Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Egypt Declares a State of Emergency After ISIS Bombings

Yesterday, two Coptic Christian churches were bombed in the Egyptian cities of Alexandria and Tanta, and the country’s president has declared a three-month long state of emergency. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the blasts that killed at least 49 people and injured at least 78, according to the latest numbers. Coptic Christians are a targeted minority in Egypt and they often face persecution and discrimination. The explosions happened on Palm Sunday, which marks the beginning of Easter and the Holy Week in Christianity.

Egypt declares 3-month state of emergency after twin bomb blasts in churches packed for Palm Sunday services. https://t.co/zZWwHInKdX pic.twitter.com/DTVnKdhosg

— ABC News (@ABC) April 10, 2017

But Egyptians of various faiths came together late on Sunday, gathering in big groups in defiance of ISIS. Many used a hashtag saying “your terrorism brings us together” in Arabic on social media. Photos posted on social media showed Muslims donating blood to victims of the attack. And President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi called for unity in his speech following the attacks, saying, “What’s happening now is against all of us.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The wife of Vladimir Putin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov faces criticism from around the world after performing a Holocaust-themed ice skating routine on the Russian reality show “Ice Age.”

Former Olympic figure skating champion Tatiana Navka and her partner Andrey Burkovskiy donned Holocaust-era prisoner uniforms that were each fitted with a yellow Star of David for the performance.  The pair skated to Israeli singer Achinoam “Noa” Nini’s song “Beautiful That Way,” which was featured in the 1997 Oscar-winning Italian film, “Life is Beautiful.”

The film tells the story of a father who employs his fertile imagination to shield his son from the horrors of internment in a Nazi concentration camp. Navka posted a collage to Instagram highlighting moments from the performance after the show aired.  She explained that the routine was “based on one of my favorite movies” and noted the importance of Holocaust education for children.

Посмотрите обязательно! Один из моих любимых номеров!По мотивам одного из моих любимых фильмов ” Жизнь прекрасна”! Покажите этот фильм своим детям, обязательно☝️ #ледниковыйпериод @tatiana_navka @aburkovskiy PS : Наши дети должны знать и помнить о том страшном времени, которого надеюсь-даст Бог, они никогда не узнают!

A photo posted by Tatiana Navka (@tatiana_navka) on Nov 26, 2016 at 11:22am PST

The routine ended on a gruesome note as Navka stands alone grieving, while Burkovskiy is heard being shot behind her.

The Russian celebrity ice-skating show works similarly to the United States program “Dancing with the Stars” or the UK’s “Dancing on Ice.” The routine seemed to be well-received by audience members, but international backlash followed shortly after the routine aired.

Director of International Affairs at Australia’s Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Jeremy Jones, told CNN that he found the act to have been “unbelievably tasteless.”

“The lack of thought that would have to go into making that decision is almost mindblowing,” said Jones. “Long after they’re forgotten as ice skaters they’ll be remember as people who sunk to such depths to get some celebrity.”

The segment also drew considerable amounts of criticism online as Twitter exploded with negative reactions to the performance.

This might be offensive if they hadn’t take such great care to recreate all the wonderful ice dancing going on at Aushwitz at the time. https://t.co/Nz0iDHqili

— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) November 27, 2016

Producer: Let’s play word association to find a theme for your routine. I’ll start: Ice skating.
Navka: Holocaust
Producer: …Genius

— Lara L-S (@larasouthwell) November 27, 2016

Jones told CNN that he hoped the backlash to the routine would serve as a reminder to the world of the Holocaust’s horrors.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Figure Skater Sparks Outrage With Holocaust-Themed Routine appeared first on Law Street.

I recently wrote about how fashion ads are becoming less and less controversial. But now I think I know where all the controversy went in today’s retail strategy: it has shifted to the product itself. By now you may have heard about Urban Outfitters’ recent bloody Kent State sweatshirt. I’ve read a lot of opinions, including that of fellow Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney, claiming that Urban Outfitters intentionally released the controversial garment in order to increase its recently dwindling sales. I’m not so sure about that though.

