Scandalous verdict: US author CJ Hopkins was found guilty
Scandalous verdict: US author CJ Hopkins was found guilty
The fact that the Tiergarten District Court acquitted author CJ Hopkins in January was not something the Berlin public prosecutor's office was prepared to accept: they appealed - and were proved right
I have already attended various court hearings, including criminal trials - but I have never experienced scenes like the one that took place yesterday, September 30th 2024 at 10.30 a.m. in front of the Berlin Court of Appeal. After the Berlin-based American author and satirist Christopher J. Hopkins was acquitted of the charge of disseminating unconstitutional symbols by the Tiergarten District Court in January, the Berlin public prosecutor's office appealed - and won: the Court of Appeal found Hopkins guilty of disseminating propaganda material of an unconstitutional organization. The case will now be referred back to the district court, which will decide on the level of the sentence. Today's main appeal hearing took place under horrendous “anti-terror conditions”: All visitors had to hand in all their belongings at the entrance to the court - excluding any liability. Even journalists were denied the use of laptops - freedom of the press was therefore definitely restricted on this day. The court staff were also tense and extremely irritable. Some of those waiting outside the courtroom were treated like small children.
A government critic is on trial - and the highest anti-terror regulations apply. The reason why yesterday's trial had to take place under completely disproportionate security precautions was immediately explained to the visitors by Lisa Jani, the press spokeswoman for the Berlin courts, who was bustling around: it had “absolutely nothing to do with the trial” - of course not - but with the fact that yesterday's trial unfortunately had to take place in the only criminal courtroom of the Court of Appeal. The BND trial (German exterior secret service) would otherwise be taking place there - it would be about Russian espionage, FSB and so on, Jani whispered to those present in a conspiratorial voice. Of course, care would have to be taken to ensure that the visitors to yesterday's trial did not install any bugs or similar listening devices in the courtroom. Theoretically, yesterday's trial could also have taken place in one of the civil law rooms of the Court of Appeal - but unfortunately they were all already occupied. They were chronically overloaded. Well - if the courts weren't burdened with so many moronic proceedings à la Hopkins, the judiciary would probably have a lot more free capacity, the good lady would have liked to have been told - but her nerves were already on edge anyway.
I already reported in detail on the exact background to the trial involving the American author and satirist CJ Hopkins in January. In this context, I will therefore only provide a brief briefing on the content of the proceedings: the book cover of his international bestseller “The rise of the New Normal Reich”, which deals critically with the rise of global totalitarianism during the coronavirus era, featured a mask with a swastika shimmering through it. By combining this symbol with the mask, the author Hopkins wanted to express the fact that the mask, just like the swastika in National Socialism, is a symbol of conformity.
However, as many people misunderstand, Hopkins was not even charged for the book cover itself - the latter is completely legal. The indictment only related to two posts, at the time still “tweets” on the platform X, formerly Twitter, in which Hopkins had linked image excerpts of his book cover with a political message that sharply and pointedly criticized the corona regime. He also pointed out the fact that even Karl Lauterbach had acknowledged the symbolic nature of the mask. Below are the two posts for which Hopkins was taken to court for the second time yesterday:
As a result of the prosecutor's order, Hopkins' posts were censored by X, then Twitter, and his book “The Rise of the New Normal Reich” was removed from the German book market. As a result of the penalty order, the author immediately suffered significant economic losses before a verdict had even been reached. In the first court hearing in January of this year, which I also reported on, Hopkins was acquitted of the charge of disseminating unconstitutional symbols - but not without the presiding judge insulting him and disparaging his statements as “ideological drivel”. She also acquitted him, she explained at the time, in order to give the lie to Hopkins' statements that we were in a totalitarian system. Because he was completely wrong. Here is the relevant excerpt from my reporting at the time - when I was still allowed to take notes on my laptop under almost luxurious conditions:
“The defendant was acquitted at the sentencing hearing. In her reasons for the verdict, the judge stated that the “acquittal counteracts your (Mr. Hopkins) statements that you live in a totalitarian state here”. She sensed “a certain arrogance in his statement”, along the lines of “only he understood it, everyone else is stupid sheep”. The others may have been convinced by scientists. After all, it was a completely new situation. The “subjective feeling that you see the new Nazi Germany emerging.... you may already have something totalitarian about you.” She herself was the granddaughter of Nazi victims, so he didn't need to put on airs here. In her opinion, Hopkins' statements were - she said verbatim - “ideological drivel”, but that was “not punishable by law”. At the end of the hearing, the judge left the courtroom wearing an FFP2 mask.”
