The Julius Streitcher - Case Study Example

The Julius Streitcher case Julius Streitcher was one of the Nazis convicted of crimes against humanity. It is however significant to that unlike other Nazi criminals, the extent of Streitcher’s crimes were limited to the spreading of anti-Jew propaganda through the Der Strumer newspaper, of which he was the publisher and founder. Streitcher was put to death on the gallows at Nuremberg on October 16, 1946 but was the only Nazi sent to the gallows solely for his speeches and writings against Jews, which were deemed to be criminal acts. It could be argued that sentencing a person to death purely on the basis of the expression of his or her views amounts to a gross violation of the right to freedom of expression that is granted under the Human Rights Act of 1998 that is based upon the principles set out in the European Convention of Human Rights. On the other hand, the inflammatory writing of Streitcher did contribute to a fanning of the hatred of the Jews and the propagation of racist hate speech that indirectly made them the victims of genocide. This essay will consider whether the right to freedom of expression must be upheld and whether there has been a violation of Streitcher’s rights in unfairly sentencing him to execution. This essay will argue that the basic right to not become a potential victim of genocide may be more important than the right to freedom of expression, by focusing upon the case of Julius Streitcher. Julius Streitcher was involved in both the First and Second World Wars. He distinguished himself for bravery during the First World War by winning the Iron Cross First Class.1 After Germany was forced to sign the Versailles Treaty, which became the Treaty of Shame because it specified that Germany was to accept that she was the sole cause of the war, maintain no more than 100,000 men in her army, that her fleet was to be scuttled and she was to pay millions in war reparation damages. This was a dark period in the history of Germany, because every German’s savings were wiped out and Jews were able to acquire businesses and newspapers for a low value, while millions of ordinary Germans were thrown into unemployment. On the other hand, many Jews, who were shrewd businessmen, were able to profit from the turmoil following after the signing of the Versailles Treaty. This was the spur that started off Streitcher’s crusade against the Jews. In his newspaper, he wrote against the rich Jews as follows: "Do you really think the Rothschilds, Mendelsohns, Bleichroders, Warburgs, and Cohns worry about your poverty? As long as these blood brothers are our leaders, and as long as your party officials are Jewish lackeys, you will be no threat to the big money men...”2 In expressing such views, Streitcher slowly began to instigate the belief in millions of Germans that the Jews were not German at all, they were in fact a “foreign” race who were taking over German wealth. He presented this race as a selfish, mercenary and powerful one that was intent upon stealing away from the ordinary German what was his by birthright. For instance, in his newspaper, he openly stated: “As long as you yourself do not lead the way, and as long as the black shadow of foreign blood is behind you, you will be betrayed and deceived. The black shadow cares for itself, not for you."3 The black shadow in this instance, represented the Jews and Streitcher’s calls against them were akin to a call to violence and overthrow of the Jewish race. Streitcher put forth the view that the Germans were a pure breed and also condemned interracial mixing and breeding, stating openly that “a racially pure people, conscious of its blood, can never be enslaved by the Jews. It (Jewry) will only be the master of the mixed races.”4 He blamed the Jews for being guilty of a conspiracy to poison the blood of the superior race – the Germans – with inferior stock. The rampant hatred for the Jews that resulted during the Nazi rule and was instigated by Hitler, was fuelled by such racist sentiments expressed in Streitcher’s newspaper, which ultimately led to the large scale genocide of millions of Jews in Germany. From a legal standpoint, it also appears that the existence of certain laws in Germany during the IInd World War period may have actually contributed to the popularity of Streitcher hate speech. For instance, Paragraph 166 of the Weimar Criminal Code stated clearly that anyone publicly insulting any of the Christian societies or any other religious society with the rights of corporation under federal jurisdiction would be punished with imprisonment for three years.5 Since the provisions of the law therefore extended to public insults against any religious group, hate speech against the Jews was also included under the umbrella of the law, both under para 166 as well as other provisions. When Streitcher published his radical views about the Jews in his newspaper, he was convicted under this law in 1929 and sentenced to a term of two months, for the crime of libel of the Jewish religion under para 166 of the Weimar code. This prison sentence, rather than serving as a deterrent from hate propaganda, only functioned as a spur to popularize Streitcher. The jail sentence however, resulted in Streitcher’s racial views receiving a much greater degree of popularity than they would have if the publication of his newspaper had been allowed to continue unchallenged. This may especially be noted in the fact that after this legal