Berlin police detain protesters and confiscate signs at a pro-Palestinian march, citing potential anti-Semitic content. Critics argue that the police’s actions infringe upon the right to freedom of speech and assembly. The incident highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the balance between combating hate speech and protecting democratic freedoms. Cathrin Schaer reported
In central Berlin, an elderly German woman was led away by officers to have her sign checked before attending a march calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Her banner expressed her shame as a German and claimed that a “genocide” was taking place in the densely populated Palestinian enclave under attack by Israel. Although the police ultimately allowed her and her sign to join the march, they confiscated the sign temporarily. As the rally began, a group of officers in riot gear positioned themselves in front of the chanting protesters. Approximately 8,000 to 10,000 people participated in the march, while around 1,000 police officers were deployed to prevent any anti-Semitic speeches or signage.
Previously, pro-Palestinian demonstrations were banned in Berlin due to concerns of potential violence or anti-Semitism. However, this decision was criticized for infringing on the democratic right to freedom of assembly. In the past two weeks, several protests have been permitted, including the march that took place on Saturday. During the protest, a protester named Monika Kalinowska was pulled out of the crowd by the police, eliciting cries of shame from the protesters. Her sign, which accused Israel of being a terrorist state, was confiscated, but she was later informed that there was nothing wrong with it. Despite this, she expressed frustration over the incident, questioning the extent of freedom of speech in Germany. She also expressed annoyance when a police officer asked about her gender identity, feeling that her freedom of speech was not respected.
Another incident involved the removal of a large poster labeling German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “deadly assassins.” A group of young Italians were also instructed to destroy their sign, which called for an end to genocide and apartheid. The officers warned them that making such statements could result in arrest under certain circumstances. When asked to clarify these circumstances, the officers declined to provide further information. They did, however, mention that certain symbols were forbidden, referring to Germany’s recent ban on Hamas, the ruling Palestinian group in Gaza responsible for attacks in Israel.
According to a police spokesperson, the officers followed previously issued guidelines on the Middle East conflict, and a public prosecutor was available in the operations room during the protest to address any legal concerns. Seven offenses related to signage were recorded by the police. However, lawyers at the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) argued that the police’s actions have a “chilling” effect, causing people to fear potential arrest or deportation based on their clothing or statements. The ELSC criticized the use of wide discretionary powers by the police, comparing it to the practices of an authoritarian regime.
Germany, due to its responsibility for the Holocaust, considers itself to have a “special responsibility” towards the Jewish people, Israel, and the fight against anti-Semitism. The country employs two laws to prosecute hate speech in public. Section 130 of the criminal code addresses incitement against specific groups and has been used to combat the glorification of Nazi Germany, Holocaust denial, and hate speech targeting Jews, racial minorities, and the LGBTQ+ community. Punishments for such offenses range from fines to up to five years in prison. Section 140 examines whether crimes are being condoned in a way that encourages further violence or disrupts public peace.
Michael Wrase, a professor of public law and constitutional law expert, explained that it is challenging for police officers at protests to determine whether certain signs and banners violate the law. Context plays a crucial role in interpreting symbols and signs, as different observers may interpret them differently. For example, chanting the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” immediately after Hamas attacked Israel could be seen as celebrating violence and inciting more. However, the same slogan chanted during a “Ceasefire Now” demonstration, held a month after numerous Palestinian deaths, takes on a different context. The interpretation of signs demanding equality, such as “From the river to the sea, we demand equality,” also depends on the context.
While the situation remains heated, the law should prioritize freedom of assembly and give protesters the benefit of the doubt. Wrase emphasized that even if one disagrees with the purpose of a demonstration, it must still be tolerated. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, if there are multiple interpretations of a slogan, the one that is lawful should be favored. The right to express morally dubious or incorrect opinions is protected by the German constitution, and the government should not use criminal or civil law to suppress dissenting opinions.
In recent weeks, German politicians have proposed changes to various laws, including those concerning the right to demonstrate and freedom of opinion. Some have suggested withdrawing citizenship, residency, welfare benefits, or funding from individuals accused of making anti-Semitic statements. There has also been a proposal to restrict protests to “native Germans” only. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s call for people of Arab and Palestinian heritage to “speak for yourselves and make a clear stand against terror” drew criticism for singling out minority groups. The impact of these calls from conservative politicians and their potential consequences remains to be seen. The ELSC spokesperson expressed concern about the increasing tensions within communities across Europe as a result of the Gaza war, emphasizing the need for the law to remain impartial and protect the right to free expression..