A) “Does Germany claim extraterritorial jurisdiction for all acts that are illegal under German law and committed in other nations or just for issues related to the authenticity of the “Holocaust” narrative?
ONTARIO CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION BLASTS MONIKA DETENTION AS ILLEGAL & DEMAND CANADIAN GOV’T ACTION TO FREE MONIKA FROM HER “UNJUST & IMMORAL IMPRISONMENT
July 16, 2018
Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice
Dear Ministers Freeland and Wilson-Raybould:
Re: Imprisonment of Canadian Monika Schaefer in Germany for a video expressing a view about the Nazi holocaust
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) advocates for civil and human rights, including the human right of freedom of expression, opinion and belief.
The OCLA is concerned about an apparent unwillingness of Canada to come to the aid of a Canadian political prisoner in Germany, who is charged using a German criminal law that does not exist in Canada and that is categorically contrary to international law.
Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1976. As you know, General Comments (GC) of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) interpret and specify the ICCPR covenant and constitute international law.
At paragraph 49 in General Comment No. 34 [CCPR/C/GC/34, 2011] the UNHRC determined:
Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States
parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Therefore, the German law in issue, which criminalizes negative expression about the historical events of the Nazi holocaust, is a so-called “memory-law” (HRC term) that violates the human right of free expression. It carries a maximum jail sentence of five years.
We have reviewed the reason given that Ms. Schaeffer was arrested, charged and detained in Germany when she travelled to that country. It is her -minute video titled “Sorry mom I was wrong about the holocaust”, which she made in Canada about Canada and published from Canada, and which the CBC embedded in its July 15, 2016 article entitled “Hate speech complaint filed against Jasper woman for Holocaust denial video”:
In this way, the CBC participated in a criminal offence under German law (perpetrated in Canada), which is absurd.
We ask you both to do everything you can to save Monika Schaefer from her on-going unjust and immoral imprisonment in Germany and that you tell your efforts in this regard publicly. Ms. Schaefer’s trial is in progress. In particular, we ask Canada to appoint a consular observer and direct contact for Ms. Schaefer immediately.
Every day that Canada refuses to act or acts ineffectively is a day that Ms. Schaefer spends in a
foreign jail. Therefore, we express the required urgency.
Please let us know your responses so that we may report these on our website.
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
Monika Schaefer read out her personal statement, which according to the judge is usually not permitted. But the judge accepted that Monika dos not speak German perfectly, hence he decided to make an exception. Monika related how she became engaged politically and how she felt herself deeply drawn to Green politics. She campaigned many times for political office. That had all continued till she had learnt that Israel’s wars were being justified by false claims. There-upon she left the party. She had learnt very early to think for herself.
She had made the video herself. Once she had made the film and put it in the public domain, she then felt a feeling of relief and felt freed from a heavy burden. She had always held her parents under a general suspicion, but now she knew that there was nothing to reproach them with, because History was quite contrary to what we had been told since 1945. This was this reason why she had apologized to her mother.
As a consequence of the success of the video, she had lost many friendships; and a campaign of ritual defamation commenced against her. For example, in a small newspaper of a town with five thousand inhabitants, readers’ letters started appearing, written by readers from quite other districts, who would not normally read the news-paper. These readers’ letters served the purpose of defaming her. At the beginning, she had to force herself to go to her front-door. However when one deliberately and with conviction breaks such a taboo, because one knows that the official claims regarding the period 1933 -1945 are a shabby lie, then such ritual defamations are easier to bear. Every attempt had been made to intimidate her. For example, she always rides by bicycle, and one day at the traffic lights a car had sped away from her throwing the sand of the street against her. Also attempts had been made to ruin her financially. Not a single student from her locality came any more to take instruction on violin-playing. A regular witch-hunt was organised against her. This witch-hunt had split the community in which she lived. Whilst many had turned away from her, on the other hand, many others whom she did not know had come to her; and they could not understand what was happening. In July 2016 a new local law gave permission for music to be played in the local park close to her. A licence for this was needed, but this licence was refused to her. Finally her brother had made the offer, that it was better to come to Germany, if the situation in Canada should become too dangerous for her.
