Thanks for sharing the legal text of the law that was referenced by the article. After reading that, it seems that yes the article may have casually redefined

Thanks for sharing the legal text of the law that was referenced by the article. After reading that, it seems that yes the article may have casually redefined the concept of 'minority groups'. That said, the Wikipedia entry (in English at least) begins: >Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement to hatred" (used also in the official English translation of the German Criminal Code),[1][2] "incitement of popular hatred", "incitement of the masses", or "instigation of the people" I know German-English translations can be tricky, but based on that, and more so the not-so-ancient history that brought the policy about, it would seem we'd be denying practical and historical precedent in claiming: >The position of all people is equal before the law. Perhaps the parent comment was specifically referencing modern German/EU law. If that's the case I wouldn't argue, as I believe in the ideal. However presented as an axiom? It doesn't hold practically or historically. Volksverhetzung was passed not 30 years after the Nuremberg laws were passed. Here in the US it took a constitutional amendment to recognize women's right to vote; and after that it took additional acts of congress to outlaw discrimination based on race/religion/origin/sex/origin/orientation. I don't know... but based on Volksverhetzung, the 19th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act, it would seem it might be a fairer statement to say that, lately, we're collectively trying to use the legal system as a means to ensure equal position of people before it.