It’s actually just a side note, the penultimate sentence in a FAZ article, but what has been written weighs heavily for the writer Carolin Emcke. the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had on February 17 under the heading “Under the Jewish Star”. the case of the former daily mirror– Columnist Harald Martenstein reported – and referred to Emcke in the penultimate sentence. The newspaper alludes to a debate that had occupied numerous media in the summer: the author’s keynote speech at the federal party conference of the Greens.
Little review. According to the speech manuscript, Emcke, who is also a columnist for the SZ, said at the event in June: “No matter which party constellation will enter the next government, no matter how quickly and socially balanced the ecological transformation is then tackled – the Radical hostility towards science, the cynical exploitation of social insecurity, the populist mobilization and the willingness to resentment and violence will remain.The term ‘elite’ will certainly be spoken of again and presumably it will not then be ‘the Jews’ and ‘cosmopolitans’, not the feminists’ or the ‘virologists’ warned against, but the climate researchers.”
the image accused her of comparing climate researchers with persecuted Jews. Emcke was called a “Holocaust trivializer” on social networks. The Central Council of Jews called for an end to the debate about Emcke, which had taken on “inappropriate proportions”.
“That was completely taken out of context and misquoted,” says the lawyer
In February, the FAZ wrote about Harald Martenstein and German anti-Semitism debates. There it says: “You will have to read the texts of authors like Dirk Moses more closely, who describe Muslims as new Jews without any obvious sign of a similar threat. Or who, like Carolin Emcke, describe climate scientists as new Jews.”
However, Emcke never literally referred to climate scientists as “new Jews” in her lecture. “That was completely taken out of context and misquoted – and simply distorted,” says Christian Schertz, the writer’s lawyer. He sees this as a violation of personal rights. “We had offered the FAZ to stop circulating the sentence and to refrain from any further legal dispute, but the FAZ refused.” Correspondence available to the SZ shows that the FAZ recognizes the statement as “summarized” and “exaggerated”. The sentence was “not objectionable”.
Has the issue been resolved now?
Emcke’s lawyer then applied for a temporary injunction. The district court of Hamburg shares his opinion. In Wednesday’s decision, the court prohibited the FAZ from further spreading the relevant sentence about Emcke. His client “somewhat regrets that something like this was necessary,” says attorney Schertz.
The FAZ can now appeal against the court decision within six months. The newspaper states that the court order has “not yet been served”. “So at this point in time, we can’t decide whether we’re going to appeal.”