The Kammergericht Berlin (uppermost criminal court for Berlin) has ruled the reasoning of the lower instance why this phrase is not an illegal slogan was not sufficient and there were mistakes in the judgement. It has reopened the case and given it back to the same instance to re-evaluate.
There seem to be two main points:
The fact that a slogan is older than the terrorist organization does not preclude its classification as a distinguishing mark if the organization has adopted the already common phrase in such a way that it at least also appears as its distinguishing mark.
In principle, the grounds for the judgment must indicate the field of expertise of the expert consulted. If the academic training and even the area of activity in which the expert usually works remain unclear, this constitutes a factual and legal error in the judgment.
There are a couple more minor points from the full reasoning. For example, apparently the court argued even if the phrase were illegal, since the defendant claimed to be an opponent of Hamas they used the parole to display this opposition (analogous to reclaiming slurs) - but the court didn't require the defendant to demonstrate/elaborate on this opposition.
My comment only clarifies the Xcreet stating a German court has deemed the phrase "From the river to the sea" illegal was false. If you have anything to say about this decision from a legal POV feel free to comment, as I am not a lawyer and cannot properly evaluate this decision.
But whether or not the decision to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization is justified is not something I argued about.
100 years after the Holocaust, Germany is once again on the side of genocidal fanatics.
Germany's unwavering support of Israel shows that Germans have learned nothing from the horrors of the Nazi evils. Nie wieder should mean never again, but it somehow doesn't.
In general, it does not matter if the slogan originated from Hamas or not, just that they made it their own. The swastika after all also didn’t originated from the Nazis
You're allowed to explain what you mean but you're extremely close to being banned
And you are too credulous. They pulled the more sophisticated, legalese-translated version of DavidDoesLemmy's comment (see bottom of the thread). Just because they're smart enough to not get banned doesn't mean they're acting in good faith.
20 Comments
Mrkawfee@feddit.uk · 19 pts · 174d
From the river to the sea, go to hell Germany
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 174d
from the river to the sea
marcie@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 174d
Germany is an illegal German slogan
herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 174d
Israel should have been formed on German land, not Palestinian land. Rhineland should have been given to the Jews after WW2.
Fancy_Gecko@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 174d
more examples of western "freedom of speech"
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 174d
and these guys are the primary driving force behind europe's next army.
MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 175d
davel@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 174d
which guy probably lul
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 174d
.de strikes again
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 174d
This is false.
The Kammergericht Berlin (uppermost criminal court for Berlin) has ruled the reasoning of the lower instance why this phrase is not an illegal slogan was not sufficient and there were mistakes in the judgement. It has reopened the case and given it back to the same instance to re-evaluate.
There seem to be two main points:
There are a couple more minor points from the full reasoning. For example, apparently the court argued even if the phrase were illegal, since the defendant claimed to be an opponent of Hamas they used the parole to display this opposition (analogous to reclaiming slurs) - but the court didn't require the defendant to demonstrate/elaborate on this opposition.
Here's the full decision, in German
https://gesetze.berlin.de/bsbe/document/NJRE001632041
The court has very much NOT ruled about the (il)legality of the phrase. Only that the lower court's reasoning was shit.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 174d
🙄
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de · -2 pts · 174d
Try not to derail please.
My comment only clarifies the Xcreet stating a German court has deemed the phrase "From the river to the sea" illegal was false. If you have anything to say about this decision from a legal POV feel free to comment, as I am not a lawyer and cannot properly evaluate this decision.
But whether or not the decision to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization is justified is not something I argued about.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 174d
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 174d
Lower courts reasoning sounds extremely solid to me. The upper court is inserting Zionist nonsense as rulings for the lower courts.
So what they mean is that they need to ask Zionist "antisemitism experts" about it which will then say everything is Khamass.
vapeloki@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 174d
herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 174d
100 years after the Holocaust, Germany is once again on the side of genocidal fanatics.
Germany's unwavering support of Israel shows that Germans have learned nothing from the horrors of the Nazi evils. Nie wieder should mean never again, but it somehow doesn't.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 174d
You're allowed to explain what you mean but you're extremely close to being banned
clucose@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 174d
wtf?
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 174d
They're comparing a Palestine liberation slogan to the Nazi's in case you didn't notice
owsei@programming.dev · 4 pts · 174d
They are talking about appropriation of symbols. That's the example they used, but it's in no way an ethical comparison
DeepSpace9mm@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 173d
And you are too credulous. They pulled the more sophisticated, legalese-translated version of DavidDoesLemmy's comment (see bottom of the thread). Just because they're smart enough to not get banned doesn't mean they're acting in good faith.
vapeloki@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 174d
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 174d
Alright that's cool as long as your example pertains to the government and nothing in it was your own opinion.
Factually Hamas did not make the slogan their own and it's used by all Palestinians which is why the German government ruling makes no sense.
vapeloki@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 174d
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone · -4 pts · 174d
The swastika didn't originate with the Nazis