Court rules “Burn the old white men” not incitement to hatred
Berlin prosecutors dismissed complaints over a climate protest chant calling to "burn the old white men," ruling it was exaggerated political criticism rather than incitement to violence.
The case dates back to September of last year when Jakob Blasel, spokesman for the Green Party youth wing, shared video footage on Instagram from a Berlin climate demonstration. The recording clearly captured activists chanting “BURN THE OLD WHITE MEN,” according to Nius.
The slogan triggered nationwide outrage and multiple criminal complaints were filed with police and prosecutors. Authorities opened investigations on several grounds including incitement to hatred, public calls to commit crimes, approval of criminal acts, and insult.
A written inquiry to the Berlin Senate by AfD lawmaker Marc Vallendar has now revealed the official reasoning behind the prosecutors’ decision to drop all proceedings. The justification offered by the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office centers on how an “unbiased and reasonable audience” would interpret the slogan.
Prosecutors concluded the chant did not seriously call for burning elderly white men. Instead, authorities characterized it as a “disruptive contribution” to climate debate and criticism of current climate policy expressed in exaggerated and polemical form. In essence, officials ruled that “burn the old white men” was merely criticism.
Old White Men Not a Population Group, Prosecutors Claim
The prosecutorial reasoning went further still. Authorities determined that “old white men” does not even constitute a specific segment of the population. The official statement declared the slogan was exaggerated and polemical criticism of climate policy that demonstrators believe leads to injustice and unequal treatment of less privileged population groups.
Prosecutors then offered what can only be described as creative interpretation. They argued the phrase alluded to the demonstration’s motto “Exit Gas – Enter Future” and was advocating in figurative terms for abandoning old ideas and concepts in favor of more sustainable, just, and future-oriented climate policy.
Stark Contrast With Other Prosecutions
The lenient treatment stands in sharp contrast to numerous other cases where German prosecutors pursued charges aggressively for far milder expressions. Investigators raided the home of a man for calling Robert Habeck a “dimwit.” The suspect was charged merely for retweeting the comment, not authoring it.
A citizen recently received a criminal penalty order for referring to Chancellor Friedrich Merz as a “pompous fool.” The case of CDU politician Detlef Gürth drew particular attention. After a knife attack, he wrote about foreign criminals that “this pack must get out of Germany.” Gürth has been acquitted twice, yet prosecutors continue their pursuit, arguing his statement could be directed against all Afghans living in Germany.
Even a 74-year-old Facebook user faced prosecution. Among the statements used against her was “We need skilled workers and not asylum seekers.” She was convicted.
The disparity could hardly be more pronounced. While migration-critical or insulting statements trigger home searches, criminal orders, and convictions, Berlin prosecutors classify a slogan like “Burn the old white men” as disruptive climate criticism.
Questions of Political Justice Mount
The pattern appears to reveal a legally problematic structure. Germany now maintains broadly defined and sometimes vague criminal statutes in the realm of speech, particularly concerning incitement to hatred, insult, and politically motivated hate crimes. Critics can be subjected to the full apparatus of criminal procedure including home searches, seizure of electronic devices, examination of private communications, lengthy proceedings, and substantial costs.
Simultaneously, an opposing space of de facto immunity appears to exist. When no individually harmed person exists but only groups are affected such as Germans, men, or old white men, there are virtually no effective legal remedies against dismissal or non-opening of investigation proceedings. This places decision-making power largely with prosecutors who operate with subjectively interpretable criteria.
The accumulating evidence raises urgent questions about whether German justice operates with two different standards and whether political considerations now drive prosecutorial decisions more than consistent application of law.
With information from Nius
