German Politician charged for Auschwitz Tattoo

BattleCorp

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/german-politician-charged-over-auschwitz-death-camp-tattoo-711713.html

Is this going a bit far? A German politician is being charged because he has a tattoo of the Auschwitz camp on his back. The authorities say it is illegal to have public displays of Nazism.

While distasteful to most people, what's the difference in displaying a tattoo of Auschwitz on your back or pictures of Auschwitz on book covers, or even pictures at the Auschwitz site itself?

SEPT 23 1989

Did he expect it for free?

Dirty Dingus McGee

BattleCorp wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/german-politician-charged-over-auschwitz-death-camp-tattoo-711713.html

Is this going a bit far? A German politician is being charged because he has a tattoo of the Auschwitz camp on his back. The authorities say it is illegal to have public displays of Nazism.

While distasteful to most people, what's the difference in displaying a tattoo of Auschwitz on your back or pictures of Auschwitz on book covers, or even pictures at the Auschwitz site itself?

Only a person trying to glorify something would gte a tatoo of it. So yes it is different from pictures of it appearing in books etc.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sounds like a right Nazi piece of work.

biko

****ing nazis. Will they ever just **** off!



image http://bilder.bild.de/fotos-skaliert/tattoo-49568344-43677294/2,w=559,c=0.bild.jpg

The King of Moo

BattleCorp wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/german-politician-charged-over-auschwitz-death-camp-tattoo-711713.html


While distasteful to most people, what's the difference in displaying a tattoo of Auschwitz on your back or pictures of Auschwitz on book covers, or even pictures at the Auschwitz site itself?

Having a picture of a concentration camp on a book cover just tells you that the book is about concentration camps.

Having a tattoo of a concentration camp says you're a Nazi.
People don't usually get tattoos of things they don't like.

Jelle1880

I think it's fair to say he's not doing it to say how bad the camps were.

biko

biko wrote: »

****ing nazis. Will they ever just **** off!



image http://bilder.bild.de/fotos-skaliert/tattoo-49568344-43677294/2,w=559,c=0.bild.jpg

He's more of a Fazi.

Samaris

BattleCorp wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/german-politician-charged-over-auschwitz-death-camp-tattoo-711713.html

Is this going a bit far? A German politician is being charged because he has a tattoo of the Auschwitz camp on his back. The authorities say it is illegal to have public displays of Nazism.

While distasteful to most people, what's the difference in displaying a tattoo of Auschwitz on your back or pictures of Auschwitz on book covers, or even pictures at the Auschwitz site itself?

I would say it's drastically inappropriate for a politician of all people, who, in theory, are supposed to represent their people and from an outside perspective, act as a representative of their country.

I'd also say that the difference is context. If he also gets a load of text talking about Auschwitz on his back, grando, but as is one can only guess at the thousand words the picture is giving.

GAAman

I hate Illinois nazis :cool:

c_man

Another bather took a photo of the tattoo, which also carried the slogan from the Buchenwald concentration camp’s gate – “Jedem das Seine” or “To each his own”

I can see why people are outraged, he should really change it to read "To each their own"

asherbassad

Gas man.

Skylinehead

BattleCorp wrote: »

. The authorities say it is illegal to have public displays of Nazism

No, the law says it is illegal to have public displays of Nazism. Not the "authorities". I'm all for free speech, but given their uncomfortable past and desire for Nazism to be killed off, I can see why the law exists.

JupiterKid

From reading that article, I was not in the least bit surprised to see that he comes from the former East Germany.

There does seem to be a hardcore of far right wing sentiment in the former East Germany. The politician in question is too young to even remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.

bodice ripper

That is not ok. He may do what he wants with his own body.

jimgoose

bodice ripper wrote: »

That is not ok. He may do what he wants with his own body.

No he may not. In particular, in Germany, he may not use it to display symbols associated with the Nazi regime or their actions. This is especially so given this man's political affiliations. The Germans, being a right-thinking and decent people, do not consider this kind of thing appropriate or acceptable.

BattleCorp

jimgoose wrote: »

No he may not. In particular, in Germany, he may not use it to display symbols associated with the Nazi regime or their actions. This is especially so given this man's political affiliations. The Germans, being a right-thinking and decent people, do not consider this kind of thing appropriate or acceptable.

I don't think the tattoo is appropriate but when the Government step in and say it's a crime to have a drawing on your back, I think that's a bit far.

