The person accused of insult in this case says that he receives different amounts from the job center each month, at less than the standard amount. This indicates that he is likely struggling with the surveillance and sanctioning tactics of the job center, which are designed to keep government spending to a minimum and pressure people into taking up employment as quickly as possible, even under exploitative conditions. In recent years, racist narratives in politics and the media have stoked moral panics around migrants supposedly coming to Germany to commit large-scale welfare fraud.¹ The person accused of insult in this case is a racialized German citizen, suggesting that increased job center scrutiny extends beyond recently migrantized populations as well.

While it should come as no surprise that someone might voice their frustration when faced with scrutiny and sanctions over the income that sustains their livelihood, the court shows no understanding whatsoever. On the contrary, the court in this case acts as an extension of the punitive job center system, serving to further discipline people seeking benefits.

The person receives a very high fine (over four months of income) without the assistance of an attorney. Indeed, much of the escalating dynamic in the courtroom is due to the judge’s negative assessment of the person’s demeanor and racialized interpretation of his attempts to defend himself. Due to racist stereotypes, people from racialized groups are often accused of acting emotionally or irrationally.

Here, we see how racial capitalism works in practice, entrenching racist structures of social hierarchy within an exploitative system of class relations and neoliberal minimizing of the welfare state.

To start the trial, the judge asks the accused if he has any other citizenship, which he does not. He is unemployed and receives Bürgergeld, which he says is less than the standard rate and varies in amount each month.

The man is accused of calling a job center staff member names after receiving negative news about his social benefits. When asked for a comment, the accused tries to explain himself by saying that he did not directly call the employee names but rather had rhetorically questioned whether the employee was making any sense, which was taken as an insult.

He is visibly upset by the allegations and the questioning and tries to communicate his perspective. He and the judge go back and forth, at times causing confusion over who should be speaking when, to the frustration of the judge (“Sie sind nicht dran!”). At one point, the judge asks:

It is unclear whether the judge is referring to the allegations of the case or the person’s attempts to explain their side of the story. The court takes the man’s statements as a confession and dismisses the witness, the job center employee. The judge accepts the prosecution’s plea for a total fine of over €1,500, adding, “You do still want benefits from the job center, right? How can you then treat the employees like that?”

The judge and prosecutor laugh as the defendant leaves the room.