Where the Halle trial ends, begins the path to pursue justice - our impressions of the final trial sessions

In December 2020 we went to Magdeburg to attend the last days of the trial against the perpetrator of the Halle attack. With our attendance we wanted to show our solidarity towards the co-plaintiffs and be present as observers in the courtroom. To process and to share the experience of the two days – which is full of powerful and dreadful moments, we decided to write some of our thoughts down in this article. Our experience and view is one of observers and friends. We are Moritz and Alex.

Every day of the trial, a demonstration took place in front of the court house, organized by rotating teams from different initiatives.

The Halle attack happened on Yom Kippur, on the 9th of October 2019. The attacker tried to get into the synagogue to shoot Jews, he hoped to find many there. He radicalized himself mainly through right wing online platforms and was streaming his attack live. He did not manage to get into the synagogue and went spontaneously to a kebab shop where he expected to be able to shoot Muslims. As he commented in his live stream, he wanted to kill at least the "symptom" if he was not able to kill "the cause". From here he fled after the police arrived. Spontaneously again, he tried to kill a man on the side of the road because of his racist worldview and was captured almost two hours after the start of the attack, 40km away from Halle. During his attack, he had killed one person in front of the synagogue, Jana L. who was 40 years old and one person in the kebab store, Kevin S. who was 20 years old.

We must admit that we did not follow the process which started in July as thoroughly as we wish we would have done. This is our first insight: we have repressed and ignored a lot of thoughts about this process. Although we knew that this is the biggest trial on an antisemitic attack since the Nuremberg trials. We knew that our friend Naomi was a co-plaintiff in the trial and faced the attacker every day of it. We knew that our friend Nathan came to all the days of the trial as an observer. Still, for a long time we felt as if we were not affected enough - even though Alex had been at one of the places shortly before the attack, - and acted very passively. After a conversation with Nathan we realized that being passive was wrong. The second insight was that we should offer our help, ask the people we see as more affected how they feel, and show them that they are not alone. We should also ask ourselves the same questions, because we were not okay with the fact that this attack happened. To confront ourselves with the reality of the emotional aspects of the attack and to overcome our passivity, we decided to go to the trial.

We wish now, we would have been there and supported our friends more often. But frankly, we were already very lucky that it was possible to plan this trip across Germany in times of the pandemic at all. We met with Naomi and Nathan online to prepare for the trip. Naomi gave us an introduction on the meaning and the specific aspects of the trial. And Nathan provided us with information on what it means to be observers to the trial - what we are and what we are not allowed to do.

On the first day, the 24th day of the trial altogether, the co-plaintiffs and their attorneys gave their closing statements. This day was very moving. We saw that the attorneys had very different goals in the trial although they all were on the same side of the table. They represented the victims of all kind - targeted victims by the attacker, random white people who happened to be victims of the attack, and the police officers who were shot (not mortally) by the attacker, - and their goals were reflecting the position of their representative within the German society. Attorneys representing the targeted victims, the Jews, the kebab store owner Ismet Tekin, and the person who was hit by the attacker's car, Aftax I., put emphasis on the need to uncover the antisemitic, racist and misogynistic structures within the society where this attack could happen. It was empowering to see that the targeted victims of the attack were the largest group of co-plaintiffs and worked together to see justice happen in this German court. The German court definitely did not treat them with the empathy and understanding they deserved. At the same time, this is the very reason, why their participation was so important. The participation itself was not a given as the German court did not recognize the synagogue visitors as victims in the first draft for the trial. The co-plaintiffs and their attorneys brought up aspects which they did not want to see ignored in the court. They made clear that antisemitism, racism and misogyny are an integral part of the German society and that we as society need to analyse and fight these structures instead of systematically ignoring them. Some other attorneys stressed that politics had no place in court. The attorneys of the police were hard to endure. The Jewish community had criticized how the police had handled the situation in many aspects on the day of the attack. Instead of an excuse, the police's attorney called the police the "silent heroes of the day" and explained that it is absolutely normal that the police department didn't know that these people in the synagogue were Jewish and that they had a high holiday because most people in Germany wouldn't know any Jews personally. Comments like these have created tension in us, because we did not know what to expect from them and therefore, what kind of feelings and emotions would be triggered at any moment. Despite the many empowering moments, the first day in court was very exhausting and we also knew that the second day with the closing arguments of the defence and the perpetrator himself would be very hard again.

The second day started with the speech of the main defender. He explained why the visitors to the synagogue should not be counted as victims of the attempted murder. How ridiculous that line of thought is became clear from the perpetrator’s statements. In his delusional anti-Semitic tirades, it was again not the presiding judge who interrupted him, but the attorneys of the co-plaintiffs. They shouted loudly: "Objection!" or “Stop that!” after the perpetrator committed the crime of Shoah denial in his closing argument. After the break, the judge gave the perpetrator two more opportunities to speak again, which he refused, almost annoyed. The behaviour of the judge, or the judicial officer and the state representatives in the court lead to a further realization: The structures of this constitutional state seem to have no interest at this point to fully enforce justice. To do this, they would have to question and reflect on themselves and at least feel the need to understand anti-Semitism as a complex phenomenon. Instead, the priorities are that everything starts on time and that no shoes are left on the wooden benches in the waiting hall.

It was a lot of emotional impressions in a short time in a small space. During the mandatory ventilation breaks, we laughed a lot on the balcony. It felt strange that it was so easy to get into a good mood so fast. But looking back we realize that it was more of a coping mechanism because the mood in the court room was so tense for us. This was not a fun trip, and still, we are immensely glad that we came to the trial, that we supported our friends, that we gave ourselves the opportunity to translate the emotions that we have concerning the attack, and that we can share this reflection with you here.

Right wing violence is real. Survivors and their circles remain with the trauma. Society should focus on them instead of the perpetrators, ask them if they need help, participate in supportive demonstrations that demand that these things should never happen again. The German society must acknowledge, analyse and fight the antisemitism, racism and misogyny that is rooted within its own structure. Without such honesty towards themselves, people will continue to repress their own emotions to get through their everyday lives and the victims and survivors will stay alone surrounded by a lack of empathy. It is a moral necessity to stand with the victims and show solidarity.