CJ Hopkins22 September 2024
So it was a good surprise.
The German judge, Dr. Clivia von Dewitz, published an extended article on my case and “political justice” in Berliner Zeitung, mainstream newspapers. I translated it below for readers from outside Germany who are not tired of reading about my case.
And even if you are tired of proceeding about my case, you should read her article anyway, due to the fact that (a) it will dispel any another misunderstandings you may have about the law on public vulnerability of swastikas and another Nazi symbols in Germany — Dr. von Dewitz is an expert in this field — and (b) she cites the RKI file, (i.e. Robert Koch Institute files) which origin confusion here in Germany.
This is the full communicative in itself, and I want to stick to the subject, but here's an excerpt from the article by 2 German lawyers from the magazine. CiceroAbout what the RKI files reveal...
To be clear: the first lockdown in the past of the national Republic of Germany was seemingly mostly based on political or ministerial influence on RKI, which was sold to the public and courts as an independent technological hazard assessment. ... Since RKI was bound by instructions and adapted its statements to the wishes of politicians, the protocols uncover that contradictions, ambiguities and inaccuracies in authoritative statements were systematically ignored and in fact had to be ignored. publically communicated protection of others through vaccination did not exist, nor did the hazard scale for the general population due to coronavirus infections postulated by RKI. The nonsubjective view of the data published by RKI in Germany in March 2020 showed no national medical emergency. — Corona und Recht: Die Pandemie der Unmenschlichkeit
So, yes, it's rather a long story, which, of course, is simply a broader context of my history, which Dr. von Dewitz explains rather extensively in his article on my case.
And if you're reasoning about the word "political justice," that's mostly German. I don't think this word is commonly utilized in English, or at least I couldn't find many references to it. It means precisely what it means.
"In a strategy of political justice, the independency of the judiciary is ignored by the governing authorities and thus fundamental democratic rights are violated. This independency is part of the division of power guaranteed to Germany by Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Basic Act [i.e. Grundgesetz , German Constitution]. Political justice is an abuse of executive power. The equality of political groups towards the law is not taken into account, but alternatively the strategy of justice serves primarily to destruct political opposition and thus extends the scope of the prevailing political strategy alternatively than keeping it in check." — Otto Kirchheimer: Politische Justiz. Verwendung juristischer Verfahrensmöglichkeiten zu polytischen Zwecken . (1961 Political Justice) dt. Luchterhand, Neuwied 1965, S. 606.
Anyway, without further ado, here's the translation an article by Dr. Clive von Dewitz of Berliner Zeitung [footnotes in CJ Hopkins brackets].
Judge in CJ Hopkins case: Is it permissible to apply comparisons to Nazism in COVID-19 policy?
Our author wrote a doctorate on the ban on Nazi insignia and says: Getting Hopkins acquitted in the first trial was right. Why does the Berlin D.A. appeal the sentence?
Clivia von Dewitz
Berliner Zeitung, 21 September 2024
The appeal proceeding in the CJ Hopkins case is scheduled to take place before the Berlin Court of Appeal on 30 September. Born in America, a man, married to a judaic female and surviving in Berlin for almost 20 years, has been accused by the Berlin D.A. of violating the ban on Nazi symbols in force in Germany since 1968 by 2 posts on X [formerly Twitter]. The bone of disagreement is simply a photograph depicting a white medical mask with white swastika sweeping through the middle. He has published various accompanying texts that will be applicable during the process. But more about it later.
Showing Nazi symbols continues to origin discomfort in a large part of the German population. And rightly, these symbols represent an unjust government of unimaginable size, which is liable in peculiar for the Holocaust and planet War II, and thus for millions of victims.
Prohibition of [Nazi] Symbols
Immediately after planet War II, people began to wonder how to deal with Nazi symbols. The first criminal laws to restrict national socialist ideas, and thus Nazi insignia, were the business laws of the German military government for the American region (such as Act No 154). The bill provided for severe penalties for utilizing Nazi symbols on flags, banners and so on.
After 1949, only the Assembly Act of 1953 contained a ban on the usage of national socialist symbols. It was not until 1960, with the 6th Criminal Law Amendment Act, that the ban on exposing symbols of erstwhile national socialist organizations was introduced into the Criminal Code as Section 96a. In 1968, the insignia ban was introduced as Section 86a of the StGB as part of the rules prohibiting events in a version that is mostly valid to this day, thus putting standardization of the ban on Nazi symbols in a more general context of the law prohibiting events.
According to the prohibition on the usage of [Nazi] insignias (§ 86(1) no. 4, 86a(1) no. 1 StGB), only those who distribute or publically display Nazi symbols “which, due to their content, reflect the efforts of a erstwhile national socialist organization” are subject to punishment. This means that not all usage of the Nazi symbol is prohibited. On the contrary, the law confirms that only materials whose content is directed against free democratic fundamental order or the concept of an agreement between the nations are considered to be [criminal] propaganda media (§ 86(3) of the StGB).
Under criminal law (Article 86(4) of the StGB), criminal liability is besides excluded if the material serves the purposes of civic education, defence against activities incompatible with the constitution, art or science, investigation or teaching, or reporting current events or history, or akin purposes (so-called social adequacy clause).
In the 1970s, Nazi symbols were first utilized in a critical or ironic way. In these cases, the jurisdiction has not established criminal liability either at the level of the crime or under the application of the social adequacy clause. due to the fact that the critical and distant usage of Nazi symbols is not criminal, especially in light of Article 5 Grundgesetz [ i.e. the German Constitution, virtually the “Basic Act”]. The fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom of art in it is constitutional for democracy.
