Last Thursday the Prague Municipal Court reviewed the appeal of politician Otto Chaloupka against his conviction by the Prague 1 District Court for inciting hatred against an ethnic group. He had been sentenced at the start of September to six months’ probation.
In June 2013, Chaloupka published an open letter on Facebook generally charging all Romani people with perpetrating assault, theft, and welfare abuse. He threatened that massacres of Roma would be committed by the non-Romani citizens whom Romani people were allegedly constantly attacking.
The open letter was addressed to a Mr František Tomáš. Just prior to Chaloupka posting it, Tomáš had actually managed to stop a violent clash between drunks that night on the streets of the northern Bohemian town of Duchcov.
Defense says Czech intelligence agrees with them
During last Thursday’s hearing, Tomáš Stuchlík, the judge at the Prague Municipal Court, first extensively referred to the content of the verdict in question and then to the defendant’s appeal. He then asked Chaloupka’s defense attorney whether he had anything else to say or more evidence to submit.
Chaloupka’s attorney referred to his written appeal and then asked the court to consider reviewing the recently published summary of a report by the Security Information Service (Bezpečnostní informační služby – BIS) about last year. The defense argued that the content of that official report was basically the same as the content of what Chaloupka expressed last year in the open letter at issue.
The judge’s response was uncompromising: "The question was whether you have further evidence to propose. Do you have any or not?"
The defense then withdrew his suggestion: "I do not." In fact, the most recent BIS report warns that at present, ordinary citizens incited by politicians to violently attack others might be even more dangerous than the neo-Nazis are.
The prosecutor then provided support for the content of the charges against the defendant and for the verdict against him by saying "the legal qualification completely corresponds to the evidence presented." She also proposed that the court reject the appeal.
The defense then asked the court to overturn the first-instance verdict and to acquit Chaloupka: "The verdict does not present any specific statement by my client that rises to the level of a felony." In the view of the defense, the first-instance verdict did not hold up to review.
A modern Fuehrer
Prior to announcing his own verdict, Judge Stuchlík forbade audio or video recordings from being made. I will therefore attempt to reconstruct his words: He said the evidence presented to the court was complete and that the verdict of the first-instance court was completely specific and clearly described which statements made by Chalouka rose to the level of a felony.
Stuchlík said Chaloupka’s words were not just an incitement to hatred against an ethnic group, but "to assault, to lynching". "At that time you were a member of Parliament," the judge told the defendant.
"Your job was not to incite people to violence, but to prevent it," Judge Stuchlík said. "Instead, you called for them to follow their Fuehrer."
This was obviously a reference to the way in which the Nazis rose to power and established the Third Reich. The judge then went on to say that he believed the District Court had actually underestimated the dangerousness of the defendant’s behavior.
"If the punishment had been stricter, we would have agreed with it," Stuchlík said. The three-member panel of the appeals court, of course, could also increase the sentencing.
Evidently, however, the court did not want to provide the politician any more opportunities for publicity. Stuchlík contented himself with lecturing Chaloupka as if he were a little boy: "You’re on probation, watch it!"
On the former MP’s Facebook page, someone had called on Chaloupka’s fans to come to the hearing to support him. While 22 people said they would attend in person, ultimately only a handful made it; one of those few was Michal Babák, a former MP himself and Chaloupka’s fellow party member.
The appeal hearing took place without almost any media attention at all. Chaloupka had recently lost the Senate election, and his freshly-established party completely failed in the local elections.
Chaloupka says he is returning to business – he has not succeeded in politics, and now he has failed in the courts. Recently he has been watching his words.
Be careful, politicians
Chaloupka will probably appeal to the Czech Supreme Court now. That court could issue a decision that will set the direction for future verdicts by lower courts in similar cases, of which there have been many recently.
If both the Supreme Court and the Czech Constitutional Court reject any eventual complaints by Chaloupka, all that will be left to him will be the European Court of Human Rights, which is famous for placing great emphasis on protecting freedom of speech. Indeed, after September’s first-instance verdict, a passionate discussion was unleashed in the Czech media as to whether that verdict had endangered freedom of speech.
For example, Jindřich Šídlo of the national daily Hospodářske noviny warned that Facebook "is full of statements like those made by Chaloupka from morning to evening". Martin M. Šimečka of the weekly RESPEKT responded as follows: "If the court were to proceed fairly now, it has enough work ahead of it for the next 100 years."
Chaloupka, however, was not convicted of making anti-Romani statements. He is guilty of demonstrably using them to escalate conflict, not just once, but systematically – behavior that, in other countries, has led more than once to sparking civil war.
Last week’s verdict is also significant for political reasons. It provides an explanation as to how last year such extremely dangerous anti-Romani marches could take place in a country which is rather known for the infrequency with which its citizens ever take to the streets to demonstrate.
Otto Chaloupka is far from the only Czech politician who feeds off of public calls for violence. After these verdicts, other politicians can see how they might end up if brought to trial on such charges.
