via Google Translate: 

Trial about the Wittenberg "Judensau" begins

For over 700 years, the anti-Semitic nastiness "Judensau" at the Wittenberg town church. A Berlin plaintiff feels insulted and wants to reach a court, that the relief is suspended. The trial starts on Thursday.
02.04.2019

Hubertus Benecke calls her a "sad celebrity": every city tour in Wittenberg sticks for the longest time in front of the "Judensau", which is emblazoned high up on the facade of the town church, says the lawyer. If it is up to his client Michael Düllmann, a member of a Jewish community in Berlin, the anti-Semitic taunt is one thing above all else: an insult. Whether this is so, will be explored from Thursday the district court Dessau-Roßlau. Should Düllmann's request be granted, the community may have to remove the relief.

Anti-Semitic representations widespread in the Middle Ages
There is no doubt that the sandstone sculpture is anti-Semitic. For in this spirit she was created around the year 1300 by an unknown hand. The sculpture shows a sow with people sitting on the teats who are supposed to represent Jews. A rabbi looks at the animal under the tail and in the anus. 

In the Middle Ages such representations were widespread. Among other things, they were to deter Jews from settling in the respective city. To this day, similar anti-Jewish mocking figures from that time can be found and in several dozen churches in Germany, including the Erfurt, the Cologne and the Regensburg Cathedral.

Above the depiction in Wittenberg there is also the inscription "Rabini Schem HaMphoras", a Hebrew reference to the ineffable name of God among the Jews. The saying reached the church facade only in the 16th century, probably inspired by an anti-Jewish nonsense of the reformer Martin Luther (1486-1546) who worked in Wittenberg and who in particular in his late work was inciting against Jews. The quotation also earned the relief the epithet "Luthersau" - and not least because of this, the dispute over the sculpture regained momentum just two years ago, especially in the 500th anniversary year of the Reformation.

Debate revived by the anniversary of the Reformation
The fronts are clear for a long time, the arguments exchanged. The city parish sees the historic-critical classification with a 1988 embedded below the sculpture floor panel Satisfied. "History should not be hidden and history mediation succeeds most impressively in the authentic place," it says in a statement. The city council of Wittenberg also advocated the preservation of the sculpture. He rated the floor slab as a memorial, and in the middle of 2017 also launched a stele with explanatory texts in German and English.

Critics argue, however, that the mocking nature of plastic persists despite these classifications. This is also how Düllmann and his lawyer Benecke see it. A first hearing before the district court Wittenberg in May 2018, however, was completed in a few minutes. Reason was the too high amount in dispute of more than 10,000 euros, the plastic should be removed. So the case came to the district court Dessau-Roßlau. 

There, the plaintiff's goal is clear: "We want the sculpture to be removed from the church wall and properly processed in the museum," says Benecke. He himself is a Christian, but personally think that this is the "cleanest solution". In view of the attitude of the community, however, he has the feeling that "somehow the point does not arrive". 

Legally, the matter is tricky. The action is based on insult under paragraph 185 of the Penal Code in connection with a claim for injunctive relief and injunctive relief under article 1004 of the Civil Code. A court spokesman calls this constellation "problematic" since the claim for elimination has priority. Attorney Benecke, however, says that the most important thing is the court's finding that the insult fulfills the offense.

The district court is expected to announce its decision two to three weeks after the trial. In addition to a verdict to the detriment of the parish, according to the spokesman it can also consist in continuing the process with a taking of evidence - or in an "amicable agreement". But this excludes Benecke: About "the when and how" of a removal of the plastic one can talk, he says, "but not on the question of whether or not". In the event of a negative outcome, his client is ready to go to the European Court of Justice.