Katarina Barley, the German Vice President of the European Parliament, has been sharply criticized by other German politicians for her remarks that Hungary and Poland should be “starved financially” for their alleged rule of law transgressions.

“Katarina Barley is forgetting about history and adopting a pose which will not do any good for Europe’s future,” said Michael Kretschmer, the prime minister of Saxony.

“We need to convince with values, arguments and debate looking into each other’s eyes. Blackmail is unacceptable,” continued Kretschmer in his social media post.

Paul Ziemiak, the secretary general of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), agreed with Kretschmer. He tweeted that “Katarina Barley’s verbal derangement is unacceptable. Debate should consist of arguments done clearly and with care, never using offensive and hurtful words.”

The Polish deputy foreign minister, Paweł Jabłoński, noted in a Twitter post that there are critical voices coming from Germany and opined that good relations between Berlin and Warsaw “must be based on mutual respect”.

According to Twitter account of Cezary Gmyz, Polish state TV’s Berlin correspondent, the hard stance taken by German politicians is a result of a meeting at the Polish Embassy in Berlin with deputy Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Szymon Szynkowski vel Sęk. The minister, in his Twitter post, confirmed that he had spoken to the premier of Saxony on the matter and that the German politician had agreed with him about the inappropriate nature of Barley’s comments.

Speaking on Polish state news channel TVP Info, Błażej Spychalski, the press spokesman for President Andrzej Duda, said that he expected an apology from Barley as statements such as hers do not help Polish-German relations.

“Anyone who has any awareness of history must be conscious that for a German politician to talk about starving Poland or Hungary must lead to repercussions and strong actions by our representatives,” he concluded.

rmx.news/article/article/german-politicians-slam-mep-barley-over-her-remarks-about-starving-hungary-and-poland

For the public prosecutor’s office it was a planned revenge killing. The trial of Edris Z. who is said to have killed a young mother in April in the Auwald forest started today, Wednesday, at the Leipzig Regional Court.The refugee aid worker had previously denounced the Afghan-born man under the Protection Against Violence Act – apparently this was her death sentence!

Hiding his face behind a file folder, Edris Z. enters the courtroom in the morning. Four police officers guard him. In front of the courthouse, almost 100 people demonstrate simultaneously against femicide – the political term for the killing of women for their sex.

Without a word, the Afghan, who emigrated to Germany with his parents in 1995, takes a seat next to his lawyers. In 2006, former Saxon Prime Minister Georg Milbradt (75, Christian Democratic Union) called the accused an “ambassador of Saxony” as a prime example of successful integration and granted him German citizenship in 2015.

Flashback: In the morning of April 8, Myriam Z. (37 years old) changed her sling, carefully put her two and a half month old daughter Ava in it and went for a walk in the southern Auwald forest.

According to the prosecution, Edris Z. also was staying there. Not by chance. But having a hammer in his backpack and the plan to kill a human being.

Edris and Myriam were once a couple. Both worked as social workers in the refugee aid department. It is said that the young Afghan never got over the fact that the self-confident woman eventually separated from him. According to the investigations, Edris Z. has been stalking his ex-girlfriend ever since.

And he became violent: In August 2018, when Edris Z. saw Myriam in the company of another man, he allegedly attacked him.The prosecution mentions a wild biting attack, and the accused is also alleged to have attempted to gouge out the eyes of the migrant rival (25 years old) with his fingernails. The victim suffered severe injuries to his eyeballs, bite wounds all over his body, and a piece of his ear was also missing afterwards.

Myriam then reported the stalker to the police and obtained a ban on approach against Edris Z. via the Protection Against Violence Act.

Apparently this was her death sentence. In the murder charge, the prosecution assumes that Z. killed his ex-girlfriend to punish her for reporting him to the police.

The stalker approached the young mother from behind and smashed her skull with a hammer.

Even when Myriam fell to the ground, lay protectively over her baby and therefore had no hand to protect her head, the accused is said to have continued to beat her. At least ten blows, four of them on the head, are listed by the prosecution with reference to the forensic medical examination.

Two days after the violent crime, Myriam died of her severe injuries in hospital. The trial will continue next Wednesday.

tag24.de/leipzig/junger-mutter-aus-rache-schaedel-eingeschlagen-botschafter-sachsens-schweigt-vor-gericht-1675660

In Germany, criminal extended families have established a parallel society that follows its very own rules. Spiegel TV authors Thomas Heise and Claas Meyer-Heuer spoke with two clan members. The result is a documentary about the internal life of extended families – and about the failure of politics.

Ali F. and Sherif B. come from two different extended families; they have almost lost track of the numbers of members of their clans. Nevertheless Sherif knows to report: “You can already count on 70 to 80 percent that all of them are criminal. Ali F. confirms this: “It’s the same with me. 80 percent may not be, but 60 to 70 percent are criminals.

