After Saturday’s white supremacist riots and violence against counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, community members in the city and people nationwide are still reeling. Reported Nazi sympathizer James Alex Fields, Jr., plowed his gray Dodge Challenger through a group of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old legal assistant Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of hit and run.

Fields’ attack was only one piece of the violence on Saturday. White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates beat counter-protesters and marched through the streets of Charlottesville with Nazi flags, white supremacist images, and anti-Semitic chants. Following the weekend’s attacks, people are passing around the blame for the white supremacists’ acts of terror in Charlottesville.

In an interview with NPR’s David Green, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe explained that the city of Charlottesville had tried to relocate the rally to a more open park about a mile and half away from Emancipation Park, outside of downtown Charlottesville. However, the ACLU of Virginia joined a lawsuit against Charlottesville after the city refused to allow “Unite The Right” organizer Jason Kessler and his supporters to access Emancipation Park on Saturday for the previously approved demonstration.

“That rally should not have been in the middle of downtown – to disperse all those people from the park where they dispersed all over the city streets,” McAuliffe told NPR. “And it became a powder keg. And we got to look at these permits, and we got to look at where we put these rallies and protesters. I got to protect public safety.”

The ACLU of Virginia’s Executive Director Claire G. Gastanaga fired back at McAuliffe on Monday, condemning the violence that took place in Charlottesville but defending her organization’s involvement in the lawsuit against the city.

“We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest,” Gastanaga said. “It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.”

She said the city had failed to present sufficient evidence to the judge that moving the location of the rally would in fact result in no demonstration in downtown Charlottesville, instead of creating a situation in which the city would have to deal with two demonstrations in two separate locations.

“But let’s be clear: our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events,” Gastanaga said.

Over the years, the ACLU has taken somewhat of an absolutist stance on First Amendment rights, even defending speech that it hates. The organization was recently criticized by one of its own attorneys after the ACLU decided to defend Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer and speaker who is infamous for espousing hate against people of color, Muslims, immigrants, transgender people, and other marginalized individuals.

The events in Charlottesville and the ACLU’s defense of the constitutional rights of white supremacists, Nazis, and other hate-mongers raises an important question: what happens when the First Amendment–or any constitutional right for that matter–is used to protect hate and oppress other people?

In United States v. Schwimmer (1929), a pacifist applicant for naturalization was denied U.S. citizenship because she expressed that she “would not take up arms personally” in defense of the country. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted that the Constitution protects thoughts that we may not agree with.

“Some of her answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought–not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” Holmes wrote.

That idea has been applied in other cases over the years and has evolved to include hate speech as part of protected speech. The Supreme Court upheld that principle in June when it reaffirmed that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Matal v. Tam dealt with the right of Asian American musician Simon Tam and his band “The Slants” to trademark their band name. The band’s trademark application was originally denied because of the band’s inclusion of a racial slur used to refer to Asians in their name.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s restriction of “speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

Of course, there are exceptions to that rule as well. The “fighting words” doctrine, which arose out of the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) decision, has been used to curtail speech used to incite violence. According to Chaplinsky, fighting words are “words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.”

So where does the legality of the language used in Charlottesville fall on the protected/unprotected speech spectrum? Well, it can be a bit tricky. During the Charlottesville riots, white supremacists and neo-Nazis chanted anti-Semitic phrases like “Blood and soil,” which is derived from language that was used in Nazi Germany. However, if those chants were not spoken directly to a specific person, precedent may deem them to be hate speech but not fighting words. In other instances, rioters targeted specific individuals with racial and homophobic language. In those cases where particular individuals were singled out, a court might find that the aggressor was using fighting words.

Under current legal precedents, restrictions on free speech are not the clearest. What is clear is that hate groups are able to use discriminatory language that instills fear in marginalized communities without necessarily experiencing repercussions for that speech.

But it is also important, and perhaps more effective, to call out hate speech within our own communities. Eliminating hate speech is an important step in combating racism and other forms of hate, but people must also be willing to confront the beliefs and behavior that language is rooted in. Organizations like the subscription-based service Safety Pin Box provide substantive ways that allies can actively show their support for marginalized people, beyond mere social media posts “in solidarity.” People can also donate to anti-racism organizations and call their local, state, and national representatives in regard to specific issues. The events in Charlottesville are an overt demonstration of white supremacy, but they are only symptomatic of more systematic white supremacist structures. In order to combat white supremacy and other forms of hate, people must first address oppressive language and behavior in their own lives among family, friends, co-workers, and other community members.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens When the First Amendment Is Used to Protect Hate? appeared first on Law Street.

