Court in Germany accuses "non-celebrity" Jew of "Sedition and Holocaust Denial"
“Those responsible today are hiding behind six million deaths for which they or their ancestors are responsible”, says Robert Hoeschele
BY ANDREA DRESCHER
Who is Robert Höschele, do you need to know about him? I think so. Höschele is one of several defendants who, each in their own way, have dared to "fight back from the very start". His relevant speech on February 14th, 2021 in Munich brought him charges under Section 130 of the Criminal Code for “incitement to hatred” and “Holocaust denial”. The piquant thing about it: he is a Jew.
Robert Höschele was in court for the first time in November 2022. Quite alone - because the "normal" activist finds significantly less support in the scene than a Professor Bhakdi or a Dr. Paul Brandenburg has attracted.
If you search for Höschele's name on the Internet, you will find reports from mainstream media such as Augsburger Allgemeine, Ingolstadt Today, Süddeutsche Zeitung or Donaukurier from February 2022, which report that the "CSU (Christian Social Union) associations are distancing themselves from him". The reason: his sharp criticism of Bavarian Minister-President Markus Söder's coronavirus policy. The CSU member, who originally comes from the Soviet Union, was born in Uzbekistan and lived in Lithuania until he was evicted to West Germany in 1981, criticised Bavaria’s coronavirus policy as a "debacle".
What you hardly find are contributions from the new or alternative media on the current trial against him. Only one contribution can be found quickly: an article by Andrew Barr, founder of "Jews for Justice" in England, which was translated and published by Alschner Klartext. There you can find out how the “charge of Holocaust denial” came about.
One reads there that “Robert Höschele, like Vera Sharav, is also a Jew (in his case a Crimean Karaite) and therefore someone who might be considered particularly entitled to compare recent events with what happened in the 1930s.”
In the eyes of the German judiciary, however, he is not.
For this he stood before the judge in November – without the accompaniment of a lawyer, already facing 90 days in prison, which was then increased. Since he does not want to accept that, an appeal will now be made in June 2023 - this time together with lawyer Dirk Sattelmaier. However, Höschele does not expect any support beyond legal activities. Unfortunately, the first hearing and the first – unsuccessful – attempt at an appeal made that clear.
I spoke to him about developments in his case.
Could you please introduce yourself?
My name is Robert Höschele, I am 54 years old, married and have a son. At the moment I'm mainly a house husband or have been working as a construction worker for an acquaintance for two days a week. I have a Master of Business Administration, I am a welding specialist and a Certified Business Administrator. I am not officially registered as a job seeker, as the local employment agency “kicked me out” because I refused for religious reasons to take part in a mandatory course to improve my skills in the application process at the local Kolping Academy under 3G conditions (mandatory testing for those who have not been vaccinated or have not recovered from a coronavirus infection). But I also don't want to be stuck in the hamster wheel and pay high taxes to a system that I think is unjust. So I spend a lot of time in resistance. I've organized at least 30 meetings and marches or given speeches, been arrested six times, faced seven trials with my wife so far and received six convictions.
As a member of the board of the Union of Expellees in Upper Bavaria and of the Association of Germans from Russia, I am politically very active in addition to my membership in the CSU. I am doing as much as I can to ensure that those responsible for the coronavirus measures - especially in the Bavarian CSU - are also held accountable. The responsible politicians and their employees should never be allowed to work politically again.
From your point of view, how did the hearing in November 2022 go?
It went as expected - that's why I went there without a lawyer. I didn't want to incur unnecessary costs. The verdict was clear from the start. I am not aware of any guilt, I should get public recognition for this speech, because it is important to point out the grievances. Everyone ignores it.
I reject the court as biased, for me it is the continuation of the typical German judiciary that covers for the state. The questioning of a police officer was exciting. He of course confirmed what I said - a fact I would never dispute. But I also learned from this statement that the meeting was being monitored by the police and that all statements were meticulously evaluated by detectives. They obviously wanted to find something.
Less surprisingly, at the request of the prosecutor, the judge increased the sentence to 120 days, giving me a criminal record. Interestingly, not only did I appeal, the prosecutor also appealed.
Are you appealing with a lawyer? How did you get in touch with the lawyer? Unfortunately, there are only a few who represent critics of the measures.
Yes, this time there is a lawyer. Dirk Sattelmaier took over. It wasn't all that easy to find a lawyer who would do something like that. I then asked other activists and Dirk Sattelmaier and Beate Bahner were recommended to me. Since Dirk Sattelmaier is a criminal law specialist, I simply contacted him.
