Comment by kubb

Stefan Niehoff was prosecuted for a tweet that compared the policies towards COVID-unvaccinated people to how the Third Reich treated Jews. He also made comparisons to the Nazis with respect to how the German government is treating the AfD. These are both criticisms of government policy with respect to public health and handling of democratic opposition parties. The man was put through a criminal trial and then found guilty, being fined for his tweets.

He is not an exception. Twice in August 2022, the American playwright, satirist and longtime Berlin resident C.J. Hopkins tweeted cover art from his book on The Rise of the New Normal Reich. This art featured an image of a Covid-era medical mask with a barely-visible white swastika superimposed upon it. In his first tweet, Hopkins wrote that “Masks are symbols of ideological conformity. That’s all that they are, and that’s all they ever were. Stop pretending that they were ever anything else or get used to wearing them.” In his second tweet, Hopkins simply quoted Health Minister Karl Lauterbach’s notorious statement that “Masks always send a signal.”

For those tweets, Amazon Germany promptly banned Hopkins’s book, and eight months later the Berlin state prosecutor’s office informed Hopkins that he was under investigation, because they believed his tweets violated German criminal statutes against “the use of symbols of unconstititional and terrorist organisations.” In January of 2024, Hopkins was tried before the Tiergarten Berlin District Court and acquitted. In many countries that would be the end of it, but in Germany double jeopardy is not a thing. The prosecutor appealed, and Hopkins found himself on trial once again, this time before the Berlin Court of Appeals. The appellate court overturned his acquittal and found him guilty.

So these are two men who have been prosecuted for their criticism of policy, without groups being involved. But the more common pattern goes like this:

Activist: We must welcome infinity Muslim migrants.

Person: No we shouldn't. That would be bad.

Activist: Why do you say that?

Person: Because they commit crimes at a higher rate than we do and their culture is incompatible with ours.

Activist: That's hate speech and you are going to be fined/imprisoned for it.

When the left is obsessed with group-based identity politics, there's no difference between banning criticism of groups and banning criticism of left wing politics. Enforcing the former is simply a way to prevent anyone explaining or justifying their position, meaning they can't actually advocate for it. It's no difference to an outright ban on opposition.