The father of a participant in the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, has published an open letter to his son, denouncing his “hateful opinions” and saying he is no longer welcome at family gatherings.

Peter Tefft of Fargo, North Dakota, attended the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, where white nationalists gathered to protest the removal of a statue of confederate general Robert E. Lee. Participants met with counter-protesters and police in an explosion of chaos and violence that left dozens injured and one killed after a rally participant drove a car through the crowd.

Peter Tefft’s father, Pearce Tefft, published the letter to North Dakota-Minnesota news site Inforum on Monday morning. In the letter, Pearce Tefft writes that he and his family “loudly repudiate” Peter’s white nationalist rhetoric–which he calls “hateful and violent”–and emphasizes that the family does not share these beliefs.

“His hateful opinions are bringing hateful rhetoric to his siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews as well as his parents,” Pearce writes. “None of his beliefs were learned at home. We do not, never have, and never will, accept his twisted worldview.”

In the letter’s closing, Pearce urges his “prodigal son” to renounce his hate and return home, where he will be welcomed only if he decides to “accept and love all.”

“We have been silent up until now, but now we see that this was a mistake,” the letter reads. “It was the silence of good people that allowed the Nazis to flourish the first time around, and it is the silence of good people that is allowing them to flourish now.”

“A Maniac…Crazy Nazi”

Peter became the center of local controversy in Fargo earlier this year, when posters showing his photo and calling him a Nazi and a white supremacist were posted in the city’s downtown area in February.

He spoke with several news organizations about his involvement in the Charlottesville rally and defended his views, which he calls “100 percent pro-white.” Before traveling to Virginia, Peter penned a letter, published on Inforum, encouraging other white conservatives to “advocate for our civil rights” and warning them of “the left’s plan for demographic displacement.”

Peter wrote that he was attending the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville to “stand up for rural, traditional Americans” and rally around the statue of Lee.

“We seek to create a contrast between our position and the left; we like debate and they don’t,” he wrote. “Maybe we will even teach the left a lesson or two about the dangers of censorship and how angry it makes people.”

Peter’s image and participation in Charlottesville went viral this week after the Twitter account @YesYoureRacist posted his photo, garnering thousands of retweets and likes.

This charming Nazi is Pete Tefft of Fargo, ND — spotted in @UR_Ninja‘s video: https://t.co/2oslzXHtRZ #GoodNightAltRight #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/Zqd2gm8mOC

— Yes, You’re Racist (@YesYoureRacist) August 12, 2017

Jacob Scott, Peter Tefft’s nephew, responded to the viral tweet in a statement, calling Peter a “vile person” who has made “violent threats” against his own family. Scott wrote that several family members had been harassed, both in person and online, by strangers who are under the assumption that they also endorse Nazism.

“We are all bleeding-heart liberals who believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings,” Scott wrote in a statement to Inforum. “Peter is a maniac, who has turned away from all of us and gone down some insane internet rabbit-hole, and turned into a crazy Nazi. He scares us all, we don’t feel safe around him, and we don’t know how he came to be this way.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Father of Charlottesville Rally Participant Denounces “Hateful” Son appeared first on Law Street.

During a vacation to Berlin, a pair of Chinese tourists stopped at the historic Reichstag building and took photos performing the infamous Nazi salute. The duo were promptly detained by the German police on the scene and held on a bail of 500 euros for violating a German law aimed at distancing the nation from its horrific mid-20th-century history.

Police guarding the building, which now houses part of the German Parliament, noticed the tourists taking turns posing and snapping pictures and promptly intervened, according to their statement. The pair, a 36-year-old and a 49-year-old participating in a European tour, were allowed to return to China with their group even though their crime could carry a three-year sentence, according to the Washington Post.

The Reichstag is a particularly sensitive location because of its role in the Nazi rise to power. When the Reichstag caught fire in 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party blamed the fire on Dutch Communists and used it as leverage to access more power. In 2011 a Canadian tourist was also arrested and fined for performing the salute in front of the building, according to the Washington Post.