The judge asked, why she had made a video rather than chosen to write an article. Also he wanted to know why she had given advice as to where information on the subject could be found, for example referring to the video about Ernst Zundel or “Questions about the HC.” Monika replied that she herself had found the sources very helpful in order to understand everything. She wanted to invite everybody to learn more in order to understand what had really taken place in the period of 1933 to 1945. In reply to the question from the judge, why she found the lie so shabby [threadbare, seedy, mean], Monika declared because the intention was that the guilt feelings should continue for ever. The fact that she was in prison proved that. — Richard Edmonds
Bill Whatcott surrounded by 25 or so supporters as he speaks to a Calgary Police officer moments before being arrested.
Anti-LGBTQ activist appears at Stampede parade two weeks after turning himself in
By MADELINE SMITH
Fri., July 6, 2018
https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2018/07 … lf-in.html
CALGARY—An anti-LGBTQ activist who turned himself in on a Canada-wide warrant in Calgary two weeks ago appeared Friday with protest signs at the Stampede parade.
William Whatcott surrendered to Calgary police on June 22 for charges of wilful promotion of hatred, which stemmed from accusations of distributing 3,000 pamphlets to attendees at Pride Toronto’s 2016 parade that contained what Toronto police call “hateful” content. At the time of his arrest, he said he regretted nothing and had “absolutely no apologies to make.”
On Friday, Whatcott was equally unapologetic.
“I haven’t changed my mind on very much,” he said.
He said he plans to stay in Calgary for “at least a little while.”
Video and photos on Whatcott’s Facebook page show him holding signs, one that references “homosexuals” and Muslims. In one of the videos, two people confront Whatcott as he says, “We’ve got a right to preach.”
Whatcott said he was in Calgary police custody for one night and spent one further night in the Calgary Remand Centre before he was taken to Toronto, where he was in jail for two days before his bail hearing. He came back to Alberta shortly after his release.
He said the Stampede protest did not violate any of his bail conditions, which include not replicating the pamphlet his hate-related charges stemmed from, informing police of any address changes and staying at least 500 metres away from any Pride parade.
Neither Calgary nor Toronto police could confirm what conditions he had to follow.
Whatcott’s next court date is July 23 in Toronto, but his lawyer Charles Lugosi said Whatcott would likely not have to appear in person until the trial begins.
Lugosi said Toronto-based lawyer Daniel Santoro represented Whatcott at his most recent court appearance.
A public talk by two controversial Canadians accused of hate speech has been cancelled after Auckland’s mayor Phil Goff banned them from all council venues.
Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, who are best known for their far-right alternative views on everything from feminism, gender and immigration to Islam, were set to perform at the Bruce Mason Centre on 3 August.
However, Auckland Mayor Phil Goff tweeted that venues should not be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions and that Ms Southern and Mr Molyneux would not be speaking at any council venues.
Auckland Live which runs the centre as well as the Auckland Town Hall, Aotea Centre and Civic Centre, tweeted the event had been cancelled because of security concerns.
The event organiser said the decision was disappointing and a blow for democracy.
David Pellowe from Axoimatic said Mr Goff had the wrong idea about what the pair wanted to talk about.
“He’s misrepresented the purpose of the events as to stir up ethnic and religious tensions. He’s misrepresented them as views that divide rather than unite,” he said.
“It’s very sad for democracy and for debate.”
‘It doesn’t mean that we should ban them’
However, human rights criminal law barrister Craig Tuck said the pair should be allowed to come to New Zealand and talk about their ideas.
“There’s a lot of their sort of talk worldwide at the moment and that’s attracting debate, people are getting educated on the issues and that’s probably a good thing.
“This sort of discussion is alive whether we like it or not.”
Mr Tuck said dangerous ideas were not the same as dangerous people.
“You’ve got people annunciating political and social views but they’re not specifically coming to New Zealand to commit crimes, they’re coming to New Zealand to spread ideas – however hateful they may be.
“They’re undeniably racist but it doesn’t mean that we should ban them.”
He said debate needed to happen in an educated and thoughtful way.