A totalitarian flavor was palpable in the air before yesterday's trial. After the second security gate, comparable to an airport checkpoint, around 30 visitors jammed into the narrow entrance area of the criminal courtroom, where the infamous BND trials usually take place. The air immediately became stuffy. The security staff handed out notes and pens to the visitors on request - because bringing their own pens and paper was also forbidden under anti-terrorism regulations. Please keep your voices down, the court spokeswoman Lisa Jani reprimanded the adult visitors, who were talking to each other at a normal conversational volume, in a shrill voice with the commanding tone of a day-care center teacher. Just because they were unhappy with the conditions, it was not necessary to throw insults at her. When I objected that none of the people present had even called her anything and that she had probably just made up this accusation, I received a look of the “if looks could kill” category.
Then a court attendant shouted at a bloodcurdling volume, causing the bystanders to flinch involuntarily: “Criminal case CJ Hopkins” and the crowd pushed its way into the courtroom. The trial took place behind a pane of glass, which kept the plebs away from the sacrosanct proceedings. There were no tables or desks - anyone who wanted to take notes had to do so on their knees. That's what I did. Today's trial report will therefore be much sparser than usual in terms of the exact legal argumentation, as I wasn't able to take notes of every detail. I am much faster at typing than at taking notes by hand. Difficult conditions, with limited freedom of the press.
In addition, the speakers were sometimes very difficult to understand due to the great distance from their microphones and behind the glass. I would therefore like to deal only briefly with the arguments of the presiding judge and prosecutor - which, incidentally, were also quite spartan. They didn't even make a special effort. Although the prosecutor appeared deeply relaxed, she avoided looking at the defendant too often and instead concentrated on highly important notes on her paper. The verdict was to be contested as the swastika was a forbidden symbol and no exceptions applied in the Hopkins case, was the main line of argument. He had made the image available to a larger group of people who were not connected through personal relationships, thereby “normalizing” the use of this unconstitutional symbol. Furthermore, the image was not covered by the freedom of art. Art inquisition? - it suddenly flashed through my mind. Have we reached the point again where a state authority is allowed to decide what is art and what is not?
This was followed by a lengthy plea by CJ Hopkins' defense lawyer, Friedemann Däblitz, who presented his case competently and logically coherently. Among other things, he also referred to illustrations of swastikas that had recently appeared on the covers of Spiegel and Stern, which used the symbol in a completely analogous way to his client: The symbol had been used to warn of the return of fascism. Der Spiegel warned against the AfD with the image of the swastika on its cover, while Stern warned against party tourists on Sylt yelling “foreigners out”. The fact that the latter slogan is disgusting is undisputed - but it is questionable why a swastika had to be used to illustrate this fact. Nevertheless, this was legal for Spiegel and Stern for good reasons, as it was their right to use the swastika to draw attention to an imminent return of fascism. Although there had been numerous criminal complaints against the covers in question, these had not been accepted by the public prosecutor's offices. What applies to Spiegel and Stern must also apply to his client in exactly the same way, according to the principle of equality before the law. Däblitz's remarks covered even more aspects, which I am unable to reproduce in more detail here due to my limited documentation options.
Following the defense attorney, the defendant CJ Hopkins was given the floor for his summation, which I consider to be the real centerpiece of the trial due to its brilliance. With Hopkins' kind permission, I may publish his plea in full below.
Statement to the Berlin Appellate Court, September 30, 2024
Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is CJ Hopkins. I am an award-winning playwright, author, and political satirist. My work is read by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. For over thirty years, I have written and spoken out against fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and so on. Anyone can do an Internet search, find my books, reviews of my plays, my essays, and learn who I am and what my political views are in five minutes.