Is every single Nazi symbol illegal?

osarusan

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't think the tattoo is appropriate but when the Government step in and say it's a crime to have a drawing on your back, I think that's a bit far.

It's not illegal to have a drawing/this tattoo on your back, it's illegal to display it.

bodice ripper

jimgoose wrote: »

No he may not. In particular, in Germany, he may not use it to display symbols associated with the Nazi regime or their actions. This is especially so given this man's political affiliations. The Germans, being a right-thinking and decent people, do not consider this kind of thing appropriate or acceptable.

I think that's pretty fascist.

jimgoose

bodice ripper wrote: »

I think that's pretty fascist.

I think you know well how raw and upsetting all that business still is in Germany, and are trying to be all edgy and left-field for kicks.

bodice ripper

jimgoose wrote: »

I think you know well how raw and upsetting all that business still is in Germany, and are trying to be all edgy and left-field for kicks.

That some chip you have there.

I like government kept out of bodily affairs. I'd like to see the tattooist's hands broken by other tattooists

jimgoose

BattleCorp wrote: »

...Is every single Nazi symbol illegal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

MRnotlob606

Not a happy camper.

jimgoose

bodice ripper wrote: »

That some chip you have there.

I like government kept out of bodily affairs. I'd like to see the tattooist's hands broken by other tattooists

I like people's bodily affairs kept out of my view. Particularly when the aforementioned bodily affairs include displaying symbols like that.

Carpo II

jimgoose wrote: »

No he may not. In particular, in Germany, he may not use it to display symbols associated with the Nazi regime or their actions. This is especially so given this man's political affiliations. The Germans, being a right-thinking and decent people, do not consider this kind of thing appropriate or acceptable.

Ah yes. Have 'Right-Thinking and Decent' people determine what its legal for someone else to do with their body, that always works out so well. So who gets to decide what counts as 'Right-Thinking and Decent' people again?

bodice ripper

jimgoose wrote: »

I like people's bodily affairs kept out of my view. Particularly when the aforementioned bodily affairs include displaying symbols like that.

I thought this might be about what you find acceptable to look at alright.

jimgoose

bodice ripper wrote: »

I thought this might be about what you find acceptable to look at alright.

It has nothing to do with what I find acceptable to look at, you'll find that this whole tale pertains to Germany. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a applies there, not here.

Nodin

jimgoose wrote: »

I like people's bodily affairs kept out of my view. Particularly when the aforementioned bodily affairs include displaying symbols like that.

Why? It eliminates all of this "I wonder if yer man is just a bit right wing or a Nazi?" crap.

jimgoose

Nodin wrote: »

Why? It eliminates all of this "I wonder if yer man is just a bit right wing or a Nazi?" crap.

Well, let him wear hot-pants and a tattoo of Donald Trump on his arse-cheek.

Nodin

jimgoose wrote: »

Well, let him wear hot-pants and a tattoo of Donald Trump on his arse-cheek.

Not the point. My time for the shower is fairly limited as is well known, but he should be entitled to put that stuff on his own skin. Rather undermines any denials he might make.

c_man

So if you have a swastika tattoo on your face, you would have to wear a balaclava? And maybe shades too.

bodice ripper

jimgoose wrote: »

It has nothing to do with what I find acceptable to look at, you'll find that this whole tale pertains to Germany. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a applies there, not here.

Sounds like back peddling to me.

I have friends with swastika tattoos. Do you think they ought to be charged?

K-9

bodice ripper wrote: »

I think that's pretty fascist.

Yep, for those of Jewish heritage effected by things like Auschwitz.

jimgoose

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sounds like back peddling to me.

I have friends with swastika tattoos. Do you think they ought to be charged?

I do, as it happens. My first assumption about a person sporting a tattoo like that is that they're psychologically disturbed in some way, or attention-seeking fifteen-year-olds, or both. And I neither back-peddle nor sport a chip on my shoulder, thank you.

bodice ripper

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, for those of Jewish heritage effected by things like Auschwitz.

I don't believe that trumps this guy's right to do as he wishes with his own body. And as previously pointed out - it makes it easier to spot the assholes anyway.

osarusan

Nodin wrote: »

but he should be entitled to put that stuff on his own skin.

Again, he is allowed to put it on his skin.

He was arrested for publicly displaying it.

What exactly that means I don't know - is every instance where such a tattoo/symbol is visible automatically deemed a public display?

Nodin

osarusan wrote: »

Again, he is allowed to put it on his skin.

He was arrested for publicly displaying it.

