Letter to Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi I

Why the Charge Against Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Cannot be Taken Seriously Or Why the Public Prosecutor Ought to Resign

Letters from Vienna #165

Letter to Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi I

Why the Charge Against Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Cannot be Taken Seriously

Or

Why the Public Prosecutor Ought to Resign

Dear Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi,

I was sorry but hardly surprised to hear of your difficulties; on Tuesday you are due to have a hearing in court. From what I’ve read[1] you’ve been charged with “belittling/trivializing the Holocaust by comparing the COVID-19 vaccination campaign to the Holocaust”. The full text of the accusation (I’m reliably informed) seems to be the following:

Dear Sir or Madam,

According to § 160 I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, please take note with this email that Mr Sucharit Bhakdi has very probably committed a punishable offence against § 130 Ill of the Criminal Code.

Mr Bhakdi publicly commented on the Holocaust as follows:

“With the approval of the vaccines the first milestone of the agenda has been achieved and the race is on to achieve the ultimate goal. This ultimate goal is the creation of the new reality and involves nothing other than the second Holocaust.”

By putting the vaccination—which is demonstrably harmless—against the Corona virus on par with the Holocaust, he is belittling the genocide of the National Socialists in the 3rd Reich and thus fulfilling the constituent elements of § 130 III StGB [StGB = Criminal Code].

The original statement can be found here:

https://twitter.com/humbughund/status/1478061571339341831

and in the attachment to this email. Since you have now become aware of the offence that has been committed, I ask you to commence an investigation.

I myself am not further connected with the matter and only want Mr. Bhakdi to be held accountable for his statement. Therefore, I request you to take this information as a cause for investigation, but not include my name in the file.”

This statement is patently ridiculous and the fact that it is being taken seriously at all by the public prosecutor means that one of three things have occurred:

1.     The public prosecutor might have been subject to political pressure, has been bribed, has been blackmailed or has become part of the “Global Deep State” or

2.     The public prosecutor has become (through overwork?) incompetent or

3.     A harmless misunderstanding has taken place, which will duly be cleared up in court

I sincerely hope that option three is the case (I like to think the best of people but either which way the public prosecutor ought to do the honorable thing and resign) yet I will leave it open to the reader as to which is the more likely option.

To clarify matters it’s important to know what is entailed in this law:

who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,

1.

incites hatred, calls for violent or arbitrary measures against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, part of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of an aforementioned group or part of the population

2.

attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously slandering or slandering an aforementioned group, part of the population or an individual because of his or her membership of an aforementioned group or part of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Anyone who

1.

disseminates content (§ 11 Paragraph 3) or makes it accessible to the public or offers, leaves or makes available content (§ 11 Paragraph 3) to a person under the age of eighteen who

a)

incites hatred against a group specified in subsection 1 number 1, against parts of the population or against an individual because of their membership of a group specified in subsection 1 number 1 or part of the population,

b)

calls for violent or arbitrary measures against persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a, or

c)

attacks the human dignity of persons or groups of persons referred to in letter a by insulting them, maliciously slandering them or slandering them, or

2.

produces, obtains, supplies, keeps in stock, offers, advertises content referred to in number 1 letters a to c (§ 11 Paragraph 3) or undertakes to import or export it in order to use it within the meaning of number 1 or another person to allow such use.[2]

The key part of the accusation, and the reason why it’s patently ridiculous and needs to be laughed out of court, is the passage:

“which is demonstrably harmless”

Is the “the vaccination against the Corona virus” “demonstrably harmless”?

If it were the case that the vaccination against the Corona virus “is demonstrably harmless”, then the onus would clearly be on the accuser who needs to demonstrate the truth of this statement.

Given the fact that it will take at least TEN YEARS if not longer to show what exactly the effects of these “vaccinations” actually are (which are, according to a number of sources: not “vaccinations” at all) this statement is demonstrably false. Even the greatest blockhead of a public prosecutor must acknowledge this simple fact.

Given the urgency of the case I’ll expand on this theme in a later letter and send this one off immediately…

Best,

Michael

---

[1] https://doctors4covidethics.org/support-dr-sucharit-bhakdi/?fbclid=IwAR2YmG2CvOcDdxY_1S09uZWBPKlW1PGq9NirHjmxDAl847NwS71Tlm9XkZk

[2] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html

„Wer in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören,

1.

gegen eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder durch ihre ethnische Herkunft bestimmte Gruppe, gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen dessen Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung zum Hass aufstachelt, zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen auffordert oder

2.

die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, dass er eine vorbezeichnete Gruppe, Teile der Bevölkerung oder einen Einzelnen wegen dessen Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,

wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft.

(2) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer

1.

einen Inhalt (§ 11 Absatz 3) verbreitet oder der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich macht oder einer Person unter achtzehn Jahren einen Inhalt (§ 11 Absatz 3) anbietet, überlässt oder zugänglich macht, der

a)

zum Hass gegen eine in Absatz 1 Nummer 1 bezeichnete Gruppe, gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen dessen Zugehörigkeit zu einer in Absatz 1 Nummer 1 bezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung aufstachelt,

b)

zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen gegen in Buchstabe a genannte Personen oder Personenmehrheiten auffordert oder

c)

die Menschenwürde von in Buchstabe a genannten Personen oder Personenmehrheiten dadurch angreift, dass diese beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich gemacht oder verleumdet werden oder

2.

einen in Nummer 1 Buchstabe a bis c bezeichneten Inhalt (§ 11 Absatz 3) herstellt, bezieht, liefert, vorrätig hält, anbietet, bewirbt oder es unternimmt, diesen ein- oder auszuführen, um ihn im Sinne der Nummer 1 zu verwenden oder einer anderen Person eine solche Verwendung zu ermöglichen.”