Judgment of the Tiergarten territory Court: Acquittal
Given the legal background described above, the Tiergarten territory Court rightly acquitted CJ Hopkins on 23 January 2024. In his judgment, the court concluded that the suspect did not commit the crime with his 2 posts, since, according to the judgement in both posts cited by the Berlin prosecutor's office, "taking into account the text relating to the usage of the mask, it can be easy seen that the relation with national socialism is presented in a powerfully negative sense".
These posts are besides not suitable to advance the revival of national socialist ideas, or even of erstwhile national socialist organizations. due to the fact that people with neo-Nazi goals would never usage symbols of national socialist organizations in an art work expressing their rejection. Therefore, any influence of posts in the direction corresponding to the symbolic content of national socialist insignia is excluded from the very beginning. In short: the court found that an American citizen utilized Nazi symbols without intending to glorify the Nazi government in any way.
Now the question arises as to how the Berlin prosecutors will appeal this acquittal and call CJ Hopkins back to court on 30 September 2024. According to the wording of the ban on [Nazi] insignia and of peculiar importance, according to the national Constitutional Court, freedom of speech and art for democracy, there can be no another result than impunity for specified posts.
In its ruling of 11 April 2024 in consequence to a constitutional complaint by Julian Reichelt, the national Constitutional Court noted the peculiar importance of freedom of expression and made it clear that the State must besides endure harsh and polemic criticism. This must besides apply to situations where Nazi symbols are utilized to criticize state orders, whether criticism is justified or not.
The argument of the prosecution
The argument put forward by the Berlin D.A. at the trial before the Berlin territory Court — according to which the distance to the Nazi era should not only become apparent “when reading the text accompanying the painting or considering it” — is not convincing. The criticism of the state expressed in 2 posts utilizing swastika clearly does not glorify the Nazi regime. On the contrary, the suspect uses Nazi symbolism to inform against totalitarian governance. This may seem extreme, but if you consider the government's actions during coronavirus, the harsh criticism is at least understandable.
The minutes of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) gathering show that the government has ordered a crucial part of the restrictive measures on fundamental rights from 2020 to 202022 not on the basis of technological findings but on the basis of political calculations, which means that a fresh assessment of the government's actions from 2020 to 2020 is needed.
This besides applies, and even above all, to wearing masks. For example, the minutes of the RKI gathering of 4 November 2020 stated: "FFP2 masks are highly improbable to be a protective measure. Moreover, there is no reliable protection for laymen without the accompanying discipline of use!” Then, the Protocol of 16 November 2020 states: ‘Can we inactive intervene? The usage of masks by laymen is uncomfortable and dangerous. The German Society of Microbiology and Hygiene believes that FFP2 masks, if not well suited, are little beneficial than MNS ("mouth and nose protection", ed. BZ), as they give a false sense of security. [...] The impact is no longer possible, the proceedings are now underway, the RKI has not been asked beforehand". And the next conviction reads: ‘If specified a decision is taken, the challenges shall be identified and the usage or not recommended after prior consultation with the household doctor. A household doctor may check whether there is simply a cardiac or pulmonary hazard and give instructions on the usage of masks.’
Political justice?
Taking into account these statements from scientists of the end of 2020, how can ongoing proceedings against doctors who issued certificates of release from wearing masks be justified? There is suspicion of political justice or criminal law based on political attitudes.
The Osnabrück Administrative Court late launched a commendable fresh improvement in jurisdiction. The court introduced RKI protocols in the employment ban process as a consequence of the facility-related vaccination requirement. president RKI was interviewed as a witness. At the end of the trial, the court found that there were crucial doubts as to the technological independency of the RKI as it acted in accordance with the instructions of the national Ministry of Health. Due to serious doubts about the constitutionality of the paragraph of the Act on Protection against Infections in force at the time, he referred the case to the national Constitutional Court for resolution (the alleged Judge's request). The question remains whether the national Constitutional Court will usage this chance and adapt its rulings to the current state of discipline in the future.
Finally, the late retired justice Manfred Kölsch stressed that the harm to taxpayers caused by the order of 5.7 billion masks by 5 May 2024 (by then Minister of wellness Jens Spahn), as well as the cost of retention and the likely economical consequences of the decisions of the Higher National Court in Cologne on compensation to mask suppliers, would likely amount to a full of around EUR 10 billion. The national Audit Office speaks of "a immense excess of orders" and besides states that masks "were not useful in the fight against the pandemic, and so had no value for wellness policy". At the same time, the RKI Protocol of 27 January 2020 states: "It is not recommended to accumulate stocks of masks, etc."
Politicians ordered masks against any economical reason and ordered masks to be worn against technological discoveries and professional evaluation of the Robert Koch Institute. As for children, many experts considered wearing masks to be harmful to their wellness from the very beginning.
In light of all this, the usage of swastika combined with the mask as criticisms of government orders may appear in a fresh light. If it is no longer possible to criticize the government's actions in an utmost way, then what CJ Hopkins warned against in his posts, namely the creation of fresh totalitarian government structures, and thus the failure of democratic values. If Der Spiegel and Stern, which were not peculiarly critical of the government during or after the Covid period and did not make serious educational efforts, may usage swastikas on their covers without objection, the same must apply to government critics.
Dr. Clivia von Dewitz is simply a German judge. Her doctoral work afraid Nazi ideas and criminal law (§§ 86.86a and § 130 StGB).
This article is subject to Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). It can be utilized freely by the general public for non-commercial purposes, provided the author is given and Berliner Zeitung and usage it without editing.
Thank you for reading Substack Jack! Subscribe for free to receive fresh posts and support my work.