What exactly that means I don't know - is every instance where such a tattoo/symbol is visible automatically deemed a public display?

Seeing as he was at a swimming pool and not doing an aul 10 pint goose step down the strasse I'd imagine so.

Nodin

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sounds like back peddling to me.

I have friends with swastika tattoos. Do you think they ought to be charged?

Depends on how many hours ye put in, I suppose.

BattleCorp

So, are all the lads that collect war memorabilia breaking the law? Old Nazi war medals and things like that?

Are museums who put that kind of stuff on display breaking the law?

osarusan

Nodin wrote: »

Seeing as he was at a swimming pool and not doing an aul 10 pint goose step down the strasse I'd imagine so.

In this instance yes - but I'm not sure about say, a guy who pulls up his sleeves and inadvertently reveals such a tattoo.

Not that I'd have too much sympathy tbh, but it seems like there'd be cases where it would be difficult to determine intent.

EDIT: From reading a bit about it, it seems that they'd need to determine that there was an intent to:

further the aims of a former National Socialist organization

bodice ripper

jimgoose wrote: »

I do, as it happens. My first assumption about a person sporting a tattoo like that is that they're psychologically disturbed in some way, or attention-seeking fifteen-year-olds, or both. And I neither back-peddle nor sport a chip on my shoulder, thank you.

The lady protests too much, I feel.

Where does this end, btw? Shall we charge people for tattoos of skulls and Kalashnikovs and tricolours? Celtic knots? - very popular with white supremacists. Tshirts with political slogans? Who will be deciding the cut off for acceptability?

jimgoose

bodice ripper wrote: »

The lady protests too much, I feel.

Where does this end, btw? Shall we charge people for tattoos of skulls and Kalashnikovs and tricolours? Celtic knots? - very popular with white supremacists. Tshirts with political slogans? Who will be deciding the cut off for acceptability?

Drop the hard-man act. You know as well as I do that the Swastika is a still-fresh symbol of one of the greatest horrors in recorded history. If you want to annoy people get a pair of ear-rings. Or else just grow up.

Nodin

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, are all the lads that collect war memorabilia breaking the law? Old Nazi war medals and things like that?

Are museums who put that kind of stuff on display breaking the law?

In Germany? You can display stuff for "educational" reasons certainly. generally sites that sell memorabilia from Germany don't display Nazi symbols unless you log in. This goes to the bizarre extent of blurring hitlers mush, or blanking his eyes ('I wonder who that man is..?'). Fairly sure its legal to collect. I think in France its illegal to collect Nazi gear. The Italians don't give a crap, and no idea about Spain.

bodice ripper

jimgoose wrote: »

Drop the hard-man act. You know as well as I do that the Swastika is a still-fresh symbol of one of the greatest horrors in recorded history. If you want to annoy people get a pair of ear-rings. Or else just grow up.

There's that chip again. I amnt even a bloke. And I don't have any swastika tattoos.

c_man

bodice ripper wrote: »

I have friends with swastika tattoos.

Are they Nazis? What's the story?

osarusan

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, are all the lads that collect war memorabilia breaking the law? Old Nazi war medals and things like that?

Are museums who put that kind of stuff on display breaking the law?

From the link to wikipedia provided earlier:

Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

jimgoose

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, are all the lads that collect war memorabilia breaking the law? Old Nazi war medals and things like that?

Are museums who put that kind of stuff on display breaking the law?

No. But old Luftwaffe aircraft usually have the fin Swastika replaced with a low-visibility outline of the original solid black.

Nollog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

The text below the picture can be read as "you get what you deserve", if so that's quite insensitive.

jimgoose

bodice ripper wrote: »

There's that chip again. I amnt even a bloke. And I don't have any swastika tattoos.

What's with this "chip" business? Is that because I disapprove of the Nazi regime and their symbolism??

Nodin

osarusan wrote: »

In this instance yes - but I'm not sure about say, a guy who pulls up his sleeves and inadvertently reveals such a tattoo.

Not that I'd have too much sympathy tbh, but it seems like there'd be cases where it would be difficult to determine intent.

EDIT: From reading a bit about it, it seems that they'd need to determine that there was an intent to:

...unless swimming the length in a personal best was some form of "national socialist" goal I have me doubts.

BattleCorp

/\/ollog wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

The text below the picture can be read as "you get what you deserve", if so that's quite insensitive.

I'm not saying that he is a nice guy, I just think it's going a bit far to be prosecuting a guy for a "crap" tattoo of Auschwitz on his back.