verdict was given against Streitcher, in the short period of two weeks, the Nazi Party was able to triple its vote as compared to the earlier 1927 elections.6 The importance of individual freedoms and liberties has been recognized under the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 10 of the ECHR deals specifically with the freedom of expression and states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”7 Applying this in Streitcher’s case, it could be argued that he had the right to freedom of expression of his views and opinions on the Jews, and the concomitant right to propagate those views using his newspaper Der Strumer. But it must also be noted that Article 10 further clarifies that the exercise of the freedom of expression is also linked to some responsibilities, i.e, it may be “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of ....prevention of disorder or crime.....or the protection of the reputation or rights of others....”8 Moreover, it must also be noted that Article 2 of the ECHR states that “everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.  No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law”. It could be argued that Streitcher was deprived of his life unfairly, without due recourse to the process of law and a fair trial, as stated later in this essay through the views of Porter9. However, it must be noted that Article 2 would also apply to the Jewish individuals who were deprived of their lives through genocide generated by the hate speech of Streitcher. Article 5 of the Convention also specifies that everyone has the right to “liberty and security of person.”10 This was violated in the case of the Jews, and they were deprived of their lives without due recourse to the law or to a fair trial in a court of law. Additionally, Article 3 of the ECHR also states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”11 This must also be viewed in the context of Article 14 of the ECHR that states “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority.....”12 Applying these rights in the context of the Jews who were victims of genocide, it must be noted that there is a clear violation of the basic human rights of life, freedom against torture enshrined in the ECHR, with clear discrimination having taken place against the Jews purely on the grounds of their race and ethnic origin and the fact that they were a minority in Germany. In the light of all these Articles, the very fundamental right of the Jews to be protected against genocide has been flagrantly violated. The major issue to be considered therefore, is whether this violation of rights by genocide of Jewish victims is to be considered over and above any violation that may have occurred to Streitcher’s right to freedom of expression and right to liberty and a fair trial. The limitations expressed under Article 10 would also apply in Streitcher’s case because his exercise of his right to freedom of expression indirectly led to the crimes being committed against Jews, because of the hatred against Jews that was provoked in the readers of Der Strumer. In effect, Streitcher convinced an entire nation to hate the Jews and to blame them for the troubles that Germany was facing after its setbacks in the First World War. The right to freedom of expression is only protected to the extent that it does not flagrantly violate the rights of others and in this instance concerning the Jews, it is evident that several basic fundamental rights of the Jews in Germany were violated. The question that must therefore be considered where Streitcher is concerned, is whether the expression of his opinions and views through his newspaper, albeit full of hate for the Jews, can be subjected to preventive laws, especially when it would interfere with the fundamental rights that individuals have to express their views. In discussing the application of the law in the context of racist hate campaigns, Associate Professor Caroline Evans of Melbourne University’s Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies argues that the expression of hate sentiments can be linked to crime, because the world’s greatest atrocities are preceded by words of hate.13 She then goes on to point out how Rwanda and Yugoslavia as well as in Nazi Germany, provide examples of hate speech which also led to mass killings because of the violent hate sentiments that they generated in their recipients. According to Victorian Human Rights Commissioner Helen Skoze14 inciting racial and religious hatred can produce seriously harmful emotional and psychological effects, and may also breed violence which was also a factor that played a crucial role in the systematic annihilation of the Jews during the Nazi regime. On this basis, she has argued that legislation needs to be framed in such a manner that people should not be allowed to actively promote the hatred of another religion and its followers, except for certain artistic and other intellectual purposes.15 Applying this criterion, it must be concluded that Streitcher’s actions in promoting racist sentiments through the hate speech in his newspaper does not fall into the category of artistic or intellectual discussions, but rather as speech directly aimed at actively promoting hatred of another religion. This is exactly what Skoze feels must be prohibited under the law, and therefore if legal standards are applied to Streicher’s propaganda, it would fall under the category of prohibited speech because it is not for