Mr Pellowe said it was too late to try and organise a new venue but they hoped to still host a evening with Ms Southern and Mr Molyneuax for New Zealanders via the internet.
He said those who had purchased tickets for the event at the Bruce Mason Centre would get a full refund.
Earlier this year, Ms Southern was banned from entering the UK on the grounds of her involvement “in the distribution of racist material in Luton”, according to the BBC.
‘She’s just going to insult all of us’
The Islamic community voiced their opposition to the visit last month.
New Zealand Federation of Islam Associations president Hazim Arafeh said it had written letters to the Immigration Minister, Minister for Ethnic Communities and the Human Rights Commission asking for Lauren Southern to be denied entry.
“[She] abuses her right of freedom of speech. She’s just going to give a talk in which she’s just going to insult all of us,” Mr Arafeh said.
“I don’t think insulting Muslims comes under free speech, that’s an abuse of freedom of speech.
“I’m talking on behalf of 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims in New Zealand who are going to face a very hard time by all the comments she is going to make.”
A petition with more than 1500 signatures has also been launched on change.org appealing to the Immigration Minister to deny Lauren Southern entry.
However, Ms Southern, who is a journalist, activist and film-maker, said she should be allowed in.
“As soon as there are people who want to shut down free speech and freedom to come and even visit your nation just because of a differing opinion you can tell you’ve got the bug of progressivism,” Ms Southern said.
“The bug of this almost very totalitarian left-wing ideology which will not end well for you.”
She said herself and Mr Molyneux would talk about a range of issues affecting New Zealand.
“Immigration, western culture, the preservation of western culture and largely the infectious liberal or far-left ideologies that are coming and working their way into our media and why they will lead to the economic, social and political fall of our nations.”
Ms Southern said what she had to say was not hate speech.
“[Hate speech] is just a fancy word to describe speech that is unpopular during that day and age,” she said.
“A few hundred years ago, I wouldn’t be able to question the divine rule of whatever god is in my land, I wouldn’t be allowed to be pro-gay or pro-mixed race marriages, today it’s you’re not allowed to be anti-mass migration, you’re not allowed to question crazy LGBTQ politics.”
‘Anti-immigrant, anti-refugees… anti-feminist’
Massey University far-right expert and pro vice chancellor Paul Spoonley said some of what the pair say was considered hate speech.
“Some of the things that Molyneux has said about apartheid being a white survival policy and not a racial supremacist policy and then attacking some of the people who say it is something else … some of the things they say are really quite direct and would be very hateful to a number of communities,” Mr Spoonley said.
“They’re part of a broad coalition of people who at their soft end would be pro-Trump but at the hard end – which I regard both of these being – very white supremacist or believe in the racial superiority of white people, they believe that immigration undermines countries.
“They’re very anti-immigrant, anti-refugees and they’re anti-feminist.”
Mr Spoonley said there was an alt-right community within New Zealand but it was small.
He said banning people entry to New Zealand would need to meet a high threshold and the decision warranted a public discussion.
An Immigration New Zealand spokesperson said they were aware of the two Canadian nationals and was assessing whether any action needed to be taken under the Immigration Act and Immigration Instructions.
Mr Molyneux heads the organisation Freedomain Radio, an online group that was described as a cult.
Mr Molyneux has been contacted for comment.
Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening
Der vierte Tag in München begann wieder sehr spektakulär.
The fourth day in Munich started again very spectacularly. But let us have a process observer report who has already gathered some information for us over the past few days:
Der heutige Tag begann recht turbulent. Nach dem Erscheinen des Inquisitionsgerichtes fragte der Vorsitzende in den Zuschauerbereich, wer ein Herr X sei. Als dieser sich meldete wurde er konfrontiert mit dem Vorwurf, daß er am Vortag im Vorraum eine Staatsanwältin beleidigt haben soll, indem er zu ihr gesagt habe, er wünsche ihr, daß sie auch mal einen Knast von innen sehen würde, was der Richter – außer sich vor Erregung – mit 4 Tagen Ordnungshaft bestrafte.
