austin-murphy-the-triumph-of-evil

140 THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL
leaders was police action allowed (Rein, 1989). By the time this hap
pened in Berlin, there were already over ten thousand people in the
crowd (and they were mixing with another group that was returning
from a government fireworks festival).
People arrested fo r making public statements against the government
or fo r leading unauthorized demonstrations were usually released with
a warning for first offenses (Riecker, Schwarz, and Schneider, 1990).
However, serious and subsequent offenses could be penalized with several
years in prison (Furian, 1991). A statement against the government
or its laws was considered serious only if the police perceived the action
to be threatening to the government and/or to have been initiated by
fo reigners or others seeking to overthrow the government (Rein, 1989).
For instance, jokes about the government were allowed to be told in
bars and private gatherings as long as there was no perceived intent
to overthrow the system (Schlechte and Schlechte, 1993). Normally,
the police (usually the secret police) attempted to persuade any offending
individuals from further public anti-government action (Riecker,
Schwarz, and Schneider, 1990). In the October 7-8 events in Berlin,
however, there were simply too many to persuade, including many
who were arrested or injured without having made any anti-government
statements and without having been involved in the unauthorized "gathering"
at all (Schnauze, 1990).
Although no one died in the actions in Berlin on October 7 and 8,
there were quite a fe w hospitalized (including some police troops).
The international press came out strongly for the demonstrators and
expressed shock at the police brutality (Schumann, 1990). To provide
some perspective here, however, it should be pointed out that the East
German laws against publicly slandering the country were similar to
some American laws (existing in 48 of the 50 USA states) prohibiting
flag-burning (Greene, 2000). In addition with respect to laws on demonstrations,
it should be mentioned that even in the "free" USA, demonstrations
are only allowed if permits (which are not always granted)
have been obtained from the government, and masses of intimidating
police are often present even when a demonstration is permitted (lAC,
1998a). Moreover, it should also be noted that demonstrators in the USA
are often chased down and clubbed, arrested (for "unlawful assembly
and crossing police barricades''), and sprayed with harmful chemicals
CHAPTER 3
just for engaging in peaceful protests against the world poverty caused
by capitalist globalization (Associated Press, 2000g). Government ordinances
are also sometimes imposed in the USA to prohibit demonstrators
from wearing helmets, gas masks, or other protection from police
assaults (Szczesny, 2000b ), thereby ensuring police brutality has the
maximum effect.
141
At any rate, since most East Germans watched West German TV,
their opinions of the events were strongly influenced by the We stern
anticommunist interpretation of the actions of October 7-8 (that naturally
emphasized police repression and put East Germany in a negative
light). As a result, many East German supporters of the demonstrators
attended candle-laying ceremonies to show their solidarity against
violent attacks on innocent people, and the movement began to gain
momentum (Bahrmann and Links, 1994).
THE LEIPZIG AFFAIR
Shortly thereafter, on Monday, October 9, 1989, one of the stranger
events of this weird episode occurred. On that day in a town with over
four hundred thousand residents in the southwestern portion of East
Germany, there was a threat of another large demonstration, and the
�ackground to and actions of that day remain a mystery to most inves­
tigators (Joppke, 1995).
Since 1982, small demonstrations had periodically occurred around a
church (Nikolaikirche) in the center of Leipzig at approximately 6 P.M.
0� Monday (Scheider, 1990). For many years, young East German dis­
stdents had figured out that the East German government's guarantee
of religious freedom allowed them some rights to freedom of assem­
bly and expression there, after a "peace prayer" was issued at 5 P.M. I
myself interviewed some of the participants who indicated that most of
the demonstrators had no religious beliefs but merely used the church
� a protective cover fo r expressing their discontent. Such demonstra­
�ons usually consisted of several dozen dissidents at the most, and the
emonstrators were always dispersed shortly after leaving the church.
S
uspected ringleaders of the demonstrations were usually arrested and
�meti � es given jail sentences of up to several years for slander or plot­
tng agatnst the state.
On September 4, 1989, in keeping with this tradition, several youths