Especially the male clan members are often delinquent. Sherif served nine years in prison for drug dealing and assault. Extended families like the Al-Zeins, the Remmos or the Miris are known to the police. Ali F. and Sherif B. also talk bluntly in the interview about criminal machinations, blood and bride money, marriages within their families and drug dealing. One statement in particular remains in the memory.

When Sherif B thinks about the fact that his wife is cheating on him, he speaks out in a rage. “If my dignity is violated by my wife cheating on me, I will feel the same as everyone else,” he says. “I would torture, strangle, kill, stab, shoot her very slowly, no matter what. I would do it immediately. Her and the one she cheated with, both of them. There’s no mercy there either, nothing. And I think everybody in this family would agree with me.” Obviously furious, he adds, ” I’ d stab her right in the neck and that’s it! If she cheats, she has had bad luck. We are not interested in the Basic Law. We only go by Islamic law.”It is precisely this attitude that makes clans so dangerous, says the law and Islamic Studies Professor Mathias Rohe of the University of Erlangen. “The problem with parallel societies in the narrower sense is hermetic closure. One has its own code of values, its own code of norms, which then, if necessary, is also directed against what is generally valid in this country, namely the legal system.

rtl.de/cms/zwei-clan-mitglieder-packen-aus-wuerde-sie-erstmal-ganz-langsam-quaelen-erwuergen-toeten-abstechen-abknallen-4626038.html

Last year, the riots by young people in the Düsseldorf public swimming pool Rheinbad made quite a stir throughout Germany. On each of three days the pool had to be evacuated by the police. Now, after a two-day trial, a young man (17 years old) was convicted of threatening behaviour.According to a ruling by the Düsseldorf District Court, the North African Amaru C. must take part in a literary project entitled “Crisis situations – how do I deal with them? He is then to write an essay on this topic with special attention to a victim!The trial against him took place behind closed doors. The reason for the lenient sentence is said to be that Amaru C. has no criminal record and also attends school regularly.In the juvenile law regulations, the focus is on the educational aspect.

A second trial against a rioter (27 years old) resulted in an order of summary punishment for insulting for a sum amounting to 600 euros. He had insulted a policewoman as a “dirty piece of shit”.
During the incidents in the Rheinbad in summer 2019, up to 400 people had attacked employees and other visitors, thrown chairs into the water and rioted.

bild.de/regional/duesseldorf/duesseldorf-aktuell/urteil-in-duesseldorf-rheinbad-randalierer-muss-aufsatz-schreiben-73294480.bild.html###wt_ref=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F&wt_t=1602093305006

A Dutch appeals court recently upheld the conviction of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for supposedly insulting Moroccans in comments he made at an election rally in 2014. At the same time, however, the appeals court overturned Wilders’ conviction for inciting hatred or discrimination against Moroccans.

At an election rally in The Hague in March 2014, as leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom), reportedly the country’s most popular opposition party today, Wilders asked those present, whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd chanted “fewer, fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”

Wilders was prosecuted and convicted in December 2016 on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.” Wilders did not receive any punishment then, nor will he now: Judge Jan Maarten Reinking stated, “The accused has already for years paid a high price for expressing his opinion,” referring to the fact that Wilders has lived under constant police protection for more than a decade and still receives constant threats. Most recently, Al Qaeda issued a threat against Geert Wilders, among others. “Terrible news,” Wilders called the threat.

“I was already on their hit list, already have two fatwas from Pakistan and now another call for murder from al-Qaeda. Disgusting. This has cost me my freedom for 16 years, something that I would not wish on my worst enemy.”

In his reasoning for upholding the verdict for “insulting a group of people because of their race,” Reinking said that Wilders’ comments “can contribute to polarisation within Dutch society, while in our democratic, pluralistic society, respect for others, especially minority groups, is of great importance”. Reinking added:

“Although offensive statements are protected to a certain extent by the right to freedom of expression, in this case the suspect has gone too far and is thus guilty of a criminal offense.”

There was no nod to the primacy in a free society of being able to speak freely without the fear — as in the former Soviet Union — of being hauled into court by the state. As the Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky stated:

“But for all of us it was absolutely obvious that we all wanted to live in a society where people can…. present their views… and not to be punished for this. It is called the town square test, where every person can go in the center of the town, say what he or she thinks, what she believes, to insist on their right to promote these views, and will not be arrested and will not be punished for this. And if that is possible, that is a free society. If it is not permitted it is a fear society. And there is nothing in between.”

“The Netherlands has become a corrupt country”, Wilders stated after the verdict.

