German Court Rules Hotels Can Ban Right-Wing Extremists

DW, March 9, 2012

German hotels have the right to turn away far-right extremists for their political views, according to a court ruling. The case struggled to reconcile the principles of freedom and equality.

Germany’s highest appellate court for criminal and civil cases ruled on Friday that hotels can refuse service to right-wing extremists.

The Federal Court of Justice said that although hotels have the right to refuse service to guests based on their political orientation, they cannot retroactively cancel bookings for this reason. The case arose when the spa hotel Esplanade in the eastern German state of Brandenburg refused to honor a booking made by the former head of the extreme right-wing National Democratic Party (NPD), Udo Voigt, in 2009.

The hotel had argued that Voigt’s polarizing political views were not reconcilable with its goal of offering an “excellent wellness experience” to all of its guests. Voigt had booked a four-day stay with his wife before the reservation was canceled by the hotel. He subsequently sued Esplanade for 7,500 euros ($9,915) on the grounds of discrimination.

Fundamental principles

The Federal Court of Justice ordered the cancelation of Voigt’s booking reversed for the period in question since it was retroactive, but at the same time said that a hotel is fundamentally “free to decide whom it accepts and whom it does not.”

Judge Wolfgang Krüger, a chairman on the court, had said in October that the case “raised unusually difficult legal questions.” One of the questions was whether or not a hotel, like an airport or a stadium, is a public space open for everyone.

Although Article 3 of Germany’s constitution states that nobody should be subject to favorable or unfavorable treatment on the basis of religious or political views, the court said this principle does not necessarily apply between private people and companies.

 

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • bubo

    Well, it was a pretty good run for Western Civilization.  I think it’s pretty much over now though.  It has survived terrible wars, pandemics, natural and man-made disasters.  Liberalism is unsurvivable  though I’m afraid.  

  • anarchyst

    Most people are unaware that in most European countries,  questioning ANY aspect of the WW2 jewish “holocaust” is punishable by heavy fines and imprisonment. 
    Just ask the noted WW2 historian David Irving or the holocaust researcher Ernst Zundel what questioning aspects of the “holocaust” got them.  David Irving served a sentence in Europe while Ernst Zundel is still imprisoned in Canada, subject to extradition to Germany.
    To those who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject–WHY is honest “holocaust” research punishable as a crime? 
    WHY is any deviation from “holocaust” orthodoxy” looked on as a threat. 
    WHY do jewish people use the “holocaust” as a “race card” in the same way blacks do?
    This ties in with the German court decision to legalize discrimination against those it does not agree with. 
    Moderator:  this is NOT “race-baiting”, merely scholarly questions to a vexing “problem” that affects us all–the abridgement of “freedom of speech”
    Thanks

    • IanJMacDonald

      Congratulations, Anarchyst, for hijacking the thread. 

      • anarchyst

        Not “hijacking”, merely a quest for TRUTH.  Much TRUTH is unpleasant; many people are loath to seek TRUTH for that reason alone. 
        Much of what is considered TRUTH is actually “propaganda”, designed to evoke a certain response and to achieve a certain aim.
        It is no secret that “history” is written by the victors; the “vanquished” have no say in what is TRUTH versus propaganda.  In many cases, it takes a lifetime before the (real, not perceived) TRUTH gets out. 
        One only has to look at the Katyn massacre (in which Polish officers and intelligentia were murdered by the soviets) to see that the soviets attempted to blame it on Germany.  In an unusual show of cooperation between combatants (during wartime), the TRUTH was finally ascertained (to the dismay of the soviets).
        Please do not forget, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects ALL speech, especially unpopular speech, not just what most people are comfortable with.
        Best regards,

      • jeffaral

        If it was allowed to honestly and scientifically discuss the so called holocaust in Germany the whole political edifice of postwar Germany would collapse.  The powers that be won’t allow it to happen!

    • blight14

       VERY well stated!

    • anonymous_amren

      I have no ethical problem with punishing people for being that stupid, since it is about the most well documented event in human history.

      Honest holocaust research is not punishable as a crime, since honest researchers come to the same conclusions as PC researchers in this case. Irving and Zundel are not honest researchers.

      “WHY is any deviation from “holocaust” orthodoxy” looked on as a threat.” Because some people see all untruths as a threat, particularly the convenient feel-good untruths. Because some people think history will repeat itself if you aren’t aware of it. Because it’s bad for the patriotic white nationalists whose countrymen fought and died to fight the invading NAZIs. And of couse for the normal PC reasons.

      “WHY do jewish people use the “holocaust” as a “race card” in the same way blacks do?” Because they want white people to fund and support Israel’s invasion and genocide of Palestine without question. Because they like being the most protected minority and immune from criticism. Unlike black people, it’s not because they need affirmative action. The fact that Jews play the holocaust card to get special privileges they don’t desrve, doesn’t make the holocaust untrue though.