artistic or intellectual purposes but to incite hatred of another religion, i.e, the Jews. Hate speech was the subject of a case that came up before the International Criminal tribunal of Rwanda. In the case of The Prosecutor v Nahimana et al16, the defendants had been convicted because of their role in the hate propaganda that was incited and spread using the RTLM (Radio television Libre des Milles Collins). The accusations against this radio station were that it functioned as a medium to not only propagate hate and genocide but also helped to coordinate attacks. In its judgment, the Trial Chamber convicted the three defendants and among the listed charges were (a) genocide (b) direct and public incitement to commit genocide (c) crimes against humanity based upon the responsibility of the defendants for incendiary broadcasts.17 This case is significant because it was hate speech that was its subject, in terms of the extent to which it could contribute to genocide. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, or the Genocide Convention was also applied in this case. The views expressed in the judgment clarify that the law may be applied in such cases, to the extent that an incitement to discrimination and violence could serve as the guide in determining criminal accountability for actions and expressions that contribute to and incite genocide. Although the Tribunal stopped short of actually criminalizing hate speech as the catalyst leading to genocide, it nevertheless successfully convicted the defendants for hate speech on the basis of a broad interpretation of the crime against humanity of persecution.18 This case also assumes significance when assessed in the context of the Julius Streitcher case and suggests that the indictment of Streitcher at the Nuremberg trials cannot be held to be unjustified. In the case of Nahimana cited above, the Court clearly placed the rights of victims to be protected from genocide incited by hate speech over the rights to freedom of expression of the defendants. This case has been decided by applying the laws protecting against genocide as well as the underlying fundamental human rights laws, but the Court’s verdict shows a clear denunciation of hate speech when such speech leads to large scale genocide as was the case in Rwanda. This case represented a deviation from the established principles of Courts to generally uphold the superiority of individual rights of freedom, because it held hate speech to be sufficiently criminal enough as a causative factor leading to genocide of victims.19 In its judgment, the Court also referred to the Streitcher case, in establishing that hate speech can form the basis for a defendant to be convicted of persecution, even if s/he had not directly carried out the genocide. The Court stated: “Unlike the crime of incitement which is defined in terms of intent, the crime of persecution is defined also in terms of impact. It is not a provocation to cause harm. It is itself the harm.”20 While it could be argued that Streitcher did not directly participate in the extermination of the Jews, but was only exercising his right to freedom of expression by printing his negative opinions and views about the Jewish race in his newspaper, the underlying intent was to cause harm. Therefore, applying the precedent in the case of Nahimana, it would appear that the provocation to cause harm would itself constitute the harm, which would be deemed to be a crime and therefore punishable under the law. As a result, the application of the law in Streitcher’s case could hold Streitcher’s publications in the newspaper capable of being deemed a crime because of persecution. In functioning as an inflammatory vehicle to propel feelings of hate in others that led them to commit acts of genocide, his actions would constitute a crime and therefore, his trial and execution would not appear unjustified. Porter however, has argued that the Nuremberg trials were possibly the gravest miscarriage of justice since the witch trials.21 When the IInd World War ended, then an entire hierarchy of Nazi officials were arrested and tried at special courts set up at Nuremberg, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He has argued that the war tribunals that were set up for the purpose of judging Nazi criminals was prejudiced from the start because the guilt of the defendants was already pre-determined rather than allowing them the opportunity for a fair trial. He offers the view that the actions taken at these trials cannot be classified as strictly legal and points out several irregularities such as (a) declaring legitimate organizations to be criminal (b) suspending normal rules of evidence (c) refusing to allow cross examination of the affidavits of witnesses (d) presentation of forged documents and (e) statements by judges prior to the trial that the defendants had already been convicted.22 He also points out that the Charter which set up the International Military tribunal also allowed a wide latitude to the Tribunal in dismissing arguments offered in favour of the defence for the accused Nazi criminals as “irrelevant” or “offensive”. In specifically discussing the trial of Julius Streitcher, Porter offers the following view: “The Streicher case is remarkable in that nations which preach separation of church and state, and freedom of speech and press should conspire with Jews and Communists to hang a man for expressing opinions which were not alleged to have been untrue”23. This