How do you finance the lawyer?
My wife and I pay for everything privately, we don't have legal protection insurance. That's why he wasn't there in November. Due to the many different procedures, this is not easy to finance, and over time the savings will disappear.
What are the costs for you?
I don't know that. But it will certainly not be little. The procedure alone that we had to conduct because of our son cost around 10,000 euros. And this despite the fact that we wrote many complaints and objections ourselves. He refused to wear a mask and take the coronavirus tests, but he goes to school every day because he wanted to have lessons. His refusal resulted in him being expelled from school on a daily basis and our being prosecuted because as parents we "should have made sure" that he went to school and obeyed the rules.
The appointment date originally scheduled was cancelled. How did that happen?
Two appointments have not been able to take place so far. The first on 3rd May was postponed because the judge was unable to make it. On 17th May my lawyer had health problems, so he asked the court whether an alternative date was possible. This was confirmed by phone. But I didn't get a written confirmation. I wasn't sure, so I went there anyway. Without proof, one is absent for no good reason and any judgment would still be legal. In the secretariat, however, the clerk personally confirmed to me that I would get it in writing.
Were there many people on site to provide support? The cancellation came at the last minute.
I had previously called on Telegram on several German and English-language channels for people to be present in court. After all, such a monstrous trial - a Jew accused of Holocaust denial - should also achieve a high level of publicity. You too shared my appeal and a separate appeal was distributed via “We for Humanity”. All in all, tens of thousands of people saw it. There were five or six on site who showed interest, four of whom came from my hometown of Neuburg, acquaintances from the freedom movement.
Journalists weren't there. Unfortunately, that didn't surprise me. It was no different on November 22nd.
Unfortunately, it is similar with the calls for donations to finance the legal costs. On 11th November there were thousands of clicks on the request for donations - there were over 45 thousand views on Markus Haintz's channel alone and a total of 170 euros came together - including the donations from "Jews for Justice" from England. This time three donors, all from English-speaking countries, sent me 70 euros.
At the Sucharit Bhakdi trial, which dealt with a similar issue, there were around four hundred participants, including many media representatives. What do you think: why are unknowns not supported?
To put it bluntly: the resistance is just a reflection of normal society, which is comparable to a supermarket. There you choose between discounted goods which have been placed out of the way, on the lowest shelves (Bückware) and branded items which have been presented in such a way that you can see and buy them quickly. It's an attention economy.
The celebrities are the branded items that you see and “buy” – that is, that you support. You consume their channels, their views. You invest time in them. In this sense, Professor Bhakdi is an extremely high-quality "branded article". He has done an excellent job, which of course deserves the attention. Unknowns like me are the harder-to-find discount versions (Bückware).
Much of the resistance functions like a new market. It's about clicks, it's about money. Many critics of the measures now live exclusively from the donations, so unknowns hardly have a chance, especially since many supporters are running out of money due to the economic situation. But it's not about the money for me, even if donations for the legal fees would help.
What is it about?
People should show interest in this topic. A case like mine is extremely exciting from a legal theory point of view. Again: a Jew who knows very well what the Holocaust meant and who, not least because of this, is very critical of the German state, will be accused of Holocaust denial in the country of the perpetrators.
That's a perversion of § 130, which in my opinion is or was really useful. It states, among other things, “Anyone who commits an act of the kind specified in Article 6 (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, committed under the rule of National Socialism, approves, denies or downplays those crimes in public or in an assembly, in a manner that is likely to disturb public peace.”
Playing down the actions of the Germans really wouldn't occur to me. Those responsible today are hiding behind six million deaths for which they or their ancestors are responsible. I have attacked the state for totally unwarranted actions and for that they apply § 130 to the two quotes from me.
But the fact that they are now using this paragraph against a Jew who has been warning about events since the beginning is positive in my opinion. It makes the absurdity of the whole thing so clear that more and more people realise that something can't be right with a state that emphasises the importance of the "rule of law" (Rechtsstaat). Visibility is therefore my main concern.
I can endure the 120 days I am facing in prison - but I am also taking this to the highest authority. I stand by what I said. That's why I would like more journalists to take up the case and be present at the court.
When and where is the appointment
On Tuesday, June 6th, 2023 at 9 a.m. in the Regional Court Munich 1 (conference room A229, 2nd floor, Nymphenburger Strasse 16)
This interview was first published in German at TKP.at. Translation by Andrew Barr, Jews for Justice