Discover more from Die Fackel 2.0
Bhakdi Acquittal: 'Failure of Antisemitism as a Punchline' and an Interview with Bhakdi's Lawyer
In an Op-ed, Peter Haisenko argues that the (ab)use of 'antisemitism' has reached its (il)logical final frontier while Bhakdi's lawyer, Prof. Martin Schwab, discusses future proceedings
Today’s post addresses the recent acquittal of Sucharit Bhakdi, one of Germany’s most outspoken—and correct—critics of the official Covid narrative.
EDIT: please check out Vera Sharav’s and Ule Alscher’s piece on the trial of Prof. Bhakdi, courtesy of Margaret Anna Alice’s notificiation.
As is well known by now, Bhakdi stood accused of ‘incitement of the public’ (Volksverhetzung) by the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Plön, a rather obscure location in Schleswig-Holstein whose ‘fame’ is arguably more due to it being the ultimate seat of the Third Reich’s government after Hitler’s suicide in early May 1945.
While the Public Prosecution has, by now, appealed Bhakdi’s acquittal, Peter Haisenko is pointing towards what is, arguably, the over-arching result of this politically-motivated sham trial: the end of the (ab)use of charges of ‘antisemitism’, levelled at-will and at anyone who dissents for whatever reason, real of imagined.
Two things before we proceed:
First, to those ‘in the know’, the accusation of ‘antisemitism’ has been a borderline problematic, if not outright fraudulent, as former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aoni revealed, perhaps in a Freudian Slip, during an interview with Amy Goodman of alt-media (for everything but Covid) Democracy Now back in 2002:
Second, the author of the below-translated op-ed, Peter Haisenko, is a lot of things, but quite certainly no tinfoil hat-wearing, ‘extremist’ nut-case. According to freely available information, his father was a Russian who fled Stalin’s reign of terror (known as the USSR) and his mother was a German who left (fled) Dresden on 13 Feb. 1945, i.e., right in the middle of the devastation of the city at the hand of the British and Americans airforces. Haisenko (born in 1952) trained as a pilot, worked for Lufthansa for many decades, and also ‘freelances’ as a publisher. He writes prolifically about a variety of topics, incl. the financial conundrums we’re facing, the downing of MH-17, and is invariably called a ‘misinformation-spreader’ by legacy media (whatever that means).
The below translation is mine, as are the emphases and the bottom lines.
Failure of Anti-Semitism as a Punchline vs. Prof. Bhakdi
By Peter Haisenko, AnderweltOnline.de, 25 May 2023 (Source)
If it is impossible to silence a critic with arguments, the Anti-Semitism club is used. To render this visible in the Bhakdi case, a sentencing had to occur first.
It was not only inexplicable to me how Professor Bhakdi could be accused of incitement of the public. Bhakdi, who had been recognised as an outstanding scientist for decades and who had received many prestigious awards, was only sharing his knowledge and assessment of the Corona virus and its associated politics. This cannot be considered an incitement of the public but the impression was concocted that it was. Only with the trial and the publication of the judge’s ruling did light come into this darkness. The ruling is about Anti-Semitism and not about Corona.
Professor Sucharit Bhakdi is an American, a US citizen, born in Washington D.C. in 1946 to Thai immigrants. It would be news to me that Anti-Semitism was even an issue in Thailand. But precisely because of this, as a ‘Thai-American’, Bhakdi was able to retain his freedom and form a free opinion, even on things that are taboo in the Federal Republic of Germany. As we now learn from the sentencing, Bhakdi dared to criticise the vaccination policy in Israel. As is usual in [Germany], anyone who criticises Israeli government policy [for apparently anything] is called an Anti-Semite. Was Bhakdi aware of this? In any case, he has now had to learn i the hard way.
Bhakdi Was Cancelled From Public Broadcasting Debates, Too
Professionally, the distinguished scientist Bhakdi is not open to attack. All his criticisms and warnings have come true. At the beginning of the Corona madness, Bhakdi was still permitted to voice his professional opinions on public television. However, there it was soon realised that his expertise had the potential to convince many people and he was banned from the talk shows in the usual manner. At the same time, a smear campaign was launched to drag his scientific expertise through the mud. This is also what happened to the once-celebrated journalist Seymour Hersh after he revealed that it was the USA that blew up Nordstream pipelines. In both cases, however, it didn’t work out, because the expertise of both is still recognised. Neither by the Transatlanticists nor the Branch Covidians [Haisenko writes ‘Jünger Coronas’, lit. ‘Disciples of Corona’], of course.