And yet, I am accused by the German authorities of spreading pro-Nazi propaganda. I’m accused of doing this because I posted two Tweets challenging the official Covid narrative and comparing the new, nascent form of totalitarianism it has brought into being — the so-called “New Normal” — to Nazi Germany.
Let me be clear. I did that. In August 2022, as Germany was debating whether to end its Covid mask mandates, I tweeted those two Tweets. I challenged the official Covid narrative. I compared the New Normal to Nazi Germany. I did that with the cover art of one of my books. I did what anyone is allowed to do according to German law. I did what Karl Lauterbach has done. I did what German celebrities like Jessica Berlin have done. I did what major German newspapers and magazines have done.
A few months ago, Stern and Der Spiegel published covers of their magazines featuring swastikas. Der Spiegel’s cover featured exactly the same artistic concept as my book cover and my Tweets. The only difference is, the swastika on Der Spiegel’s cover is behind a German flag, whereas the swastika on my book cover and in my Tweets is behind a medical mask. That’s it. That is the only difference.
Stern and Der Spiegel displayed swastikas on their covers in order to warn the public of the rise of a new form of totalitarianism, and that is precisely what I did. I compared the New Normal — i.e., the new nascent form of totalitarianism that came into being in 2020 -- to Nazi Germany. Stern and Der Spiegel compared the AfD to Nazi Germany. That is the only difference.
I’m not a fan of the AfD. I’m not a fan of Stern and Der Spiegel. That doesn’t matter. Stern and Der Spiegel have the right to do what they did, and so do I. That right is guaranteed to us in the German constitution. We all have the right, if we see a new form of totalitarianism taking shape, to oppose it, and to compare it to historical forms of totalitarianism, including Nazi Germany.
I don’t follow German electoral politics very closely, so I don’t know exactly what the AfD has done that prompted Stern and Der Spiegel to compare them to the Nazis. But I know exactly what the German authorities did during 2020 to 2023.
In 2020, the German authorities declared a national state of emergency, for which they provided no concrete evidence, and suspended constitutional rights. Nazi Germany also did that, in March 1933. From 2020 to 2022, the German authorities forced people to wear symbols of their conformity to the official ideology and perform humiliating public-loyalty rituals. The Nazis also did that. The current German authorities banned protests against their arbitrary decrees. With the help of the media, they bombarded the German masses with lies and propaganda designed to terrorize the public into unquestioning obedience. They segregated society according to who was and wasn’t conforming to official ideology. They censored political dissent. They stripped people of their jobs because they refused to conform to official ideology and follow senseless orders. The German authorities fomented mass hatred of a “scapegoat” class of people. They demonized and persecuted critics of the government’s decrees. They dispatched police to beat them and arrest them. They have instrumentalized the law to punish political dissidents. Nazi Germany also did all these things, as have most other totalitarian systems. I documented all this in my book. I spoke out against it. I published essays about it. I tweeted about it.
My punishment for that has been … well, here I am, on trial in criminal court for the second time. The German authorities had my Tweets censored. They reported me to the Federal Criminal Police Office. They reported me to The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the German domestic Intelligence agency. My book is banned in Germany. The German authorities investigated me. They prosecuted me. They put me on trial for tweeting. After I was acquitted, that wasn’t enough, so they have put me on trial again. They defamed me. They have damaged my income and reputation as an author. They have forced me to spend thousands of Euros in legal fees to defend myself against these clearly ridiculous charges. And today, I, and my lawyer, and all the people in the gallery, have been subjected to this official show of force and treated like potential terrorists.
Why, rational people might ask, have I been subjected to this special treatment, while Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Tageszeitung, and many others who have also tweeted swastikas, have not?
This is not a mystery. Everyone knows the answer to this question.
You are not fooling anyone. Everyone understands exactly what this prosecution actually is. Every journalist that has covered my case, everyone in this courtroom, understands what this prosecution actually is. It has nothing to do with punishing people who disseminate pro-Nazi propaganda. It is about punishing political dissent, and intimidating critics into silence. I’m not here because I put a swastika on my book cover. I am here because I put it behind a “Covid” mask. I am here because I dared to criticize the German authorities. I am here because I refused to shut up and follow orders.
