As most of you already know, back in August the German Counterjihad activist Michael Stürzenberger was sentenced to six months in prison for posting on Facebook a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem shaking hands with a Nazi. For those who are not familiar with his case, in the video below Mr. Stürzenberger does an admirable job of explaining it himself.

The latest twist: the prosecution has already filed an appeal, because they believe the defendant deserves an even harsher sentence than the one handed down by the trial judge.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

References:

Video transcript:

0:00 Just when you think it couldn’t get any more absurd,

0:03 you actually get schooled that indeed things can be even worse.

0:06 As many of you know, on August 18th

0:09 the circuit court of Munich

0:12 sentenced me to six months in prison

0:15 and a three and a half year term probation,

0:18 all because I posted an actual historical article

0:21 on Facebook, with a historical photograph of

0:24 the NSDAP [Nazi] Gauleiter [regional leader] of Saxony,

0:27 Martin Mutschmann,

0:30 who is shown here peacefully shaking the hand

0:33 of the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini.

0:36 Because of this, I was accused of the unlawful

0:39 use of an anti-constitutional symbol,

0:42 here, oooohhh… a swastika!

0:45 And, well, this is just something that is shown

0:48 on historical photographs from the Nazi time, right?

0:51 But also we do have a penal code,

0:54 and in it — paragraph 86 — it is clearly defined

0:57 that the use of historical photographs

1:00 is allowed.

1:03 Namely, this applies basically

1:06 when the propaganda symbol, the swastika, is being used

1:09 in an informative way for the civil population, check,

1:12 for the resistance of anti-constitutional aspirations, check,

1:15 for research, check, and when it’s used for

1:18 reporting events and for historical purposes.

1:21 All these criteria were met by my article.

1:24 But the judge, Sonja Birkhofer-Hoffmann,

1:27 had it in her mind that I had to be judged

1:30 additionally for insulting Islam,

1:33 paragraph 166 in the penal code,

1:36 because I in fact did use the affirmation

1:39 from Hamed Abdel-Samad’s book

1:42 that Islam is fascist ideology,

1:45 and this is actually a statement of opinion.

1:48 It’s an assessment, and not an insult.

1:51 And, furthermore, plenty of others

1:54 before me have discerned that,

1:57 for instance Josef Joffe, who is the publisher of DIE ZEIT,

2:00 and he is the recipient of the cross of merit of the Federal Republic of Germany,

2:03 and also the chairman of the board

2:06 of the ex-Muslim council in Germany,

2:09 Mina Ahadi, and also many many other people.

2:12 But it is apparent that there is an obvious intent to intimidate me,

2:15 and therefore the trial for my appeal shall proceed very very quickly,

2:18 because I have just now received this letter from the Munich district court

2:21 that my appeal hearing will take place on December 5th.

2:24 You can make a note of that: at 1pm hours in courtroom A229

2:27 on the second floor on Nymphenburgerstrasse 16.

2:30 It is recommended

2:33 that you get there early, because the last time

2:36 the courtroom was full to the last seat;

2:39 some had to wait outside,

2:42 unfortunately, because they came too late.

2:45 And now for the real heart of the matter

2:48 of the whole ordeal:

2:51 the Munich prosecutor’s office has

2:54 filed an appeal in this already

2:57 outlandish judgment,

3:00 because obviously they seek an even higher punishment.

3:03 The reason: the degree of penalty does

3:06 not do justice to the offense, and does not do justice enough

3:09 in light of the personality of the offender.

3:12 I guess they would love to just throw me in jail for good.

3:15 And that’s why I am already wearing an appropriately striped

3:18 suit. All I need is a tooth brush;

3:21 off we go, and then I would never utter

3:24 another word about Islam. I bet

3:27 that’s what they would love, right?

3:30 But, not with us, we will not be intimidated and we will not bend.

3:33 The grounds for appeal is 18 pages long.

3:36 It is already done, and in it

3:39 this ridiculous verdict by the judge

3:42 Sonja Birkhofer-Hoffmann has been scrutinized

3:45 and demolished down to the last detail.

3:48 And… they probably believe… that they can silence me with the

3:52 concentrated power of the judiciary and

3:55 the Munich District attorney.

3:58 But I have this little card here by my computer.

4:01 It says: “A headwind makes you strong.”

4:04 We patriots will not let them buffalo us,

4:07 because we know that all the facts

4:10 and all arguments are on our side, and if there should be

4:13 a perversion of justice occurring, then even more so.

4:16 So, December 5th, mark it in the patriotic calendar.

4:19 This will end up with either a verdict of acquittal,

4:22 which is what we are 100% sure is going to happen,

4:25 If everyone acts according to the law,