raises an important issue in respect of Streitcher’s case, the question of separation of church and State, which automatically separates issues related to the law and issues related to religious matters into separate and distinct categories. Therefore Streitcher, under the laws of freedom of expression, would have the right to his own religious views and opinions, including his opinions about Jews, as well as the right to express them, especially when it could be argued that they were justified to some extent because the Jews had, in fact, cornered much of the power in Germany. But since Streitcher was not directly involved in the killings, he was effectively condemned under the Law merely for expressing anti-Semitic sentiments. Conclusions: The case of Julius Streitcher thus raises the important issue – was there a violation of justice and was the trial of Streitcher blatantly unfair, violating his rights to freedom of expression? In the light of the discussions offered above, the major issue raised is that Streitcher’s right to freedom of expression was violated. Since Streitcher was guilty of propagation of hate but was not directly responsible for the crimes committed, was it fair to sentence him to execution? The doubts that have been raised on the validity of the Nuremberg trails and whether or not the defendants were allowed access to a fair trial further complicates the issue because in the light of the discussion above and the views expressed by Porter,24 it would appear that the verdict rendered in Streitcher’s case was unjust. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights also specifically allows every individual the right to freedom of expression and although the ECHR had not come into being at the time of the IInd World War, the criterion established by the ECHR needs to be applied in assessing whether or not Streitcher’s rights were violated and the conclusion that must be reached appears to be in the affirmative. However, this also needs to be balanced against the rights of the Jews to not be victims of genocide. As discussed earlier, several articles under the European Convention of Human Rights may be applied in their case, such as for example, the right to life, liberty and security, the right to freedom from torture and the right to freedom from discrimination. The sum total of these rights suggests that there is a basic and very fundamental right that every individual has to be free from potential threats, especially those leading to genocide. While Streitcher might not have been directly responsible for the torture and killing of Jews that occurred in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, there is little doubt that his inflammatory writings have contributed to the feelings of ill will and hatred that existed in the minds of ordinary Germans. It was largely due to the perception that the Jews were a hated minority that ordinary Germans turned a blind eye to the persecution and killings being carried out by Hitler and the Nazi party. Streitcher’s writings contributed significantly to the hatred against the Jews, which led to their large scale genocide and resulted in horrible human rights violations. Thus, when the violation of Streitcher’s rights are balanced against those of the Jews to be protected against genocide, it is the latter that must be given greater importance, especially because the freedom of expression specified under Article 10 of the ECHR is not absolute, but carries certain limitations within it. The rights of one individual or entity to freedom of expression of opinions and views cannot be upheld on a blanket rule basis if in sanctioning and protecting such a right, the basic fundamental rights of several other individuals – in the case of the Jews, about five million of them – are violated, resulting in mass genocide and flagrant violation of basic human rights. References: Brecht, Karl, 2009. “Not guilty at Nuremberg; The German defense case”, The Journal of Historical review, 10(30): 353-356 “Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf; “European Convention on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms”, www.pfc.org.uk/node/328; Evans, C, 2006. “Religious Freedom and Religious Hatred in Democratic Societies” (paper delivered to Castan Centre for Human Rights Law conference ‘Human Rights 2006: The Year in Review,’ Melbourne, 1 December 2006), www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/events/2006/conf-06-evans-paper.html; cited in Edwards, Steve. “The trouble with religious hatred laws”, http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spring_08/links/edwards_spring08.pdf; Skoze, H, 2005. “Religious Vilification Laws Support Our Culturally Diverse Community,’ Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (22 April 2005), www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/News%20and%20Events/speeches/20050422.asp; cited in Edwards, Steve. “The trouble with religious hatred laws”, http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spring_08/links/edwards_spring08.pdf; Orentlitcher, Diane F, 2006. “Criminalizing hate speech: A comment on the ICTR’s judgment in the Prosecutor v Nahimana et al, http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/13/hate_speech.pdf?rd=1; The Prosecutor v Nahimana et al, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber) (Dec. 3, 2003). “The martyrdom of Julius Streitcher”, www.scribd.com/doc/7289617/The-Martyrdom-of-Julius-Streicher; Read More