Bhakdi remained a figurehead of the Corona resistance, hence an example had to be made of him. Bhakdi had to be dragged to court, principally to deter others. But how could that be done, given Bhakdi's scientific competence? Professionally, he cannot be attacked, certainly not by a banker [Jens Spahn] who was allowed to play health minister and just as little by the clown who became his successor [that would be Karl Lauterbach]. But it wouldn’t be the Federal Republic of Germany, if some fanatic didn’t find a way to take charge. Without even touching the subject of professional competence, of course.
Anti-Semitism Is Always An Option
In this case it was the Senior Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) Silke Füssinger at the district court of small, tranquil Plön in the very north of Germany. She was convinced that Bhakdi’s remarks had crossed the line into criminal liability. Her indictment was that, in April 2021, he had voiced strong criticism of the vaccination policy in Israel. He has since been accused of inciting hatred of people of the Jewish faith and of maliciously disparaging them. In addition, in another speech he had played down the fate of people of the Jewish faith under Nazi rule. She demanded a fine of 180 day rates worth 90 euros each, or five years in jail, for incitement of the public. And no, the indictment was not about professional misconduct. Any trial that would have permitted discovery in this regard would have led to an indictment of the whole Corona policies [in Germany].
So Füssinger, in her indictment, transformed disapproval of the government’s Covid policies into accusations of Anti-Semitism. What else could she do? But the perfidious thing about her behaviour, as I see it, is that it was not clearly communicated what the case against Bhakdi was really about. Thus, it was generally assumed that the trial was about Bhakdi’s alleged professional ‘misconduct’, which was done with the aim of intimidating other critics. So that they become afraid to continue to express their criticism freely. With the ruling, the whole charade has become visible and the efforts of the Oberstaatsanwalt may have the opposite effect. All critics can now see that they may not fear being charged with dissenting from the Corona policies, provided one is careful enough to avoid making oneself suspect of Anti-Semitism. Still, I fail to see what Anti-Semitism could have to do with Corona policies, even if the Jew Gates played and still plays an inglorious role in it.
[I don’t know what Haisenko means by that inference of Bill Gates being a ‘Jew’; perhaps he meant ‘Judas’, but I don’t know]
A Courageous Judge Disposes of the Case
The competent judge in Plön can be credited with a certain courage. After all, he dared to state that criticism of Israeli government policy is not Anti-Semitism. This ruling will probably be cited more often in the future, even if the defendants are not US citizens. In this sense, too, the public prosecutor achieved the opposite of what was probably her goal. Bhakdi’s lawyers also pointed to the inadequacy of the prosecutor’s work, as she had apparently not looked at the transcripts of the speeches in their entirety. Was this sloppiness due to the fact that this lady assumed that she would have an easy time with the Anti-Semitism club, as is usually the case?
I am very pleased with the acquittal of Professor Bhakdi, who has integrity. Not only for Bhakdi himself. It is a verdict that could put an end to the too-often practised procedure of wielding the Anti-Semitism club when an honest argumentative debate cannot lead to success due to a lack of expertise. For example, when criticising the financial system and its excesses.
Failure of a Show Trial
The trial against Bhakdi was supposed to be a show trial to deter others. It failed miserably. It should not be overlooked that the judiciary in Kiel, i.e., the superior authority for Plön, had rejected this trial ex ante. Then pressure came ‘from above’ and the lady in Plön (willingly?) gave in [note that this is due to German public prosecutors being integrated into the Justice Dept.’s chain-of-command, i.e., state and federal Justice Ministers may order the prosecutor’s offices to open—or not—investigations; details here]. If the trial had ended successfully in her favour, Bhakdi would have had to serve the above-related sentence, which would certainly have been career-enhancing for Ms. Füssinger. Nevertheless, it should not go unnoticed that Bhakdi is a US citizen. How would Washington have reacted to a conviction? Should it have reacted? What could have been the reaction of the Federal government?
This trial of Bhakdi shows that the Branch Covidians are on their last legs, much like the climate change activists whose plans are now blowing up in their faces. Just as in the east of the former Ukraine, things are not going at all as NATOstan dreamed. Nevertheless, it can be observed that everything is being done to prevent a reckoning with official Corona policies. That is why the show trial of Bhakdi avoided discussing his scientific arguments. That said, if nothing else works, allegations of Anti-Semitism are made, not unlike the way that centenarians are now taken to court for alleged Nazi crimes during WW2. Typically, one doesn’t fail to make one’s case-in-point in this regard, but this time is different.
