Drei Jahre Haft für Stolz gefordert
Ebersberg - Plädoyers im Volksverhetzungs-Prozess gegen die ehemalige Anwältin Sylvia Stolz aus Ebersberg. Am 25. Februar fällt das Urteil.
Auf ihr letztes Wort im Prozess wegen Volksverhetzung hat sich die frühere Anwältin Sylvia Stolz (51) aus Ebersberg vorbereitet. Sie steht auf, nimmt ein Blatt zur Hand und trägt vor: „Mein Vortrag in der Schweiz war keine Holocaust-Leugnung. Es ging um die herrschende Gerichtspraxis in solchen Verfahren.“ Die Staatsanwaltschaft geht allerdings sehr wohl von Holocaust-Leugnung aus und hat Stolz wegen Volksverhetzung, Verleumdung und Titelmissbrauchs angeklagt. Seit Mittwoch muss sie sich vor dem Landgericht München II verantworten. Heute wird das Urteil fallen.
Bei den Vorwürfen geht es um eine rund 90-minütige Rede, die Stolz 2012 auf einer „Antizensurkoalition“ im Schweizerischen Chur gehalten hat und die auch ins Internet gestellt wurde. Laut Anklage soll sie den an den europäischen Juden begangenen Völkermord geleugnet und ihn als bloße Erfindung dargestellt haben. Außerdem habe sie per Internet einen Rechtsanwalt verleumdet, der den Vortrag angezeigt hatte. Die Anklage lautet außerdem auf Missbrauch von Berufsbezeichnungen, weil sie sich als Rechtsanwältin ausgegeben habe, obwohl ihr die Ausübung des Rechtsanwaltsberufs untersagt wurde.
Stolz selbst weist die Vorwürfe zurück. Sie habe die Anklage nicht erwartet, sagt sie. Ihr letztes Wort beendet sie mit dem Zitat „Hier kann uns nur noch Gott helfen.“ Um dann ans Gericht gewandt zu ergänzen: „Ich habe meine Entscheidung getroffen. Gott sei mit Ihnen, wenn Sie Ihre treffen.“
Das Gericht wird seine Entscheidung heute ab 11 Uhr verkünden. Der Staatsanwalt plädierte auf drei Jahre und drei Monate Haft für die einschlägig vorbestrafte Ebersbergerin, die eine vorhergehende Strafe bereits voll verbüßt hat. Der Verteidiger forderte Freispruch: „Mit keinem, mit keinem einzigen Wort wurde hier etwas geleugnet.“
Nina Gut
http://www.merkur-online.de/lokales/ebe ... 62289.html
Three years in prison demanded for Stolz
Ebersberg - Final arguments in sedition/popular incitement ("Volksverhetzung") trial against former lawyer Sylvia Stolz, of Ebersberg. Judgment to be handed down on 25 February.
Former Ebersberg lawyer Sylvia Stolz (51) had prepared herself for her closing statement in the trial against her for popular incitement. She stood up, took a piece of paper in hand, and declaimed: "My lecture in Switzerland was not Holocaust denial. It was about the dominant praxis of the courts in such [i.e., 'Holocaust denial'] trials." The state prosecutors, however, proceeded very much on the assumption of Holocaust denial, and charged Stolz with popular incitement ("Volksverhetzung"), defamation and misuse of [professional] title. She has had to answer before the Landgericht (State Court) München II since last Wednesday. The judgment will come down today.
The charges concern an approximately ninety-minute speech which Stolz gave in Chur, Switzerland in 2012 and which was also placed on the Internet. According to the indictment, she denied [i.e., in the speech] the genocide of the European Jews and presented it as a mere invention. She also is alleged to have used the Internet to defame the lawyer who reported her. The indictment further includes misuse of professional title, since she is alleged to have given herself out to be a lawyer, even though she has been forbidden from the practice of law.
Stolz herself rejects the charges. She had not expected the indictment, she says. Her closing speech ended with the quotation, "Here only God can help us." She then turned to the court to add: "I have made my decision. May God be with you when you make yours."
The court will announce its decision today [Wednesday] at 11 am. The prosecution has called for three years and three months incarceration for the Ebersberg resident, who has been punished before on similar charges and already served a sentence for them. The defence calls for acquittal: "With not one word, with not one single word has anything here been denied."
Nina Gut
There's much to this grotesque perversion of the law that is astonishing, to say the least. But as the person who translated the "defamation" in question, I must say that for me the bit about how Stolz allegedly "used the Internet to defame the lawyer who reported her" takes the cake.
From the transcript of the original "Reply":
The newspaper "Süd-Ost Schweiz"
reported on January 17, 2013:
"The Swiss lawyer Daniel Kettiger has filed a complaint
against Stolz and Sasek for denial of the Holocaust.
Kettiger refers in his criminal complaint
to passages in the talk
in which Stolz charged that the Holocaust
had never been proven before a court of law
and that there was also no evidence of an 'intention by the National Socialist regime
to destroy Jewry either in whole or in part.'"
To which I can only reply,
it appears that Kettiger has not informed himself
about the real contents and wording
of my talk.
He appears to consider it appropriate
to fabricate a case of "Holocaust Denial"
based on his OWN formulations.
For years now anyone claiming that the Holocaust
has not been proven
in the sense of a systematic murder of Jews
has been prosecuted for "Holocaust denial."
Still one can hardly mean to initiate
criminal proceedings against Ivo Sasek and myself
and rely on phrases
that derive from journalists or complaint filers.
Anyone can compare
the reports about my presentation
with the contents and wording of the talk itself.
The quoted passage runs from @ 6:43 - 8:22.
Who, I ask, is really guilty of defamation and misuse of professional title here?
(Edit: I know it's frowned on here, but I needed to make a minor correction to the translation. If it's going to be quoted, it should be correct. Thanks.)