Today began quite turbulently. After the appearance of the Inquisition court, the chairman asked the audience who a Mr. X was. When he reported himself, he was confronted with the accusation that the day before he allegedly insulted a public prosecutor in the lobby by saying to her that he wished that she would also see a prison from the inside, which the judge punished – besides himself with excitement – with 4 days in custody.
Unmittelbar nach dieser Verkündigung wurde Herr X von Polizisten aus dem Raum geführt. Sein Hinweis, daß doch sein Auto noch irgendwo dort draußen stünde, wurde vom Richter wütend beantwortet mit der Aussage, das sei ihm egal. Er schrie Herrn X regelrecht an: „Gehen Sie rauß, ich will sie hier nicht mehr sehen“. Unvermittelt wendete er sich auch an Alfred Schäfer mit der Frage, was er denn davon halte. Alfred Schäfer antwortete, er wolle sich dazu nicht äußern, weil Wörter in diesem Gericht stets uminterpretiert würden und ihm ein Kommentar dazu deshalb zu gefährlich sei. Die Sitzung wurde anschließend für kurze Zeit unterbrochen, weil der Richter erklärte, er brauche jetzt erst einmal 5 Minuten, um sich zu beruhigen.
Immediately after this announcement, Mr. X was led out of the room by police officers. His statement that his car was still out there somewhere was angrily answered by the judge with the statement that he did not care. He really shouted at Mr. X: “Get out, I don’t want to see you here anymore”. Suddenly he also asked Alfred Schaefer what he thought of it. Alfred Schaefer replied that he did not want to comment, because words in this court are always reinterpreted and a comment is therefore too dangerous for him. The hearing was then suspended for a short time because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.
The fourth day, From a process reporter:
Als die Sitzung wieder eröffnet wurde, hat der Rechtsanwalt von Alfred Schäfer den Antrag gestellt, den Richter wegen Befangenheit abzulehnen. Daraufhin wurde die Sitzung für 2 Stunden unterbrochen, der Antrag jedoch mit Beginn der Verhandlungswiederaufnahme vom Staatsanwalt wegen „Aneinanderreihung von Vermutungen“ abgelehnt.
The fourth day, From a process reporter:
When the hearing was reopened, Alfred Schaefer’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the judge on the grounds of partiality. Thereupon, the sitting was suspended for two hours, but the motion was rejected by the public prosecutor at the beginning of the resumption of negotiations on the grounds of “juxtaposition of suspicions”.
Anschließend erfolgte die Fortsetzung der bereits am Vortag begonnen Videovorführungen. Erneut wurde auf zwei Symbole hingewiesen, die in dem Video einander gegenüber gestellt werden. Links im Bild wird ein Judenstern gezeigt und als Pendant dazu rechts im Bild ein Hakenkreuz, was in dem Video von Alfred Schäfer als Symbol des Bösen dargestellt wird, da er seinerzeit noch geglaubt habe, das Hakenkreuz stehe für das Böse. Diese Gegenüberstellung der beiden Symbole ist offenbar Gegenstand der Anklage.
Afterwards, the video presentations, which had already begun the day before, continued. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed in the video. On the left side of the picture a Jewish star is shown and on the right side a swastika, which is shown in Alfred Schaefer’s video as a symbol of evil, because at the time he still believed that the swastika stood for evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is apparently the subject of the charge.
In dem Video, dessen hohe Verbreitung großes Erstaunen bei Gericht auslöste, wird Prof. Noam Chomsky von einer Universität in Amerika zu 9/11 befragt. Prof. Chomsky erklärt in dem Interview, daß keine Beweise für eine Involvierung der amerikanischen Regierung in den Terroranschlag vorlägen. Alfred Schäfer hatte Prof. Chomsky aufgrund dieses Interviews angeschrieben und verliest in dem Video seine Briefe an Prof. Chomsky sowie dessen Antwortbriefe. Prof. Chomsky hat die Briefe von Alfred Schäfer zwar beantwortet, allerdings ohne die von Alfred Schäfer gestellten Fragen konkret zu beantworten, was Alfred Schäfer dazu veranlasste, seine Briefe strenger zu formulieren.