The incident is yet another example of Germany, and other European nations, criminalizing and condemning Nazi history and its recent resurgence. In this case, the tourists violated provisions of the German criminal code instituted after World War II that ban the salute and many other Nazi symbols, signals, and materials.

Since the war ended, Germany has made strides to distance itself from its history and to educate the new generations on the mistakes made by previous generations. The German public school system has a comprehensive education program on the Holocaust that has only gained momentum in the past few decades, according to PBS.

Nazi flags and symbols are banned across nearly every major country in Europe including Austria, Hitler’s home nation. Earlier this month the Switzerland Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man performing the salute and yelling “Heil Hitler” outside of a Jewish synagogue in Geneva, according to the New York Times.

Not only is Europe cracking down on the distasteful behavior, but the Chinese government is worried as well. The government is testing out new systems to persuade its people to respect local laws and customs when traveling abroad. One new system would keep track of troublesome tourists and rank them based on severity of their behavior while reminding them to behave properly when they land, according to the Washington Post.

So while the behavior may not surprise the Chinese government, it is certainly frustrating for European nations, and particularly Germany, to constantly deal with tourists making ill-advised Nazi references. As the world sees a resurgence in white nationalism and racial strife these instances are part of a larger global problem that likely has no end in sight. Countries across the globe must tackle issues of discrimination, racism, and their individual histories that are often filled with those same problems.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Tourists Arrested Over Nazi Salute at Reichstag appeared first on Law Street.

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:

Students Boo Betsy DeVos’ Commencement Speech

Yesterday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was met by booing and chanting students when she gave a commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman University in Florida. At times the jeering was so loud it drowned out her words, and several students stood up and turned their backs on her. The speech was supposed to last for more than an hour, but she wrapped it up after 20 minutes. The school’s president, Edison Jackson, warned the students that unless they stopped their behavior, their degrees would be mailed to them, and at least one student was escorted out.

Many in Bethune Cookman University graduating class turning their #BackstoBetsy Davos during commencement speech @NBCBLK pic.twitter.com/tUQTvW7ZxH

— Mariana_Atencio (@marianaatencio) May 10, 2017

Students criticized their school for giving them such short notice on who their commencement speaker was going to be, and on Tuesday, a group of students delivered a petition with what they claimed were 60,000 signatures to stop DeVos from speaking. But university officials said only 6,000 signatures were properly filled out. Now a lot of people are upset with the school for inviting DeVos in the first place, and also for giving her an honorary doctorate.

@FecklessBube @mollyhc @BuzzFeedNews The insult to those students has been foisted upon them by their tone deaf leadership. DeVos should never have been invited.

— Mike Prater (@emsprater1) May 10, 2017

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: May 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Governor John Kasich appears to be officially going after Trump, and going after him with a vengeance. He just released a new ad, “Trump’s Dangerous Rhetoric,” that slams Trump for his views on Muslims, Black protestors, Hispanic immigrants, and journalists.

The language in the ad, narrated by Air Force Colonel Tom Moe, is directly reminiscent of a quote by Martin Niemöller, a Protestant pastor who spoke out strongly against Hitler before being put in a concentration camp. During a few different lectures and speeches he gave a variation of this quote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

During other speeches, Niemöller occasionally invoked other groups, including Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists. But regardless of which group was included, the message remained the same–if you stand by and watch as others are progressively subjected to human rights abuses, you are complicit.

It’s not a huge surprise that one of the toughest ads against Trump so far in the campaign season came from Kasich–those two have been spatting back and forth for a while. While I’m not sure anyone expected him to compare Trump to a Nazi, it’s also not entirely inconsistent with concerns posited by the more establishment side of the Republican Party. In fact, some have started to refer to Trump as “fascist.” Jeb Bush’s national security advisor John Noonan recently tweeted: “Forced federal registration of US citizens, based on religious identity, is fascism. Period. Nothing else to call it.” Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, whose own presidential campaign has been pretty dismal, said that Trump’s proposal to remove undocumented immigrants from from the U.S. amounted to “fascist talk.” Other advisors and political commenters have used the term “fascist” as well–Kasich’s ad just appears to be playing on those comments.

But it will be interesting to see if such a hard-hitting ad makes any dent in Trump’s poll numbers. Trump is currently at about 27.5 percent in the polls, while Kasich is hovering a little under 3 percent. So far, Trump’s lies, awfully offensive statements, and other seemingly major issues haven’t made a dent in his commanding lead–will Kasich’s ad finally do the trick?