At my first trial, I appealed to the judge to stop this game and follow the law. She did that. She needed to publicly insult me, and then put on a “Covid” mask to display her allegiance to the “New Normal,” but she acquitted me. She followed the law. And I thanked her. But I will not appeal to this Court. I’m tired of this game. If this Court wanted to follow the law, I wouldn’t be here today. The Court would have dismissed the Prosecution’s ridiculous arguments in its motion to overturn the verdict. You didn’t do that. So I’m not going to appeal to this Court for justice. Or expect justice.
Go ahead. Do whatever you feel you need to do to me. Fine me. Send me to prison. Bankrupt me. Whatever. I will not pretend that I am guilty of anything to make your punishment stop. I will not lie for you. I will not obey you because you threaten me, because you have the power to hurt me.
You have that power. I get it. Everyone gets it. The German authorities have the power to punish those who criticize them, who expose their hypocrisy, their lies. We all get the message. But that is not how things work in democratic societies. That is how things work in totalitarian systems.
I will not cooperate with that. I refuse to live that way.
As long as the German authorities continue to claim that Germany is a democratic country, which respects the rule of law and democratic principles, I will continue to behave like that is what it is. I will not be bullied. I will insist on my constitutional rights. I will continue to respect democratic principles and fight to preserve them. The German authorities can make a mockery of those rights and the rule of law and democratic principles if they want. I will not. Not for the Berlin Prosecutor. Not for this Court. Not for the German authorities. Not for anyone.
Totalitarianism, authoritarianism, tyranny, never win. Not in the long run. History teaches us that. And it is history that will judge us all in the end.
— CJ Hopkins
After Hopkins' plea, some members of the audience clapped, although expressions of opinion from the audience are of course not permitted in a courtroom. The presiding judge immediately acknowledged this with angry shouts of “Quiet!” and added that this was really the wrong place for this. She sent the visitors into recess: the judges would now retire. The verdict was announced at around 12.15 pm.
Then, after the break, the verdict. It was extremely detailed, but did not address either the well-thought-out arguments of the defense lawyer or the defendant's plea - as if these statements had never taken place. As if they had been recited in front of a wall. The verdict seemed prefabricated and completely detached from the substantive discussion of the trial; it was read out indifferently and in a monotone voice. The image of a section of the book cover in the two posts in question on platform X was not covered by freedom of art or freedom of expression. In addition, Hopkins had trivialized the latter by comparing the corona regime with National Socialism. CJ Hopkins had only criticized the coronavirus measures - not National Socialism as such. An explicit rejection of National Socialism had not clearly emerged from his post, so there was no “negative use”. The legislator wanted to prevent the use of the symbol from becoming “naturalized”, which would also encourage advocates of the symbol to use it again without danger. His postings were not accompanied by reporting on actual or historical events. His postings gave the impression that the use of the symbol was once again tolerated in Germany. Not a word was said about Spiegel and Stern.
Sobering conclusion of yesterday's trial
If the Hopkins case shows one thing like a burning glass, it is this: there is no longer equality before the law in Germany. The rule of law has already eroded so irreversibly that it would be wrong to describe it as such without restriction. What Spiegel, Stern or Jan Böhmermann are allowed to do, critics of the government have not been allowed to do for a long time. They are declared criminals for criticizing the policies of the German government. They find themselves in an unequal battle from the outset, which is almost impossible for them to win: while the resources of private individuals are limited, the state has almost infinite resources at its disposal. Every acquittal can subsequently be contested by the public prosecutor's office with just a three-liner; money is irrelevant, it is practically infinite. It is our money - the taxpayers' money.
In addition to financial aspects, the attrition of those affected is also intended and priced in: It is expected that the defendants will at some point no longer be able to withstand the psychological strain of a trial that can drag on for several years, and will capitulate in resignation to their own conviction. The state can appeal as long and as often as it likes until it gets the verdict it was seeking from the outset. As public prosecutors are politically bound by instructions, it is foreseeable that they will only ever cite government critics before the courts - but not Jan Böhmermann or other state-supporting media such as Spiegel or Stern, on whose Nibelung loyalty and cadaver obedience they can now fully rely.
