Höcke initially succeeds, later faces criticism

Initially, Höcke achieves success, but later on, he faces condemnation.

Björn Höcke and his team show a strong confidence in their win at the end of day four in the trial. They see this as a fight for freedom of speech. However, the verdict leads to a different outcome than they had hoped.

Höcke finds himself in a losing position - at least for now. As the judge prepared to announce the verdict at the Halle District Court, he still expressed confidence. He had criticized the prosecutor's closing statement, calling it "nothing special."

Throughout his statements, Höcke oscillated between a teacher's compassion, a political professional's sharp tone, and the dramatic attitude of an unfairly persecuted person.

"Very disappointed" was Höcke's response to the lack of ideological neutrality from the prosecution. "Don't you understand the facts?" he questioned. "How could you still trust what the media are saying? We've spent four days together; we're seeing things from the same angle." He also urged people to "forgive him for his emotional response," as it "hurts him a lot" to be depicted as something he doesn't agree with.

"Am I not human?"

Höcke lamented the restrictions on free speech in the country. "Am I less important than others, do I have no human dignity, am I not human?" he asked, emphasizing his treatment by the media as if he's not a real person. "Yes, I really do feel persecuted politically," he declared.

After 18 minutes of Höcke's speech, Judge Jan Stengel interrupted him and asked him to stay on point and avoid election speeches.

Höcke then maintained that he had never extensively studied National Socialism. "I am innocent, and I have a clean conscience. The only thing I am guilty of is a political act," he claimed.

Judge Stengel disagreed and sentenced Höcke to a fine of 100 daily penalties of 130 euros each, equaling a monthly salary for the AfD politician. Höcke looked anxious as his victory confidence diminished. He now faced the possibility of having a criminal record. His lawyer, Ulrich Vosgerau, had already announced their intent to appeal the case to the Federal Constitutional Court and, if necessary, even to the European Court of Human Rights, where they would inevitably emerge victorious.

The judge responded dismissively to the planned appeals, "We don't care if you plan to appeal or not." The next step was a case to the Federal Court of Justice.

The significance of the SA slogan

The fine fell short of the prosecution's request for a six-month suspended prison sentence. Höcke faced charges and eventual conviction for concluding an election campaign speech in Merseburg with the slogan "Everything for our homeland, everything for Saxony-Anhalt, everything for Germany." According to some legal opinions - which Höcke's defense team contested - "Everything for Germany" is a slogan from the SA wing of the NSDAP, making it as punishable as other Nazi-era slogans. In the court's view, Höcke violated section 86a of the German Criminal Code, making the use of banned and terrorist organization symbols punishable.

Höcke admitted to saying the phrase, but his defense team denied its National Socialist origins. "Alles für Deutschland" was not a genuine SA slogan, either during the Nazi regime or today, implied the defense team, and the assumption that Höcke must be aware of the slogan simply because he's a history teacher and has studied Nazi history was "unrealistic." In the defense's view, it was the trial that gave the phrase notoriety. They also argued that Höcke did not intentionally break the law and that the phrase was not punishable in the first place. If Höcke felt he was committing a crime, it would have been a "delusional offense," Vosgerau said, meaning Höcke would believe in his guilt without actually committing a crime.

They planned to call a witness, fellow retired history teacher Karlheinz Weißmann, to present their case. He would testify that the slogan wasn't a genuine SA slogan and that it was unreasonable to assume Höcke would know the phrase only because he studied history and worked as a history teacher.

Weißmann's statement holds true, but due to court regulations, he's only considered an "expert witness" and not one with full authority. There's a possibility that he could be affiliated with the AfD, and judge deems him as being "pushed" into the court. He denies this, and reveals he had only met Höcke once, before his political career, and he's been involved with the "new right" for some time, writing for "Junge Freiheit" and serving on the board of the AfD-linked Desiderius Erasmus Foundation, alongside Vosgerau.

During the expert witness's 80-minute interrogation, it becomes evident that he finds it "extremely unlikely" that ordinary people would be acquainted with the SA slogan. He argues that these words didn't have strong ties to the SA in the past. While the slogan originated in the 19th century and was used by SPD-associated groups like the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, he believes this contrasts with his statement about SA soldiers wearing uniforms with the slogan "Alles für Deutschland" (Everything for Germany).

Weißmann goes on to explain that the slogan originated from SPD-affiliated organizations during the Weimar era and later gained a Christian resistance reference, assigning it "Alles für Deutschland, Deutschland für Christus". During the 1934 NSDAP party congress, the slogan was showcased in the Luitpoldhalle, Nuremberg; Weißmann reckons it's an exception.

Once his questioning is over, Müller, the lawyer, shares that this is a matter of professional expertise. His associate Vosgerau smiles in contentment.

After lunch, it's time for the pleas. Prosecutor Bernzen opens with addressing the notion that it's unrealistic to believe Höcke was unaware of the Nazi connection to the slogan. He explains that it's not the court's responsibility to show that Höcke hadn't known this. All that's needed is for his words to be discredited, implausible, and unconvincing.