I recommend reading what Professor Bhakdi’s lawyers had to say after the ruling. Will this ruling, this trial, lead to quite a few Branch Covidians eventually having to stand trial?
Bhakdi’s Lawyer Speaks
Peter Haisenko also provides a link to an interview with Prof. Martin Schwab (MS in the below interview), defence counsel for Sucharit Bhakdi. I shall reproduce the interview (partially) below (again, with my emphases):
[Q] Did the result meet your expectations?
[MS] Before the trial, we were very worried that no matter what we said, the ruling would already be set against Sucharit Bhakdi.
It turned out that at the time of the indictment neither the video on Kai Stuht's channel nor the video of the speech at the market place in Kiel were on file [i.e., available to the prosecution].
It also turned out that neither the presiding judge nor the public prosecutor had watched the videos in full before the indictment. They probably felt that there was no need to investigate the facts, that the political mood was favourable to them, and that they could simply push around Sucharit Bhakdi.
And then it turned out that everyone who watched these videos realised that the person who was speaking was not someone who was inciting the public. It is a man who speaks the words of peace. The public prosecutor nevertheless stuck to her charge during the plea bargaining and wanted 180 day rates of 90 euros each for both offences, i.e., a fine of 16,200 euros.
[Q] That would result in a felony conviction?
[MS] Yes, then Sucharit Bhakdi would have had a criminal record. Of course, we pleaded for acquittal and, luckily, we were successful.
[Q] Wasn’t it an advantage that the judge went ahead with the trial anyway? [i.e., permitting discovery in the courtroom] If the trial had only failed because of a formality [miscarriage of justice], the contents could not have been examined for acquittal.
[MS] Before the arraignment, we filed a motion for the indictment not to be read because, in our opinion, the indictment did not meet the formal requirements. However, the judge saw it differently. But normally the trial should never have been opened. The accusations were without any substance from the beginning.
[Q] From your point of view, what was the emotional situation of your client during the trial?
[MS] Sucharit Bhakdi is a Buddhist, he is not easily upset, he was quite calm. However, I think he was also glad that he had a defence team with whom he could have the feeling that they would take care that everything would be done properly during the trial.
Lawyers in Corona-specific cases have a psychological task that should not be underestimated. Their clients—Sucharit Bhakdi is a very good example of this—have never come into conflict with the law before, never intended to do so, and are now being criminalised by an over-reaching state on absurd charges. We have to relieve these people of the worry that the assaults will continue in the courtroom. Of course, we can’t guarantee anything.
[Q] Now, legacy media are writing about this intensely, with many outlets writing rote of enthusiastic Bhakdi disciples who had received him in front of the court with Asian gestures of greeting and so on…
[MS] This is really ridiculous. In Thailand, you get such prayer gestures all the time as a greeting. This is a desperate attempt by the corporate media to damage the key witness of the indictment that will one day be directed against themselves.
For one thing must be seen: if you look at the figures and the risk signals, it is clear that this Corona vaccination campaign has caused massive damage. The question of legal responsibility will be raised. And it will play a role that an expert like Sucharit Bhakdi warned against the injections in the first place.
That is why they are portraying the whole thing as if those who sympathise with Sucharit Bhakdi are a handful of crackpots and a cult. But they are riding a dead horse here because they have no exit strategy. They’ve bought into the narrative hook, line, and sinker, even as it continues to collapse.
[Q] Could it now be a next task for the lawyers to take a legal look at this completely defamatory Wikipedia entry by Sucharit Bhakdi? I have just reread the entry in its entirety and it is shocking what is still listed as misinformation, but has in fact been confirmed for the most part. I find it interesting that the main author of the entry seems to be a left-wing radical or extremist ...
[MS] We will certainly deal with the legal implications in a follow-up, if necessary with the help of lawyers specialised in media law.
[Q] Was the ruling fully in favour of Mr Bhakdi? Or were there any limitations?
[MS] The judge asked which interpretations could be considered and can we safely exclude an interpretation that is permissible under the law on the expression of opinion? Here he then stated, no, we cannot. The judge is not called upon to interpret the statements of Sucharit Bhakdi in a final and binding way. He is only called upon to say which interpretations come into consideration at all and whether a permissible one is included.
However, there was one aspect that the judge found intolerable, namely comparing the vaccination campaign with the Holocaust. However, Sucharit Bhakdi had not said that. He had only quoted from a letter by Holocaust survivors. This did not come across enough in sentencing hearing. But in the end we achieved what we wanted: the well-deserved acquittal of Sucharit Bhakdi. Now we want to see what happens next.
[Q] Do you think that this verdict can also point the way for further trials of this kind? Against critics of Corona measures?
[MS] Let’s put it this way: this was only about the limits of freedom of expression. I don’t see this ruling as a signal that the courts will finally start to question the narratives of the Robert Koch Institute and the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
Late yesterday evening, I learned that the Bochum District Court has rejected all motions for evidence on the dramatic vaccination damage in the trial against the Dr. Heinrich Habig for allegedly falsely issued vaccination certificates. They simply do not want to admit that vaccination pressure and compulsory vaccination are a large-scale state attack on people’s lives and health.
[Q] In what form would Lars Wienand have to fear legal consequences? What could they be?
[MS] If it turns out that this whole media denial, cover-up and trivialisation of the vaccination risks, which were known from the beginning and which Sucharit Bhakdi warned about from the beginning, is based on intent, we might be talking about aiding and abetting aggravated assault or grievous bodily harm, aiding and abetting manslaughter, or even aiding and abetting murder. One day it will have to be established who knew what about what during this vaccination campaign. A few weeks ago, Mr. Lauterbach admitted on television (I think it was in the "heute-journal", aired on 12 March 2023) that he had known about the side effects of vaccination from the beginning. And yet he pushed for a general obligation to vaccinate and put the corresponding draft laws on track. In doing so, he deliberately threatened people’s health and lives.
[Q] Isn’t that a bit much, I mean, you are also including journalists in this allegation?
[MS] If it should turn out that, firstly, these vaccination complications were deliberately brought about by politicians, authorities, and manufacturers and, secondly, the media’s assistance in downplaying them was also deliberate, then we are really talking about a criminal conspiracy that implicates the corporate media.
The corporate media have participated in two ways: on the one hand, they have lulled people into believing that nothing can happen to them through the injections. On the other hand, through their infamous agitation against those who nevertheless did not trust the state vaccination campaign and therefore decided against the injection, they encouraged the politicians to build up pressure through 2G/3G [vaccine passports] harassment and occupation-related vaccination mandates, which in some cases threatened their existence. Without the intensive media support, the politicians would never have got away with it.
[Q] In other words, you would say that, under certain circumstances, a few figures like Lars Wienand prevented that instead of 80%, perhaps only 30 or 40% of the population would have decided to take the jabs. That would be millions of indictments?
[MS] That is correct. We are talking about tens of millions of cases. But it’s not just a few people, it’s a whole host of journalists working in corporate media. It is precisely the uniformity of the media that has favoured the vaccination campaign. They all have to fear the legal proceedings. All the more so if it can be proven that they have consciously collaborated in all this, that we are dealing not only with accidental uniformity, but with purposeful uniformity [Gleichschaltung].
With his educational work, Sucharit Bhakdi has saved countless people from inflicting serious harm on themselves through the Corona injections. He could have saved many more people if the corporate media had not permanently defamed him and systematically suppressed his criticism. The vaccine propaganda hawks have the lives and health of millions of vaccine victims on their consciences. One day, they will have to face the political, but also the legal consequences. Sucharit Bhakdi will then be the chief witness for the prosecution. And that is what the corporate media and their hacks are afraid of. That is exactly what I said in my closing statement yesterday.
The interview was conducted alt-media journalist Alexander Wallasch (Q).
This is a very long post already, hence I’ll spare you most of what I thought when reading these.
I will, however, say this: Bhakdi’s defence counsel, Prof. Martin Schwab, is a professor of law at the University of Bielefeld (profile). He’s far from what corporate media typically calls a ‘crackpot’.
While we could certainly benefit from more lawyers like him, the essence of what he’s saying is this: the rule of law is wounded, perhaps mortally.
Germany’s SPD Minister of the Interior, one Nancy Faeser, has repeatedly spoken of her aim to invert due process by making it incumbent on the accused to prove his or her innocence, effectively doing away with the presumption of innocence.
This is a very dangerous moment in time, yet it is also a double-edged sword, because if Martin Schwab is correct, at some point in time people like Spahn, Lauterbach, and their ilk, as well as many people working in corporate media, might find themselves in court—and with a bit of luck, they’d then incriminate each other to prove their own ‘innocence’.
Talk about circular firing squads.