      Strategically, it’s a bad idea to ban holocaust denial, because it makes it look like all the other true ideas which are banned. But I think there’s a key moral difference between banning lies and banning the truth.

      • anarchyst

        Fact: 
        Many jews served in Hitler’s armed services up til the end of WWII.
        Fact: 
        Zionists used the marginalization of jews in German society to “encourage” emigration to what was then known as Palestine. 
        Being successful and at the pinnacle of society, German jews had no desire to emigrate. 
        There was considerable collaboration between jewish zionists and the Nazis to make it “uncomfortable” (to say the least) for German jews . . . forced relocation either by emigration or to labor camps, etc. 
        If there was no Nazi antagonist, zionists would have had to create one.  Much of the unrest before WWII was fomented by jewish zionists . . . the ultimat goal was to populate Palestine with jews in order to create the modern jewish state of Israel.
        Fact: 
        “Gas chambers” atAuschwitz could not have been used for mass executions . . . there are NO gas-tight doors.  From an engineering standpoint, the operators of such facilities would have died along with their “victims”.  The “gas chamber” story was fabricated AFTER WWII by the soviets.  Zyklon B was a delousing agent that was used to delouse large populations around the world and was used in the camps for its intended purpose–delousing.
        Fact:
        The number of bodies cremated daily in the “ovens” is not physically possible.  The laws of physics do not make it possible to cremate bodies in minutes (as some holocaust “scholars” assert).
        Fact: 
        The pictures of emaciated bodies were NOT primarily due to starvation but typhus.  The sanitary infrastructure and food products required to keep the camps running were nonexistant due to continuous allied bombing.
        The fact that millions perished during WWII is not in dispute.  The fact that (certain) jews were singled out for forced relocation is not in dispute either and does not minimize the suffering that they went through.
        Fact: 
        The first modern-day acts of terrorism (in which no regard for civilian casualties was taken by those that perpetrated the incident) was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Palestine.  The British mandate over Palestine was then relinquished.  The state of Israel was born . . . 
        A question for those with greater knowledge on the subject–WHY would the Nazis go through all the trouble of building camps, sanitary facilities, food production facilities and war materials manufacturing facilities if their ultimate goal was extermination??

    • davejon

      Why? Maybe they are worried in case someone discovers that the “history” is not quite what it is purported to be? Just an idea…

  • http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/ Reuben H

    On the face of it, this sounds like a good decision; it defends the right of freedom of association. However, as Blaak Obongo pointed out, the law will only be interpreted so that “right-wing extremists” can be excluded. “Left-wing extremists” will never be excluded. This is because there is no such thing as a “left-wing extremist”. The established governing bodies have already moved so far left that there is practically nothing further to the left than they are – hence, no “extreme left” at all.

    By the same token, anybody who is right-wing at all, is automatically considered an “extremist”.

    The case will also, in due time, raise the question whether Islam is necessarily a religion, or if it can also be a political movement. If the latter, then it would be perfectly legal to discriminate against political Muslims.

    Zionism is a political movement, so it will now be legal to discriminate against Zionists – at least on paper. In practice, it would not be allowed.

    http://www.jewamongyou.wordpress.com

  • JohnEngelman

    The term “right wing extremist” can be considered hate speech. It conflates those who think European countries should forbid immigration of those who will nor or cannot conform to European norms of civility with those who wish Nazi Germany won the Second World War. 

  • anmpr1

    It’s a good thing we fought in WW II, so we could save Germany from those who discriminated against certain people, and from those who denied them their freedom of speech and a place to assemble.   Welcome to Bolshevist Germany.

    One point: this was not even  a cancellation for a political event, but simply a room for a private citizen.  So it is particularly egregious, and particularly revealing.  Those who can see past the surface, know exactly what it is all about.  It is simply revenge coupled with political repression.  It would be interesting to know who owns the hotel, and who complained about the guest list.

  • Anon12

     He should have never been imprisoned in the first place. This will happen to all of us who speak out some truths because certain forces do not want them known, one day. Just look at what problems the Amren Conference has, even to find a place to allow us “racists” to hold a conference. 

    When truths are hidden and are not allowed to be found, then we will all become the Ernst Zundel’s of the world.

    • blight14

       Many of us know there is only one ‘truth’ that cannot be discussed….

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FWMCMK6U5OWRHYIYJAF2TPFL2U thomas

    I have read that that many Soviets actually considered the Nazis as liberators when they invaded. Shows how brutal the Bolsheviks were to their own people.