Bernzen points out that Höcke frequently used Nazi language and vocabulary. For instance, he'd called SPD politician Sigmar Gabriel a "spoiler of the people", uttered the term "Tatelite" (originally a self-designation of the SS), and referred to AfD as a "movement party", resembling Hitler's "party of movement". He further explains that Höcke spent significant time researching National Socialist language and ideology and adapted it.

Bernzen neglects to mention the evaluation by the AfD federal executive board in 2017, classifying Höcke as having an "affinity with National Socialism", or his involvement in a neo-Nazi demonstration in Dresden in 2010. Judge Stengel rules out admitting such evidence since the events in question occurred too long ago. Moreover, a video of Höcke in the demonstration was disallowed since it was deemed inadmissible. Instead, he focuses exclusively on the information shared during the trial. Hoping to prove Höcke's knowledge of the slogan's Nazi connotations, Bernzen stresses his close association with Oehme and Ziegler, who were both in legal trouble over similar matters.

Höcke's legal team presented two different tactics in their defense. The first, played by Ralf Hornemann, took a combative approach, labeling the media coverage of the case as a "witch hunt" and accusing the judiciary of being "completely addicted to wokeness." He further argued that the phrase "Alles für Deutschland" is inoffensive and understood by "every home-loving German" and any foreigner alike.

Meanwhile, lawyer Müller took a more diplomatic approach, acknowledging that the event in Merseburg held "right-wing" connotations, but insisting that it bears no relation to the Nazi regime. Müller argued that the prosecutor's case was built on speculation and pointed out that the accused may have simply been unaware of the historical context of the slogan.

However, Vosgerau, Höcke's third lawyer, took the defense a step further. Not only was he arguing for his client's innocence, but also for the acquittal of the controversial phrase "Alles für Deutschland." He raised constitutional concerns about Section 86a, accusing the law of protecting "feelings" rather than the free democratic basic order. Vosgerau even explicitly stated his intention to appeal the case to the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, implying that the latter would fruitfully support his stance.

Speaking directly to the lay judges, Vosgerau warned that a guilty verdict would strike fear into the hearts of every citizen, potentially suppressing their right to express their opinions. He insisted that this matter wasn't just about Höcke, but represented a critical moment for the core of freedom of expression.

In conclusion, Judge Stengel delivered the verdict with a subdued tone, acknowledging the changing interpretations of the phrase "Alles für Deutschland" since the Nazi era. He also noted that refraining from believing everything brought to the court was essential for its operation. He found no justification for a prison sentence, deeming it "completely excessive," but also expressed reservations regarding the constraints on freedom of expression. Stengel concluded by stating that though they had diverging views on the matter, it was not within their power to abolish Section 86a.

--8<--

Höcke's defense lawyers exhibited two distinctive tactics during the trial. Hornemann, the initial pleader, adopted a stern stance, suggesting a "witch hunt" against Höcke by the media and implying that "the relevant moral guardians" had a bias towards woke ideologies. He emphasized the absurdity of criminalizing the phrase "Alles für Deutschland," asserting that it didn't infringe upon anyone's basic rights.

Subsequently, Müller, the second lawyer, pursued a softer approach. He agreed that the Merseburg event was "right-wing" but disconnected from the Nazi era. Müller also conceded the possibility of Höcke's ignorance about the slogan's history and severity.

Lastly, Vosgerau, Höcke's third attorney, boldly extended the defense. He dismissed the conclusion of the Higher Regional Court in Hamm (2006) that had linked "Alles für Deutschland" to the SA. He saw the provision as an encroachment on the right to express opinions. Vosgerau made it clear that he intended to appeal the decision to the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, foreshadowing potential positive outcomes.

While appealing to the jury, he expressed concern about the potential consequences of convicting Höcke. He projected a strong stance, claiming it could intimidate German citizens from asserting their freedom of speech. Vosgerau highlighted the significance of this case, asserting that a guilty verdict was a matter of principle and not just for his client.

Judge Stengel delivered his verdict with a formal tone, acknowledging that the verdict's interpretation of "Alles für Deutschland" had evolved compared to the Nazi era. He also threw in some pathos, reminding the audience that courts and teachers both had a responsibility to use language judiciously. Then, addressing Höcke, he conveyed that he believed his client to be an articulate and intelligent man, but also criticized his lack of awareness about the historical context of the phrase. Acknowledging the unease surrounding the expression of certain opinions, Stengel still declined to impose a prison sentence. He deemed it far too harsh and not proportionate to the offense.

Moreover, Stengel hinted at a tension between freedom of expression and the legal boundaries: "We also have the impression that the guise of freedom of opinion is being severely strained." Nonetheless, he dismissed the idea of amending Section 86a, stating that allowing citizens to freely exhort "Heil Hitler" would contradict the very purpose of this provision.