similar slogans in court would certainly have led to a conviction. You are just pointing out that this would not be ruled out at all. And with such an open starting point, the public prosecutors should not have stopped the cases.
The authors refer to an iron rule of criminal procedure law: If in doubt, a charge must be made. The principle “in dubio pro duriore” (if in doubt, for the most severe) which is binding on prosecutors conflicts with the principle “in dubio pro reo” (if in doubt, for the defendant), which applies in court. . It is intended to ensure that such disputes are decided by the judiciary and not by the law enforcement authority.
But why do Rottenberg and Mengel come to the conclusion that a conviction would have been possible – while three public prosecutors definitely rejected this? This question goes deep into how the three criminal provisions work, particularly the anti-racism criminal provision.
Art. This list is exhaustive.
However, the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is directed against a state (Israel) that is not protected by that criminal law, the prosecutors said. The public prosecutor’s office is strictly bound by the law and “does not have to make any moral or political assessment,” a spokesman for the Basel authority told the NZZ at the time.
Zurich gave no reason
But public prosecutors in Switzerland have made things too easy for themselves, against Mengel and Rottenberg. They ignored the historical background of the slogan and its meaning after the assassination of Hamas on October 7 with short statements and paid one-sided attention to the wording.
And even more clearly: the result obtained without taking into account the context is simply “incomprehensible”. The Zurich public prosecutor’s office in particular has been harshly criticized. He did not even give a reason for his decision.
The slogan “From the river to the sea” can be interpreted in different ways, say Rottenberg and Mengel: for example, as a request for freedom for Palestinians under Israeli occupation, but also as a desire for the destruction of Israel, giving its -into its Jewish Residents – if not all Jews.
“The threat situation facing Jews around the world from the terrorist attack does not make these theoretical issues unrealistic,” they argue. This is all the more so because Hamas does not – never far from his 1988 treaty, which talks about killing all the Jews.With the terrorist attack he threatened.
As a result, acts of violence against Jews in Switzerland have also increased significantly, according to Rottenberg and Mengel. The increase in such crimes after October 7, which was carried out with slogans and other displays of sympathy for Hamas, is not a coincidence. Therefore, the idea that there is no protected object is not plausible.
Leaving the Jews “Anxious”
The lawyers also accuse the public prosecutors of taking a too narrow and one-sided view of the other two crimes, incitement to violence and support to a terrorist group. They argue the same: conviction is not certain, but it is also not impossible. The public prosecutor’s office had taken too narrow a view.
The statement could certainly be important: It provides an argument to law enforcement authorities supported by federal court decisions and references to act in similar cases in the future and decisions to seek court.
In their paper, the authors make another serious accusation: the point of view of the Jewish victims was completely forgotten in the procedure of the prosecutor’s office. “In general, the perspective of the victim is very important – but not for Jews,” Vera Rottenberg criticizes in an interview with the NZZ.
Because there was no consideration of their emotional state based on historical knowledge and instead, whatever happened, a one-sided interpretation of the terminology was made: This makes the Jews they called ” anxious”.
2024-12-02 09:01:00
#AntiSemitism #Switzerland #Lawyers #criticize #handling #hate #slogans
This article discusses a complex issue: the legal interpretation of the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” in Switzerland.
Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
* **Anti-Semitic incidents in Switzerland:** The article starts with an anecdote about a Basel bar cancelling a musician’s concert due to his involvement in an anti-antisemitism campaign, highlighting a broader concern about antisemitism in the country.
* **Controversial slogan:** The article then focuses on the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which, while seemingly advocating for Palestinian liberation, is often understood as calling for the destruction of Israel and implying the extermination of Jewish people.
* **Legal battles:** several criminal complaints were filed against individuals using this slogan, citing potential violations of Switzerland’s anti-racism law, incitement to violence laws, or laws regarding support for terrorist organizations.
* **Prosecutorial decisions and criticism:** Public prosecutors in Basel, Bern, and Zurich ultimately decided not to press charges, arguing that the slogan, while potentially problematic, didn’t necessarily meet the legal threshold for criminal prosecution. this decision drew harsh criticism from legal experts Mia Mengel and Vera Rottenberg, who argued that public prosecutors should have pursued the cases further, allowing the judiciary to make a final determination.
* **Interpreting the slogan:** mengel and Rottenberg contend that the context of the slogan is crucial, considering its past roots and the association with Hamas’s attack on October 7th. They argue that while the slogan can be interpreted in different ways, its potential to incite violence against Jews should not be ignored.
**Key takeaways:**
* The article highlights the delicate balance between freedom of speech and combating hate speech, particularly when dealing with politically charged slogans with ambiguous interpretations.
* It raises questions about the role of public prosecutors in discerning between potentially harmful rhetoric and protected speech, emphasizing the need for thorough analysis and context-specific considerations.
* The article ultimately underscores the ongoing challenge of addressing antisemitism in Switzerland and the importance of carefully navigating legal and social responses to potentially problematic expressions.
Let me know if you have any further questions or need further clarification.
