Judge says phrase ‘denied right of Israel to exist’ but woman’s lawyer says ruling is a defeat for free speech

A Berlin court has convicted a pro-Palestinian activist of condoning a crime for leading a chant of the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a rally in the German capital four days after the Hamas attacks on Israel, in what her defence team called a defeat for free speech.

The presiding judge, Birgit Balzer, ordered 22-year-old German-Iranian national Ava Moayeri to pay a €600 (£515) fine on Tuesday, rejecting her argument that she meant only to express support for “peace and justice” in the Middle East by calling out the phrase on a busy street.

Balzer said she “could not comprehend” the logic of previous German court rulings that determined the saying was “ambiguous”, saying to her it was clear it “denied the right of the state of Israel to exist”.

MBFC
Archive

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.eeEnglish
      34·
      3 months ago

      Countries change all the time, it means nothing. Like the other person said, they’re just imaginary lines. USSR was destroyed and nothing happened to the people in it when it happened. Ottoman Empire split up, Germany was split in two, Vietnam was split in half then recombined, Korea split in two, China, all of these things have happened within the lifetime of my parents and my grandparents.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
      810·
      3 months ago

      A country is simply a line on a map ruled by a government. They are not infallible beings that we must bow before in reverence.

      What sort of person would call for the continuation of say North Korea?

      • steventhedev@lemmy.worldEnglish
        83·
        3 months ago

        Countries are not just lines on a map. They are people. Calling for their destruction is calling for the death of those people and their culture.

        You cannot decide after saying it that calling for the “destruction” of a country means merely changing the borders or system of government. The word implies violence.

        • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
          65·
          3 months ago

          Countries are not people. People are people. Comparing genocide and the dissolution of a state apparatus is disingenuous.

          Likewise cultures cross national boundaries all the time. Colonial countries are imposed on top of existing cultural groups who rarely if ever fit neatly within a states border.

          • steventhedev@lemmy.worldEnglish
            52·
            3 months ago

            So by your logic calling for the destruction of Gaza or Palestine should be allowed as non-hate speech as well. Because it’s only referring to “the dissolution of a state apparatus”.

            Based on your comments elsewhere, you’d automatically color those as the calls to violence they quite clearly are, yet you’re willing to go to great length to argue that somehow calling for the destruction of Israel isn’t.

    • crewman_princess@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      15·
      3 months ago

      Calling for the destruction of a STATE is fine. I for one am glad that the racist state of Rhodesia is no more. I am sure a lot of Czech and Slovakian people are glad to get rid of Czechoslovakia. It’s not the same as calling for the destruction or removal of people.

      • steventhedev@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        3 months ago

        No reasonable person would hear “destroy Mexico” and think “oh, he must really dislike the government and state of Mexico”. They will automatically assume that you mean to bring about the destruction of Mexico *\including the people who live there*.

        if you truly intended to advocate merely for the immediate dissolution of the state, you would have said so.