Urban Outfitters’ highly offensive Kent State sweatshirt is up for sale on eBay for $2500 http://t.co/0YFxkIMGyr pic.twitter.com/RpTZrUQHUi

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 16, 2014

A few weeks ago, Spanish retailer Zara came under fire for producing a children’s top with a six-pointed star patch on the chest that bore a striking resemblance to the star of David patches that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Last I checked, Zara has been doing pretty well financially. Maybe it isn’t necessarily booming but sales don’t seem to be dwindling either. If anything, producing such a controversial item would hurt its profits and reputation, especially in the dominant European market where the Holocaust occured. It would be a poor choice on Zara’s part if it purposely released a controversial shirt in order to gain publicity.  

The owner of Zara has withdrawn this children’s shirt because of comparisons to the Holocaust. http://t.co/xbyJcuuulR pic.twitter.com/jQ0OKIxPnb — NBCWashington (@nbcwashington) August 28, 2014

While the situation with Urban Outfitters may be a little different, I also don’t think it’s fair to claim that garments go through so many people in production that it would be impossible for someone not to catch something that appears to be a little off. There’s a reason it’s called fast fashion. Unlike more specialized design houses, mass clothing retailers have to move quickly in order to meet consumer demands and make a profit. It’s not like there’s a group of people focused on each item for more than a few seconds at a time. Often the products are presented as a seasonal collection, so details on individual items may be overlooked.

As a writer and someone who works in the creative field, I know what it’s like to look at a project so much that you get sick of it, which may be the case for both the design and production teams in these companies. Also, when you’re working for a company, you look at the product with a completely different mindset than the hypercritical masses that are always looking for a reason to be angry about something. Even The New York Times gets busted for being lazy sometimes. I’m not necessarily condoning such laziness when it comes to editing, but I know for a fact that sometimes it just happens because people are human.

The offending sweatshirt was a one-of-kind vintage piece from Urban Outfitters’ Urban Renewal line, which consists of curated items that may be slightly altered or updated by the company. What seems to be the case with this sweatshirt is that the college apparel was tie-dyed by Urban’s design team in an unfortunate red color. The deep red dots appear to be parts where the dye was more saturated than the rest of the garment. Now if you’ve ever tried to tie-dye before you probably know that it can be pretty damn messy, not to mention difficult to make a consistent design. In this case they only had one item to work with, so if they messed up it was just seen as added character to the unique vintage gem.

While part of Urban’s reputation is to make quirky — and not always politically correct — products, I don’t think this was the case here. Sometimes the viewer reads way more into a piece of art than the artist ever intended. Also, producing a controversial product instead of an ad is a pretty risky business strategy, especially in Urban’s case where the sweatshirt was one of a kind. If anything, they would be at risk of losing even more money if people were to start a boycott of the brand altogether. While I wouldn’t excuse Urban Outfitters or Zara for having such a sloppy editing process, consumers need to calm down when it comes to judging a whole company for a mere oversight.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Neff Conner via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cut Urban Outfitters Some Slack, Mistakes Happen appeared first on Law Street.

Crimes against humanity such as those committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust should never go unpunished. That seems like a completely obvious statement, one that everyone can get behind. But what if the crime was committed 70 years ago by man who is now 89 years old? That’s the question at issue in the case of Johann Breyer.

Since the end of World War II, the world has been on the hunt for members of Hitler’s administration. If a suspected perpetrator was found, he was usually extradited to Germany and put on trial there. This practice has continued all the way into 2014. But should Breyer, an 89-year-old man with signs of dementia, face trial for crimes he is accused of committing at the Auschwitz Death Camp many decades ago?

Johann Breyer has lived in the United States since 1952 when he immigrated here from Czechoslovakia. His mother was born in the United States, which granted him American citizenship. He worked as a toolmaker in Philadelphia, got married and had kids. Then, in 1992, he was accused of having Nazi ties and the Justice Department attempted to deport him.

He was ultimately allowed to stay, as the Justice Department lacked evidence to prove he took an active role in the killings. Breyer claimed he was a guard in the prison section of the camp, and since he was a minor when he served, he could not be held responsible for his actions. Basically, his argument was he took no active role in the killings and was instead forced to be there. This whole debate had little actual impact on Breyer’s life, as his name stayed out of the public eye.

After its failed deportation effort, the Justice Department attempted to persuade the German government to extradite Breyer, but the Germans didn’t act until very recently. After examining camp rosters and newly disclosed documents, the German government now claims that Breyer was not part of the prison guards, but rather a member of the infamous SS battalion, “Death’s Head,” trained to be particularly brutal to prisoners. The German government has charged Breyer with 158 counts of aiding and abetting murder — one for each train that arrived at the Auschwitz Death Camp during the six months Breyer was present. To put that number in perspective, those trains carried approximately 216,000 Jews.

