Approving a war of aggression is a criminal offense (nd-aktuell.de)

Brandenburg Minister of Justice Susanne Hoffmann (CDU)

Brandenburg Minister of Justice Susanne Hoffmann (CDU)

Brandenburg Minister of Justice Susanne Hoffmann (CDU)

Photo: dpa/Soeren Stache

The judiciary in Brandenburg is currently pursuing, among other things, the offense of “approving a war of aggression”. If evidence can be provided, there will be criminal proceedings, Attorney General Andreas Behm assured the Judiciary Committee of the state parliament on Thursday. There he took stock of his central office against hate crime, which had been set up a year ago.

Case numbers have increased

Justice Minister Susanne Hoffmann (CDU) spoke of an “increasing number of crimes” in the field of hate crime. The central office made this necessary. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of offenses recorded rose from 359 to 523. The number of so-called propaganda crimes committed by unconstitutional organizations rose from 195 to 315 in the same period, and the number of cases of hate crime on the Internet rose from 103 to 223 within a year. This can partly be explained by the 2021 federal election. Such cases increased in election years. The central office was set up to counter the threat, explained Behm. Two prosecutors have been assigned to do so. He was not given more prosecutors for this.

The current phenomena are discussed in a monthly video conference, and the individual public prosecutor’s offices are informed of what forms the basis for coordinated action against hate crime. In this context, Behm mentioned the offense of “approving a war of aggression.” In addition, the central office is dedicated to spreading hate in social networks, which is likely to disturb public peace. Here it is important to determine how many people have been activated by a hate attack “in order to be able to affirm the point of publicity”.

The central office does not process hate crimes itself, but is in contact with the responsible public prosecutor’s office. However, the Attorney General’s Office took charge of three of these cases because they appeared “particularly important” in the matter, according to Behm.

The activity of the office includes the linking of legal work with the appearance of civil society. The fight against anti-Semitism, for example, was a priority. You see yourself as “part of a network” that spans the entire Federal Republic. A guide to combating anti-Semitism is being developed, said the Attorney General.

The network’s staff who fight hate crime also have crimes against politicians in mind, Behm continued. It cannot be ruled out that the activities of the central office will result in more criminal offenses being included in the statistics. A greater willingness to report cases is definitely wanted and is made even easier by the website that has been set up, on which those affected can report it. When he was senior public prosecutor in Berlin and devoted himself to hate speech related to the sexual orientation of the victims, the willingness of the “community” to report such crimes increased significantly, Behm said.

Almost all procedures are discontinued

But why would almost all proceedings initiated for insults be discontinued – “even though the perpetrators have been identified” and the insult as such has been established? That’s what MP Marlen Block (left) wanted to know. “That’s the wrong signal.” The judiciary has responsibility, emphasized Block. It could have a deterrent effect if the punishment followed immediately after the insult.

With politicians, it is difficult to determine whether abusive criticism is still permitted or whether it is actually a punishable insult, explained Behm.

In view of the increase in hatred, there must be “a robust stop sign from the state,” said SPD MP Erik Stohn. Politicians, including volunteer local politicians, have a right to respect. Stohn is bothered by the length of the proceedings, which often lead to “frustration”. A matter concerning himself was discontinued after two years with the decision that it was not relevant under criminal law, but only abusive criticism that he had to accept.

Abusive criticism or insult?

Minister of Justice Hoffmann pointed out that the case law places “high requirements” on declaring a statement to be a criminal offence. She wants to counter the impression that the judiciary is acting carelessly or hastily. Rather, the country is pursuing a zero-tolerance strategy. Hoffmann justified the large number of proceedings with the fact that there was “legally no other possibility”. A conviction was not to be expected.