The Off Topic Topic

[Malthus]

Why did you think you would pass this along Raz? It's a year old article and very shoddy journalism.

The court found the defendants were motivated by politics rather than religion, then sentenced them accordingly.

The article certainly seems painfully slanted. Assuming it has some basic truth to the facts, though, I'm wondering why the sentencing should be different if the attack was motivated by politics, rather than religion.

Certainly it would appear that the attack was motivated by bigotry of some sort (holding German Jews accountable for Israeli actions - which makes exactly as much sense as, say, beating up an American Muslim because of 9/11; plus firebombing a place of worship is usually something frowned upon and considered a pretty serious crime in its own right, no matter what the motivation).

Would it make sense to sentence someone who attacked an American Muslim in retaliation for 9/11 more leniently than someone who attacked an American Muslim simply because he hated Muslims for the way they worshipped? Does it make sense that a firebombing of a synagogue gets a suspended sentence?

Seems there is some justifiable critique here - again, assuming the facts are correct.

[Jacob]

One can obviously criticize any kind of legal framework that differentiates between attacking people for their religion, rather than for their politics.

On the other hand, I don't find it particularly shocking or worrying if Germany has a special category of legal penalties to attach to violence carried out to align with Nazi beliefs.

I expect the point of contention was about whether the Palestine-sympathizing synagogue burners should get the penalty designed for keeping any potential rise of neo-Nazis at bay, or whether they should get the "regular" penalty for any given idiot who burns down something for political reasons.

[The Brain]

Nazi antisemitism was motivated by politics, just like the court found the defendants, so it seems weird for the Germans to be more lenient here.

[Jacob]

Nazi antisemitism was motivated by politics, just like the court found the defendants, so it seems weird for the Germans to be more lenient here.

Doesn't seem that weird to me that Germany might have some extra severe Nazi-specific statutes on the books.

[Malthus]

One can obviously criticize any kind of legal framework that differentiates between attacking people for their religion, rather than for their politics.

On the other hand, I don't find it particularly shocking or worrying if Germany has a special category of legal penalties to attach to violence carried out to align with Nazi beliefs.

I expect the point of contention was about whether the Palestine-sympathizing synagogue burners should get the penalty designed for keeping any potential rise of neo-Nazis at bay, or whether they should get the "regular" penalty for any given idiot who burns down something for political reasons.

The Nazis could well argue they don't attack Jews for their "religion" either, but because Jews are all involved in international conspiracies against Aryans.

I see no real distinction between that, and claiming Jews are all involved in an international conspiracy against Palestinians.

Both involve violence directed at a whole group (Jews) for something the perpetrators claim they are responsible for, without any justification.

That, quite aside from imposing a suspended sentence for firebombing a place of worship - which strikes me as absurdly lenient. If such a sentence was imposed on some folks firebombing a mosque, I'd be very critical of it. The suspicion would definitely exist that if the target were (say) a Christian Church, such leniency would not have been forthcoming.

[Malthus]

Nazi antisemitism was motivated by politics, just like the court found the defendants, so it seems weird for the Germans to be more lenient here.

Doesn't seem that weird to me that Germany might have some extra severe Nazi-specific statutes on the books.

Palestinians are, presumably, unlikely to ever actually be German Nazis; if that were the distinction, then identifying them as "Palestinians" would, presumably, be the end of the legal exercise.

[Jacob]

The Nazis could well argue they don't attack Jews for their "religion" either, but because Jews are all involved in international conspiracies against Aryans.

I see no real distinction between that, and claiming Jews are all involved in an international conspiracy against Palestinians.

Both involve violence directed at a whole group (Jews) for something the perpetrators claim they are responsible for, without any justification.

That, quite aside from offering a suspended sentence for firebombing a place of worship - which strikes me as absurdly lenient. If such a sentence was imposed on some folks firebombing a mosque, I'd be very critical of it. The suspicion would definitely exist that if the target were (say) a Christian Church, such leniency would not have been forthcoming.

Yeah for sure, no argument from me on any of those counts. It only really makes sense if the law in question is  understood to be targeting Nazis - even if it's not so explicitly worded - and the judge found the defendants to be "not Nazis". As such that is my hypothesis for explaining what happened.

[Jacob]

Palestinians are, presumably, unlikely to ever actually be German Nazis; if that were the distinction, then identifying them as "Palestinians" would, presumably, be the end of the legal exercise.

And my theory is that that is what happened in substance, even if the verbiage was different. And I expect that the argument against applying the harsher penalty is that the Palestinians in question were in fact enough like Nazis that the law should apply.

... it's just speculation, though. I could be completely wrong.

[Malthus]

Palestinians are, presumably, unlikely to ever actually be German Nazis; if that were the distinction, then identifying them as "Palestinians" would, presumably, be the end of the legal exercise.

And my theory is that that is what happened in substance, even if the verbiage was different. And I expect that the argument against applying the harsher penalty is that the Palestinians in question were in fact enough like Nazis that the law should apply.

... it's just speculation, though. I could be completely wrong.

It is certainly possible. Would be interesting to see the actual verdict, if a version were available in English ... but I have no idea how possible that is. 

[The Brain]

Nazi antisemitism was motivated by politics, just like the court found the defendants, so it seems weird for the Germans to be more lenient here.

Doesn't seem that weird to me that Germany might have some extra severe Nazi-specific statutes on the books.

I'm just going on what the article and Mal said, Nazi-specific statutes don't appear to be in play.

[Admiral Yi]

It's a dumbass ruling.  Firebombing a synagogue in Germany purportedly because of Israeli policy shows that you can't differentiate between the political and religious/ethnic.

[dps]

...imposing a suspended sentence for firebombing a place of worship... ...strikes me as absurdly lenient. If such a sentence was imposed on some folks firebombing a mosque, I'd be very critical of it. The suspicion would definitely exist that if the target were (say) a Christian Church, such leniency would not have been forthcoming.

Yeah, I think that trying to firebomb anything should probably cost you at least a year in prison, regardless of your motivation.

[Razgovory]

I didn't know the story was from last year.

[Camerus]

I heard today that the Qing dynasty had 5 official languages. That included Mandarin and Manchurian of course,  but also Mongolian, Tibetan and Uighur. Qianlong was fluent in all 5.

[Monoriu]

I heard today that the Qing dynasty had 5 official languages. That included Mandarin and Manchurian of course,  but also Mongolian, Tibetan and Uighur. Qianlong was fluent in all 5.

Never heard of Uighur being an official Qing language.  But I am not surprised about Tibetan and Mongolian.  The Qing nobility and dynasty supported Tibetan Buddhism, so they learned it for religious reasons.  The Manchus and Mongolians had a long history of inter-marriage, so a lot of Qing princes had Mongolian mothers.