“Moroccans who set our cities and neighborhoods on fire usually get away with it… but the leader of the largest opposition party who asks a question about Moroccans with which millions of Dutch agree, has been convicted in a political trial. Because that is exactly what this is… the judge has disposed of… freedom of expression… And this is not just about my freedom of speech, but about everyone’s. I am of course glad that the accusation… in the earlier conviction, by the court, when it comes to inciting discrimination, has now become an acquittal. That incitement to hatred has not been proved either… But convicted – albeit without punishment – for group insult, in a political trial”.

Wilders was presumably referring to riots that recently took place in several Dutch cities, in which young Dutch-Moroccans, among rioters from other immigrant communities, reportedly engaged in “rioting, public assault, threatening behavior and violating the emergency order put to stop the unrest”.

Wilders also announced that he would appeal the verdict of the appeals court to the Dutch Supreme Court. “Of course we will appeal and we will go to the Supreme Court because the verdict and the guilty sentence are ridiculous,” Wilders said.

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10 of which states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In its case law[1], the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10 protects not only “the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected”.

Also, according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case law,

“…the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns… strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court”.

Asking whether voters want fewer Moroccans in their city or country may seem, to some, offensive. However, what seems offensive is often extremely subjective. In Morocco, in May, actor Rafik Boubker was arrested for “blasphemy” for posting a video in which he told people “to make their ablution with wine and perform prayers with whiskey.” The video reportedly “angered millions of Moroccans. The actor rapidly released another video, apologizing to his fans and followers for the statements”.

In the Sudan, in 2007, the authorities sentenced an English teacher to two weeks in prison and deportation for “insulting Islam,” because she had allowed her primary school students to name a teddy bear a common man’s name there, Mohammed. Meanwhile, she was threatened with death.

Freedom of speech means the right to offend. As Sigmund Freud, quoting the neurologist John Hughlings Jackson, reportedly put it, “the man who first flung a word of abuse at his enemy instead of a spear was the founder of civilization”. Speech with which everyone agrees does not need protection.

In the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects the political speech of political actors and political campaigns, it is difficult to see how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be limited in accordance with article 10 (2). Wilders did not incite to violence, nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted as relevant to limiting free speech.

It will now be up to the Dutch Supreme Court to determine whether it wants a “free society” or a “fear society”. As Sharansky notes, “There is nothing in between.”

[1] Monica Macovei: A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 16, (Human rights handbooks, No. 2, 2004).

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16598/netherlands-free-speech-geert-wilders

Progressive billionaire George Soros has called on the EU to cut funding to Hungary over rule of law issues, with his statement released following a decision made by the EU’s top court which favored George Soros’s Central European University over the Hungarian government.

“I call on the EU to make Hungary a test case,” Soros wrote in a statement, urging Brussels to make an example out of Hungary, including attempts to tie EU funding to rule of law conditions. 

Near the end of the statement, the liberal billionaire investor urged the European Union, which at the moment is debating on whether or not to make the distribution of EU aid linked to so-called ‘rule of law’ conditions, to cut its funding to Hungary.

For the liberal billionaire, setting such a precedent would send a clear message to other EU nations: those who refuse to obey Brussels’ edicts will face real consequences. 

In a statement, Soros claimed that “the Hungarian government continues to trample on EU Law”, adding that its latest victim was “the world-famous University of Theater and Arts (SZFE)” in Budapest, Hungarian newspaper Magyar Hirlap reports.

Soros’s sentiments were echoed nearly verbatim late week by the Deputy Head of the European Parliament, Katarina Barley – also a German MP for the Socialist Democratic Party (SDP) – when she urged the EU to “starve” Poland and Hungary of EU funds, Remix News reported.

“The rule of law is constantly broken and EU funds are an efficient way to exact pressure. States such as Poland and Hungary must be financially starved. Funds are an efficient lever,” Barley said during an interview with German radio.

Following the German MEP’s statements, several Polish politicians were quick to hit back, saying that the use of word “starvation” – in the context of Polish-German relations – reminded them rhetoric used by Nazis during World War II.

“This statement is outrageous and reminds us of the most dreadful historic connotations. We could say that Germans have ample experience in starving and persecuting Poles. We are awaiting an official apology from Mrs. Barley and the retraction of these shameful words,” Michał Dworczyk, the chief of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, wrote.

On Tuesday, Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party called on Katarina Barley to resign from her post as the Deputy Head of the European Parliament as a result of the offensive statements that she made on German radio, Remix News reported.

The motion was presented by PiS, a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists EU parliamentary group, at Tuesday’s meeting of the European Parliament presidency.

rmx.news/article/article/soros-urges-eu-to-cut-funding-for-hungary-make-country-a-test-case