In the video, that had a high distribution rate that caused great astonishment in court, Prof. Noam Chomsky from a university in America is questioned about 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no evidence that the American government was involved in the terrorist attack. Alfred Schaefer had written to Prof. Chomsky based on this interview and read out his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his reply letters in the video. Prof. Chomsky answered Alfred Schaefer’s letters, but without specifically answering Alfred Schaffer’s questions, which prompted Alfred Schaefer to formulate his letters more strictly.
Als der Richter einen „aggressiven Umgangston“ bei seinem Briefwechsel mit Prof. Chomsky rügt, erklärt Alfred Schäfer, man müsse schließlich verstehen, daß Prof. Chomsky im englischsprachigen Raum „ein Guru“ sei und seine Ausführungen über 9/11 aber doch eine große Enttäuschung darstellten, weshalb er ihn als „feigen Verräter“ und „Zionistenfaschisten“ bezeichnet habe. Prof. Chomsky habe eine große Chance vertan, denn er hätte sich rehabilitieren können. Stattdessen habe er für seine „Glaubensbrüder“ seinen guten Ruf auf‘s Spiel gesetzt und sich mit dieser Einlassung selbst seine ganze Größe vernichtet, obwohl er ihm doch eine eindeutige Faktenlage präsentiert habe.
When the judge reprimands an “aggressive tone” in his correspondence with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schaefer explains that one must understand, after all, that Prof. Chomsky is “a guru” in the English-speaking world and that his statements on 9/11 were nevertheless a great disappointment, which is why he called him a “cowardly traitor” and “Zionist fascist”. Prof. Chomsky missed a great opportunity because he could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he risked his good reputation for his “fellow believers” and with this statement destroyed all his greatness, even though he had presented him with a clear factual situation.
Der Richter warf Alfred Schäfer auch vor, er habe auch gegenüber allen „jüdischen Freunden“ von Prof. Chomsky eine Drohung ausgesprochen, in dem er im Video sagt, sie würden sich mitschuldig machen, wenn sie weiterhin über die Wahrheit von 9/11 schwiegen. Wie aus der Pistole geschossen erklärt Alfred Schäfer dem Richter den Unterschied zwischen einer Drohung und einer Warnung anhand eines praktischen Beispiels. Er erklärte auch, daß dieses Video sein erstes Video war und mehr oder weniger den Beginn seines Aufwachprozesses darstellt. Als er erkannte, daß sich manche Leute durch Betrug und Manipulation mehr Geld ergaunern können, als Heerscharen von Arbeitern durch ehrliche Arbeit, habe das bei ihm einen politischen Denkprozess angestoßen.
The judge also accused Alfred Schaefer of also making a threat to all of Prof. Chomsky’s “Jewish friends,” by saying in the video that they would be complicit of guilt if they continued to remain silent about the truth about 9/11. Alfred Schaefer explains the difference between a threat and a warning to the judge using a practical example. He also explained that this video was his first video and more or less represents the beginning of his awakening process. When he realized that some people can obtain more money through fraud and manipulation than armies of workers through honest work, this triggered a political thinking process in him.
Das zweite gezeigte Video ist ein Interview mit Henry Hafenmayer zum Thema „Die Drahtzieher unserer heutigen Situation“. Die Kommentierung dieses Videos wurde auf die folgende Woche vertagt.
The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmayer on the topic “The masterminds of our current situation”. The commentary on this video has been postponed to the following week.
Anschließend wurde ein Zeuge vernommen, der behauptete, Alfred Schäfer habe mit seiner Rede auf der Gedenkveranstaltung in Bretzenheim am 25.7.2017 Hetze betrieben. Außerdem habe Alfred Schäfer seine Rede noch mit einem römischen Gruß für 2 oder 3 Sekunden abgeschlossen. Der Richter befragte den Zeugen noch, ob die Rede vom Publikum mit Applaus quittiert worden sei, woran sich der Zeuge jedoch nicht mehr erinnern konnte. Dem Gericht wurde ein Foto aus dem Video gezeigt.
Subsequently, a witness was called who claimed that Alfred Schaefer’s speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on July 25, 2017 was instigation (hate). In addition, Alfred Schaefer concluded his speech with a Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge asked the witness whether the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, which the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.