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 John Kasich’s New Ad Kind of Calls Donald Trump a Nazi appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

On Monday, 93-year-old Oskar Groening, an SS guard assigned to Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II, was charged with 300,000 counts of accessory to murder by German prosecutors. Not many of us were alive to experience World War II, but I know someone who was around back then who tells stories like it happened just yesterday. My grandmother, also 93, recounts stories from that time, and my grandfather’s brother was a B-24 bomber pilot who was killed in France in 1944.

So many families all over the world were affected by that war, most notably by one of the most vile men this world has ever seen — Adolf Hitler. More than a million people lost their lives between 1935 – 1945. Groening, in particular, has always been very open about his experiences at the concentration camp. He recounted a horrendous story to German Magazine Der Spiegel in 2005 of witnessing “another SS soldier grab the baby by the legs and smashed the baby’s head against the iron side of a truck until it was silent.”

German authorities are able to charge Groening with these 300,000 counts thanks to the trial of former camp guard John Demjanjuk in 2011. In a legal first in Germany, a Munich court found that simply demonstrating Demjanjuk’s employment at the camp, rather than his involvement in specific murders, was enough to implicate him in the killings committed there. Demjanjuk was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for helping the Nazis kill almost 30,000 Jews during his time at the Sobibór extermination camp in German-occupied Poland during World War II. Demjanjuk was sentenced to five years in jail, which seems a bit unfair given the extent of the crimes, but at 91 a life sentence could possibly only be a few more years than that.

It’s frustrating to know that people like Groening and Demjanjuk were able to live long lives without answering for what they had done. I know that it is difficult to really say what they actually took part in and how much fear they may have had if they went against Hitler, but at some point they made a decision to participate, and that is something they have to pay for. There can be so much hatred and evil in a single person.

There are still more than 20 people remaining for the German courts to prosecute in conjunction to war crimes from War World II, but for now focusing on Oskar Groening is good enough. Every family deserves justice when it comes to the death of loved ones.

In Oskar Groening’s case it isn’t just the families who deserve justice — it is the entire world.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [leliebloem via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 93 Year Old Charged With 300,000 Counts of Accessory to Murder appeared first on Law Street.

“If during a study-abroad trip to Indonesia you stumble across an image of the Führer, don’t be surprised,” reported Vice News earlier this summer. “The swastika is also everywhere — on walls, cups, ashtrays, and t-shirts — and it’s not the Buddhist kind.” Stickers, posters, and stenciled graffiti images of Adolf Hitler litter the cities of Indonesia aside images of weapons and bullets. But the Nazi graffiti is not limited to illegal marks; street vendors sell posters and framed prints of a fiery Adolph Hitler delivering an impassioned speech. A prepubescent boy wears a burgundy T-shirt that reads “PUNK NAZI” emblazoned with a swastika. “I don’t idealize Hitler, I simply adore the soldiers’ paraphernalia,” said Henry Mulyana, owner of Soldaten Kaffee (German for ‘The Soldiers’ Café’) in Bandung City, which opened in 2011. Customers can order “Nazi goring” (a version of traditional fried rice) served on swastika-motif china by a waiter wearing a black SS uniform.

The recent bizarre phenomenon of Nazi imagery in Indonesia would be absurdly laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. Indonesia’s poor education system and historical ignorance may be at the root of the irreverent prevalence of Nazi imagery. Indonesia is a diverse country consisting of more than 300 ethnic groups and over 700 languages, yet few of the nation’s 240 million people receive formal education about race relations. Schools omit world history curriculum, which, according to the Jakarta Globe, contributes to the ignorance of sensitive social topics. “It is not uncommon,” says the Conversation, “for Indonesians to say ‘I like Hitler’ when meeting someone from Germany.”

“Contrary to their European peers, Indonesian students hardly receive any history lessons on World War II. They know nothing about the persecution of Jews, for example,” according to a history professor at the Gadjah Mada University of Yogyakarta in Java. “They see Hitler as a revolutionary, similar to Che Guevara, not as someone who is responsible for the death of millions of Jews…[T]hey’re attracted to emblems of Nazi Germany because they’ve become acquainted with these symbols through punk and hard-rock videos. In their view, these symbols are a representation of rebellion.”

