German court rules “Burn the old white men” not incitement
Berlin prosecutors dropped investigations into climate protesters chanting "burn the old white men," ruling it was exaggerated political criticism rather than incitement to violence.
The controversy erupted in September of last year when Jakob Blasel, spokesman for the German Green Youth organization, posted a video on Instagram from a Berlin climate demonstration featuring protesters chanting “BURN THE OLD WHITE MEN.” The incident sparked nationwide outrage and multiple criminal complaints were filed with police and prosecutors.
According to Nius, a written inquiry by AfD member of parliament Marc Vallendar to the Berlin Senate has now revealed the reasoning behind the prosecutor’s decision to dismiss all proceedings. Investigations had been launched on several grounds including incitement to hatred, public calls for criminal acts, approval of criminal offenses, and insult.
The prosecutor’s justification centers on how an “unbiased and reasonable audience” would interpret the slogan, rather than its literal meaning. Berlin authorities determined that the chant did not seriously call for burning elderly white men, but rather represented a “disruptive contribution” to the climate debate and “criticism expressed in exaggerated and polemical form of current climate policy.”
No Specific Population Group Targeted, Prosecutors Claim
In a remarkable interpretation, the prosecutor’s office argued that “old white men” does not even constitute a specific segment of the population. The official statement reads that the slogan “is not directed against a specific population group” but rather represents “criticism expressed in exaggerated and polemical form of current climate policy, which in the view of the demonstrators leads to injustices and unequal treatment of less privileged population groups.”
The reasoning continues with what Nius characterizes as creative argumentation, claiming the statement metaphorically advocates abandoning old ideas and concepts in favor of more sustainable, just, and future-oriented climate policy, alluding to the demonstration’s motto “Exit Gas – Enter Future.”
Stark Contrast With Other Prosecutions
The lenient treatment stands in sharp contrast to numerous other cases where prosecutors pursued far less inflammatory language with aggressive enforcement measures. Investigators conducted a home search of a man for calling Economics Minister Robert Habeck a “dimwit,” and notably, he was charged merely for retweeting the comment rather than originating it.
More recently, a citizen received a criminal penalty order for calling Chancellor Friedrich Merz a “pompous fool.” The case of CDU politician Detlef Gürth drew particular attention after he wrote about foreign criminals following a knife attack, stating “This scum must get out of Germany.” Despite two acquittals, prosecutors continue pursuing the case, arguing his statement could be directed against all Afghans living in Germany.
Even a 74-year-old Facebook user faced prosecution for statements including “We need skilled workers and not asylum seekers.” She was convicted.
Double Standards in German Justice System
The disparity could hardly be more glaring. While migration-critical or insulting statements trigger home raids, criminal penalty orders, and convictions, Berlin prosecutors classify a slogan calling to “burn the old white men” as legitimate climate criticism.
The pattern suggests a troubling structure within Germany’s justice system. Broadly defined and sometimes vague criminal statutes around speech, particularly regarding incitement to hatred, insult, and politically motivated “hate crimes,” allow authorities to target critics with the full apparatus of criminal procedure: home searches, seizure of electronic devices, examination of private communications, lengthy proceedings, and substantial costs.
Simultaneously, an opposing sphere of de facto impunity emerges. When no individually harmed person exists but only groups are affected—such as “Germans,” “men,” or “old white men”—there are practically no effective legal remedies against dismissal or non-opening of investigative proceedings. This places decision-making power largely with prosecutors operating with subjectively interpretable criteria, creating what amounts to selective enforcement based on the political orientation of the speech in question.
With information from Nius