    • curri

      Even as late as 1944 some 30,000 Ukrainians volunteered for the Galician Division.  I don’t know if there’s a decent unbiased history of the German occupation of Ukraine, but 
      it’s only common sense   that the persecution was to some degree inconsistent and uneven and some areas and some families fared better under the Germans than under the Bolsheviks.  Not to include any Jews of course.  

  • Carney3

    Blacks, as such, by their very presence, mar or deny an excellent experience for many customers. Can hotels them ban blacks, as a group?

    • anarchyst

      “Spring break” gatherings by many black college “students” invariably result in violence (must be the “culture”).  As a result, many businesses in the “targeted” spring break areas close for a week or two in order to escape the (generally rowdy and violent) black crowds.  The potential profits that could be realized during “spring break” with the large influx of blacks is simply “not worth it”.  Blacks are their own worst enemy . . . It seems that “trouble” always comes with groups of blacks.  From (false) charges of “racism” to outright violence, who needs the hassle?

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    Well, that borks Slate’s credibility.  The Klan hasn’t been anything since about 1970.  After the civil rights act was passed in 1965, the U.S. Attorneys went on the warpath against the Klan in the five years following, and that pretty much ended it.  It should be noted that the 1960s Klan was nothing like the 1920s Klan or the 1870s Klan.

    That Slate piece was nothing more than a smear against the “other” groups and publications to whom the non-existent “Klan” was losing “members,” AR included.

    I could write a piece about how the Communist Party is losing members to the Democrats, and it would be the same kind of yellow journalism.  Though it would be slightly more true — Angela Davis recently said she quit the Communists-by-name and became a plain ole Democrat because the Democrats are giving her enough of what she wanted plus it can actually win elections.

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      Zorro:  Angela Davis happens to be in the news today:

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/11/jury-isnt-out-on-angela-davis/

      Anon12:  I wasn’t talking about Klan ideology, or strategy, or tactics, or the ethics of the matter.  I was talking about size and power and influence.  The 1870s Klan tried to keep Reconstruction-era blacks in the South in line, because the Union occupiers let them run wild.  The 1920s Klan was a reaction to Catholic immigration.  Both iterations were way bigger and more popular than the Klan that existed in the 1960s.

      And like I said, by 1970, even that little blip was gone.  Therefore, any talk of the post-1970 Klan being some sort of powerful force is either intellectual dishonesty (per this Slate article), or an attempt to hustle money (SPLC — Their “Klanwatch” project started in 1980, a full decade after the Klan was wiped out).

  • anonymous_amren

    No, he isn’t saying those things. He’s saying that calling people “right wing extremists” is a form of hate speech that generalises and stereotypes us.

  • ageofknowledge

    What about left-wing extremists? Do they get a free buffet breakfast?

  • anarchyst

    Fact:
    Many jews served in Hitler’s armed services up til the end of WWII.
    Fact:
    Zionists used the marginalization of jews in German society to “encourage” emigration to what was then known as Palestine.
    Being successful and at the pinnacle of society, German jews had no desire to emigrate.
    There was considerable collaboration between jewish zionists and the Nazis to make it “uncomfortable” (to say the least) for German jews . . . forced relocation either by emigration or to labor camps, etc.
    If there was no Nazi antagonist, zionists would have had to create one. Much of the unrest before WWII was fomented by jewish zionists . . . the ultimat goal was to populate Palestine with jews in order to create the modern jewish state of Israel.
    Fact:
    “Gas chambers” atAuschwitz could not have been used for mass executions . . . there are NO gas-tight doors. From an engineering standpoint, the operators of such facilities would have died along with their “victims”. The “gas chamber” story was fabricated AFTER WWII by the soviets. Zyklon B was a delousing agent that was used to delouse large populations around the world and was used in the camps for its intended purpose–delousing.
    Fact:
    The nnumber of bodies cremated daily in the “ovens” is not physically possible. The laws of physics do not make it possible to cremate bodies in minutes (as some holocaust “scholars” assert).
    Fact:
    The pictures of emaciated bodies were NOT primarily due to starvation but typhus. The sanitary infrastructure and food products required to keep the camps running were nonexistant due to continuous allied bombing.
    The fact that millions perished during WWII is not in dispute. The fact that (certain) jews were singled out for forced relocation is not in dispute either and does not minimize the suffering that they went through.
    Fact:
    The first modern-day acts of terrorism (in which no regard for civilian casualties was taken by those that perpetrated the incident) was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Palestine. The British mandate over Palestine was then relinquished. The state of Israel was born . . .
    A question for those with greater knowledge on the subject–WHY would the Nazis go through all the trouble of building camps, sanitary facilities, food production facilities and war materials manufacturing facilities if their ultimate goal was extermination??