Adolf Hitler bumper sticker, Lombok Barat, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Courtesy of Klaus Stiefel via Flickr

The evidence pointing to Indonesia’s poor education system, however, suggests a more fundamental issue at stake in the resurgence of Nazi imagery. From 1967 to 1998, Indonesia was ruled by an authoritarian, pseudo-Fascist government that strictly controlled school curriculum. “The Ministry of Education prohibited teachers from educating students on international genocide, political violence, or racial conflicts,” said Gene Netto, an English teacher from Jakarat. “Most students graduated without ever having heard of the Holocaust…Students were only taught about the glory and grandeur of Indonesia as a country.”

Indeed, Indonesia has a historic relationship with Nazis specifically and Fascism broadly. During the 1930s, while Indonesia was under the control the Netherlands, Nazi publications were translated and disseminated throughout the country; Hitler’s concept of a “Greater Germany” inspired similar ideals, “Indonesia Mulia” (esteemed Indonesia) and “Indonesia Raya” (great Indonesia), galvanizing the Indonesian National Party (PNI) that was instrumental in achieving independence from the Dutch in 1949. Soekarno, the leader of the independence movement, and subsequently the country’s first president, revered Hitler’s vision of the Third Reich, declaring in 1963, “It’s in the Dritte Reich that the Germans will see Germany at the apex above other nations in this world.” Suharto, the second Indonesian president, came to power in 1967 following a military coup that deposed Soekarno, immediately consolidating government power around the military, consequently instituting a military dictatorship. Building on Soekarno’s Nazi inspired ideals, Suharto’s regime ruthlessly killed criminal and political prisoners, and conducted genocides, most infamously in East Timor. A pro-democracy Indonesian revolution ended Suharto’s long reign in 1998, but the neo-Fascist rhetoric has resumed once again during the current presidential election.

Prabowo Subianto, one of the two front runners in the Indonesian election, is a “continuation” of Suharto’s “fascist rule,” according to Indonesian scholar Andre Vltchek writing in Counter Punch. Prabowo has historic roots in Indonesia’s autocratic government; not only did his father serve as Suharto’s cabinet minister, Prabowo is Suharto’s son in law, and commanded the Special Forces group that spearheaded a brutal occupation and genocide of East Timor in 1976. Prabowo’s resume gives a clear indication that he will be as authoritarian and as cruel as Suharto, if not more so. As Foreign Policy explains, “Suharto-style authoritarianism remains alive and well,” including politics of exclusion, fear, and intimidation; as a campaign spectacle, Prabowo rode a horse into a stadium full of supporters in formation, wearing white uniforms and red berets. Allusions to Mussolini could not be more complete.

A voting bulletin just after the official closing of elections at a voting station in Jakarta. Courtesy of Lord Mountbatten Via Wikipedia.

What is more striking, however, is that Indonesians seem to embrace the Fascist imagery and political rhetoric. “We need Adolf Hitler! In order to fully restore law and order” a businessman in Sumatra exclaimed. “I’m not personally familiar with the [Nazi] ideology, but even if I am, I don’t think I’d find it completely disagreeable,” said Mulyana, the owner of the Nazi-themed café. “For example, communism in Indonesia was prohibited, but it’s flourishing in China. Maybe it’s just a matter of politics.” In June, Indonesian pop star Ahmad Dhani released a music video in support of Prabowo, dressed in a black Nazi uniform, singing a modified version of Queen’s “We Will Rock You.”

“What is the connection between German soldiers and Indonesia?” Dhani asked rhetorically. “We Indonesians didn’t kill millions of Jews, right?”

The ballots are in but the election is still undecided. Both candidates — Prabowo and Djoko “Jokowi” Widodo — are claiming victory, citing unofficial results conducted by private polling agencies, and accusing each other of election fraud. By law, the Indonesian Election Commission must announce the official results today. Whoever wins, this election marks a clear resurgence of Indonesia’s latent Fascism. The Mussolini-style political campaigns, Nazi-themed cafés, and stenciled images of Hitler plastered through the streets, are not as horrifying, though, as the fact that the Indonesian people seem completely comfortable with the pervasiveness of Fascist symbolism. As we have seen with ‘neo-Fascists’ in Israel, graffiti is a bellwether for subterranean political currents in Indonesian society.

 —

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Feature image courtesy of [Ikhlasul Amal via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nazi Graffiti Indicates Resurgence of Fascism in Indonesia 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.