Breyer faced these charges and potential extradition to Germany on Wednesday morning. Though he seemed confused, he told the judge he understood the charges against him, and he is now being held without bail until his extradition hearing on August 21.

The DOJ has charged more than 130 Nazi suspects in the last 35 years, but none were as old as Breyer. This brings us back to my original question — should a man that old, suffering from the onset of dementia, face charges for the crimes he perpetrated more than half a century ago?

My gut reaction to the thought of a nearly 90-year-old man in jail is that no, he shouldn’t be tried at this point; however, it angers me that Breyer got to live a normal, fulfilling life. He is innocent until proven guilty, but if he is proven guilty he does not deserve to die a free man. If guilty, he was complicit in the deaths of more than 200,000 people, yet has gotten to live without consequences. I would imagine that a Holocaust survivor probably feels quite enraged when he hears that a Nazi responsible for such horrific crimes has gotten to live a free life. We owe it to those victims and their families to bring anyone involved in these crimes to justice, regardless of age. Its been 70 years since Breyer committed these crimes, but time hasn’t run out yet.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Greg Heywood via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accused 89-Year-Old Nazi Facing Extradition to Germany appeared first on Law Street.

From 1933-1945 in Germany, thousands of pieces of valuable art were collected, confiscated, or stolen. There were Nazi military units called the “Kunstschutz” who were tasked with acquiring, for lack of a better word, plunder. They took anything of value from Jewish residents and others sent to concentration camps, including money, art, books, and religious items. It is estimated that about 20% of the art existing in Nazi-occupied territory was taken. Hitler planned a massive museum in his hometown of Linz, to display these works, but many went missing after the war. Some of this art was also used for propaganda purposes, featuring certain types of art as “degenerate” and promising to destroy it. They created an almost “freak show” museum, meant to highlight the corrupting influences from which they were supposedly saving the German people. Much of it ended up being stored after this display had finished. Other timeless pieces were simply destroyed. Over the years, stashes of this art have been located in homes, storages areas, basements, and other hidden places. Some of it may never be found.

Last year, a gigantic stash of 1,400 pieces of artwork was discovered in a Munich apartment, although details were just released by German authorities. They were in an apartment owned by a man named Cornelius Gurlitt. The works in the discovery may total more than 1 billion euros. They include pieces by Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Otto Dix, and Marc Chagall. His father, Hildebrand Gurlitt, who had worked as an art dealer for the Kunstschutz, had passed them down.

The legal statuses of these recovered works of art are nothing if not peculiar. Many of the people who originally owned these pieces have since died, and the family members who are still searching for them may have never even seen them in person. There have been resources put in place to help—there are lost art registries, and immediately after the war, there was a group of Allied soldiers, called the Monuments Men, who attempted to return art to their rightful owners. But for the most part, families are left on their own to attempt to regain their relatives’ stolen possessions.

Germany originally did have restitution laws that would allow art to be recovered by individual owners, but most of the provisions expired in the 1966, and others in 1992. There are no active restitution laws for individual owners in Germany. As allowed by the 1998 Washington Conference Principles, the German government has worked hard to find many of the pieces that were stolen from museums and private collections, and return those to their rightful places. But private owners don’t have the same resources, and often cannot lay claim to recovered items. Usually, ownership of the item remains with whoever currently owns the piece, although once these new owners find out how it was acquired, they often do make attempts to return it to its rightful owners, or at least compensate them.

The discovery of these works, and the German government’s inability to provide aid to the private owners created an emotional backlash from the art community. Germany has set up a task force to attempt to investigate the backgrounds of some of these recovered pieces. The lack of legal precedent, outdated restitution laws, and complicated history behind these works of art make it difficult for people to regain the stolen masterpieces. While it’s nice to hope that these works eventually make their way into the hands of their rightful owners, given the inherent logistical issues, it’s unlikely. Yet the German government should take every step it can to make sure that when such works are found, actions are taken to give reparations to or compensate the rightful owners.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Bundesarchiv, Bild via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Art the Nazis Stole: Lost Forever? appeared first on Law Street.