Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kurt Arner's avatar

The fact that he was even charged [by the public prosecutor!] with “incitement to hatred” is itself an indictment of our society today.

Bhakdi is a soft-spoken and conscientious citizen, a retired professor of microbiology who spoke out of conviction, backed up by decades of experience in identifying and treating of diseases brought on by infectious pathogens. For this he has been vilified by politicians and mainstream media, labelling him a Corona Critic and a Non-conformist / Contrarian.

His “crime” was to speak out against the official narrative of the German government, so they tried to make him an example for the rest of the citizenry, so society would in turn learn how not to behave.

But they chose the wrong target, as well as a poorly thought out case. Luckily, the presiding judge is one who can think clearly and with a sense of proportion. Despite the loss, the public prosecutor’s office has stated its intention to appeal the case, however.

Germany still hasn’t succeeded in escaping its collective trauma from having seeded, enabled and carried out the atrocity of the Holocaust. In her guilt-ridden stupor, the nation criminalised so-called “Holocaust Denial” nearly 3 decades ago. This has been extended to most European nations (also to denial of other forms of genocide, via a case before the European Court of Human Rights a decade ago).

But in her zeal to “stamp out Naziism, the nation has itself become more authoritarian, more draconian, more intolerant and more arbitrary in its decisions to mete out justice. The irony here is that those are adjectives most associated with Hitler’s regime, not an enlightened parliamentary democracy.

The entire case was built up around Bhakdi’s criticism of the measures undertaken by the State of Israel, arguing that this constituted a racist appeal for attacks against Jews. His reference to the atrocities of the Holocaust from the last century were immediately attacked for ostensibly “minimising” the severity of the Holocaust. Both points are ridiculous, more reminiscent of the behavior of a representative of _____ minority group scouring cyberspace for evidence of racism, misogynism or bad taste in order to make their day. The Central Committee of Jews in Germany criticised the judge’s decision, since it now apparently finds justification in siding with the position of the public prosecutor in any case where the defendant is charged with Holocaust Denial.

But where are the individuals who felt motivated by Bhakdi’s utterances to attack Israel (or Jews)?

Snowflakes

One could make the argument that exactly this type of behaviour (charging anyone and everyone who dares make reference to the Holocaust outside of the officially-approved context) is itself making a mockery of the Holocaust, by so trivialising the subject that unapproved use of the term is a-priori adjudged akin to downplaying it. But zealots are rarely aware of the irony in their own behaviour.

Expand full comment
Pam's avatar

WHOOT WHOOT WHOOT!!!

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts