First, let’s get the facts out of the way so you can make a judgement for yourself. According to police, on the 13th of August at 8:15am a 41 year old male tourist, who was highly intoxicated, left a café in Dresden making a straight armed Nazi salute. He was attacked outside of the café and suffered minor injuries. His attacker fled the scene and the search for the assailant is ongoing.
The German government outlawed the salute under section 86a of the criminal code, ‘use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations’ outside of the contexts of ‘art science, research or teaching’ thus the law itself prohibits the salute and the prosecuted could face jail time, although it is usually a sizeable fine. I’m sure you can already see how blaringly unnecessary that attack was.
This is what the law is there for. The government exists to serve people’s rights and to protect its citizens. In the world we live in society knows that actions come with consequences. Of course sometimes the system doesn’t work and yes it is run by humans who have opinions and can make mistakes but in all earnest it exists to protect people. It isn’t to confound and prohibit people, it is supposed to protect and regulate all people, on both sides of a crime.
‘i’m sure you can already see how blaringly unnecessary that attack was.’
The intoxicated man would have been aware of the law, only two weeks previously, two Chinese tourists made the news in Berlin for performing the same Nazi salute in front of the Reichstag. The man could not hide behind ignorance, had the incident been reported the system would have worked as it had been proved to work before and the offense would have been seen to. No need for violence.
On the other side of things the person who attacked the offender, in essence, forsook any sort of innocence. The law protects all of its people, by attacking the man he too broke the law, the government is obliged to protect the rights of the drunk man too. Theirs isn’t a fascist government, a violent condemnation to fascism is its own type of fascism. Trying not to sound too dramatic, it stems from a sense of humanity, what gave him the right to attack the man? No one has the right to cause harm to another person. If he felt obliged to do something he should have reported it.
‘society and government are built for safety and freedom, and we are not neanderthals.’
Of course it’s not an excuse but who knows what could have lead the man to leave the café at 8:15 in the morning baring a Nazi salute. Whatever the reason for the attack be it pride or anger is irrelevant, the law exists to determine the right of things, its developed with the intention of fairness, so that people are judged fairly, so that the truth comes out and people are safe but are accountable for their actions.
Weather you believe in the system or side with the law in this instance doesn’t matter, the attacker assaulted the man who broke the law, breaking the law. The abrupt violent condemnation of the attacker is akin to fascist methods in itself. Now both of them, rather than the first offender, must deal with the consequences.
A violent attack of any kind in this day and age is barbaric. Society and government are built for safety and freedom, and we are not Neanderthals. Violence should only be used in defence of one’s self or another person. There is never a need to attack another person, but of course if everyone realised that there would be no need for that kind of violence either.