Alfred Schäfer erklärt anschließend dem Gericht, daß er in dieser Rede schlicht das wiedergegeben habe, was ihm sein Vater über die Rheinwiesenlager erzählt hat und, daß er sich dagegen verwahre, seinen Vater als Hetzer zu verleumden. Sein Vater habe als Kriegsgefangener in den Rheinwiesenlagern beobachtet wie Gefangene gesund hinein gebracht wurden, aufgrund der vorsätzlich herbeigeführten lebensbedrohlichen Umstände bald jedoch erkrankten und wie täglich LKWs mit den Leichen der verstorbenen Kriegsgefangenen abtransportiert wurden, ohne daß man erfuhr wohin. Sein Vater habe die Rheinwiesenlager nur durch glückliche Umstände unbeschadet überlebt.
Alfred Schaefer then explained to the court that in this speech he simply reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and that he would not slander his father as an agitator. His father had observed as a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps how prisoners were brought in healthy, but soon became ill due to the deliberately caused life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks with the corpses of the deceased prisoners of war were transported away without being told where. His father survived the Rhine meadow camps undamaged only by fortunate circumstances.
Der Antrag auf Haftverschonung von Monika Schäfer wurde abgelehnt mit der Begründung, daß sich am Tatvorwurf nicht geändert habe.
Monika Schaefer’s application for exemption from detention was rejected on the grounds that the accusation had not changed.
Auch heute war die Verhandlungsführung im Zuhörerraum teilweise wieder sehr schlecht zu verstehen.
Die Termine für die weiteren Verhandlungstage sind der 12. und 13. Juli jeweils ab 9:15 Uhr. Quelle: http://die-heimkehr.info
Again today, the conduct of negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes very difficult to understand.
The dates for the further hearing days are July 12 and 13, each starting at 9:15 a.m. Source: http://die-heimkehr.info
Es wunderte uns nun nicht, daß die Tänzerin der ersten Verhandlungstage wieder zugegen war. Schließlich musste sich die – mit solch schrecklich bösen „Flüchen“ belegte – heute gleich ärztlich versorgen lassen. Während ihres Auftritts am gestrigen Tag ließ die ärmste nicht erkennen, daß sie so zart besaitet ist. Wenn wir beobachten was die Verfolgten der BRD alles über sich ergehen lassen müssen – unsere Monika wird schon seit 3. Januar gefangen gehalten – möchte man nur noch brechen. Willkommen im jüdisch-bolschewistischen Rechtsstaat.
We were not surprised that the dancer [nickname by the author for the female prosecutor] from the first days of the hearing was present again. After all, she had to get medical care today – after being covered in such terribly evil “curses” [not meant literally]. During her performance yesterday, the poor woman did not reveal that she was so delicately strung. When we observe what the persecuted in Germany have to endure – our Monika has been held captive since January 3 – one only wants to just puke. Welcome to the Jewish-Bolshevik constitutional state.
Dennoch gibt es auch immer etwas erfreuliches zu berichten. Immer wieder erscheinen zu solchen Prozessen neue Zuschauer, denen nun auch die Augen geöffnet werden. Nicht nur wegen dem Material was in der Verhandlung gezeigt und besprochen wird, sondern auch wegen den Zuständen die in einem BRD Gericht herrschen. Die Menschen sind regelrecht erschrocken darüber, daß sie so viele Jahre die Augen davor verschlossen haben, so uninteressiert waren.
Nevertheless, there is always something pleasing to report. Again and again new spectators appear for such processes and their eyes are now also opened to them. Not only because of the material that is shown and discussed in the trial, but also because of the conditions that prevail in a FRG court. People are really shocked that they have closed their eyes to it for so many years and were so uninterested.
Jetzt aber, manche nach nur einem Tag als Zuschauer, sind sie sich darüber im klaren: Wir müssen diesen Wahnsinn beenden, so lange wir noch ungestraft atmen dürfen!
But now, some, after only one day as spectators, they are aware of this: We must stop this madness while we can still breathe with impunity!
COURT DAY 2 July 3rd Tuesday: Caption: Alfred Schaefer Released After One Night in Prison!(a small victory)