The bitter irony of the story: the presiding judge at the first trial in January, who had reluctantly acquitted Hopkins, had justified her acquittal at the time by stating that she wanted to refute Hopkins' “ideological ramblings”. Contrary to what he claimed, we are not in a “totalitarian system”. If you take the judge at the time at her word, this means, conversely, that the verdict of yesterday's trial proves Hopkins' thesis right - and that we are indeed in a totalitarian system. Hopkins was right yesterday - not despite his conviction, but because of it.
Text translated by DeepL, with changes in regard to “today” → “yesterday”.
German Original
My journalistic work is independent and is financed exclusively by my readers. Thank you very much for your support!
Bank transfer: Aya Velázquez, DE91 4306 0967 1115 8962 01
PayPal: aya.velazquez@protonmail.com
Bitcoin: bc1qwmdx6cn5ska80l8gwv7ywx3tz2h5v2xe4acpas
Still and all, the decisions were not rendered by "Courts" they were rendered by judges, individual human beings.
Apparently those human beings were a toxic mix of stupidity and evil.
Will someone please name them? No, I don't want them injured or attacked in any way except morally, in the civilized way of our society. I want them snubbed in social situations, their families and friends to criticize them verbally, strongly and openly. I want the Americans, the Brits and all other civilized people to deny them entry to their countries. I want them denied boarding by every airline in the world.
The vile commie Alinsky did create some good rules and rule 13 needs to be used against these judges: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Einverstanden, ein absolutes Skandalurteil, aber leider nix neues. Ich hatte schon ein paar kleinere Meinungsunterschiede mit CJ, weil ich selbst auch als Ausländer in Deutschland gewohnt habe, und ihm geraten habe das Land zu verlassen. Neulich wurde ich von CJ auf Twitter/X von ihm gemutet weil ich ihm eine Gegenantwort leistete (bezüglich die Palästinenser und die humanitäre Krise im Gazastreifen) weil er einfach keine Argumente mehr hatte. Tja, leider sehr symptomatisch, aber ich wünsche ihm trotzdem viel Erfolg und ich verstehe seine Frust wegen dieses offensichtlich politisches Urteil, und der gigantische Doppelmoral gesehen frühere Äusserungen von Jens Böhmermann und Abbildungen im Spiegel Magazin.
Genau so wie die magnetische Pole sich in der Vergangenheit schon mal öfters gewechselt haben, so hat auch (ziemlich geräuschlos) seit das Ende des kalten Krieges eine politische Wandlung stattgefunden. Die alte (linke ‘68-er Generation) ‘Guten’ sind jetzt die Faschisten und sind leider FEST an der Macht. Sie beherrschen die Medien, die Gerichte/Staatsanwälte, die Polizei, die Armee, das Bildungssystem, die Geheimdiensten, und haben Verbindungen bis in die Chefetagen von viele grosse Konzerns. Die Geschichte ist ziemlich deutlich, das dumme Volk macht alles immer brav mit (“Konformität”), und die verzweifelte Versuche von einige sehr tapfere Leute (z.B. die Weisse Rose, von Stauffenberg, die Helfer von Anne Frank) werden daran leider wenig ändern.
Seit die Ermordung von Pim Fortuyn in die Niederlanden in 2002 warne ich vergeblich für die Folge von diese linke Sozial-Wirtschaftliche Ingenieure (EU, Euro, Migration, NATO, TTIP, das Assoziierungsabkommen zwischen EU und Ukraine in 2016 etc), und habe deswegen sehr viele Freunde, Familienmitglieder und Bekannten ‘verloren.’
Covid/Corona was für mich das endgültige Zeichen dass unsere ‘Mitstreiter’ es leider nicht kapieren, weil seit 2022-2023 sind die wieder fest im Winterschlaf (“ach komm, Covid ist vorbei, alles ist wieder normal!”) und schliessen die Augen für The Big Picture.
Da kann man IMHO nur eins machen, nämlich das was ich CJ auch geraten habe: Auswanderern.
LG aus Moskau. (nicht dass Russland perfekt ist, aber wie schon gesagt: die Pole haben sich gewechselt 😉)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal