The Refugee Protest in Germany - A Silence of International Proportions

Dear editors and journalists of the so-called quality press:

I see what you are doing.

Within the last 48 hours, the recent wave of refugee protests in Germany has escalated. As I write over 900 police officers, some in full riot gear, are standing outside the occupied school in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin. Inside the school between 40-80 refugees and fellow-activists have refused to leave until their demands are met. Some have climbed onto the roof of the school and are threatening to jump if the police should try to forcibly evict them. Eye-witnesses say the building smells heavily of petrol. The politicians responsible for this situation are taking big risks on the backs of people who quite literally have nothing to lose. This is a scandal and deserves to have international attention.

The eyes of the world should be on us here in Berlin. And yet there is a massive silence, which you are part of. I am calling you out on it.

Image © 2014 Anneke Gerloff

Among the most powerless, disenfranchised, stigmatised and criminalised groups of people in Europe are refugees. They are confronted with structural and institutional discrimination and have very little access to legal recourse in the frequent eventuality that they become victim of direct discrimination, criminal acts and violent attacks. Even access to basic health and social care is severely restricted. From the way most refugees in Europe are treated you might get the impression that they themselves are guilty of some heinious crime. General public opinion suggests they deserve everything they get (or if not, "we" are too generous to "them"). The press has a major responsibility in the public image of refugees. For the most part, I observe that the press has failed them miserably to provide impartial information .

Specifically in the German context, the recent history of the self-organisation of refugees can be traced back to the foundation of groups like THE VOICE Refugee Forum, Karawane für die Rechte von Flüchtlingen und MigrantInnen in Deutschland, Refugees Emancipation and Women in Exile (to name just a few). In 2000, the very first International Refugee Congress took place in Jena. For some individuals, merely attending the congress was a criminal act: according to the German "Residenzpflicht" (residence requirement), those seeking asylum are not allowed to leave their local area without special written permission. Human rights activist and refugee Sunny Omwenyeke (who was a key organiser of the congress but had not received permission to travel to Jena) decided to launch a legal campaign against the "Residenzpflicht" and appealed his verdict all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. He based his argument on Protocoll 4, Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights:

Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

The campaign was unsuccessful. In November 2007 it was ruled that Omwenyeke had not been lawfully in the territory of the State because he was breaking the residency requirement. Further: the right to liberty of movement within a State is only granted to those who are lawfully within the State. In the other words: the right to freedom of movement for refugees in Germany is limited to the areas where the German state says they are legally allowed to move around in. A tautological masterpiece of legal ruling.

The Refugee Protest March from Würzburg (south Germany) to Berlin in 2012 marked the beginning of the recent wave of high profile refugee protests in Germany. Among the demands: the abolition of the residency requirement, an end to restrictions for access to the labour market and education, the end to refugee encampments (often poor quality and remotely located) and no more deportations. The camp at Oranienplatz became the symbolic centre, welcomed by supporters and tolerated by the local government. Some of the non-citizens (including women and children) moved into an unused school building in Ohlauer Strasse at the end of 2012. But in November 2013, the situation in the school was still catastrophic and not fit for human inhabitation. During an argument over the one shower on the premises (supposed to meet the needs of 200 people) one man was fatally stabbed. In April 2014 (due in no small part to the political manipulation of the divisions within the refugee movement) the camp at Oranienplatz was violently destroyed. It was billed in the local press as a successful end to the protest - too bad therefore, that the protest actually continued.  One Sudanese refugee-activist, Napuli Paul Langa, climbed up a tree and remained there for five days in order to ensure that at least an information point and tent would remain on Oranienplatz. For close to two weeks a group of men on the other side of the road, including Patras Bwansi of Uganda and Turgay Ulu from Turkey, set up a 24 hour picket and went on hunger strike. Apart from the very heavy police presence at Oranienplatz, very few German citizens who are not direct supporters have interacted with the refugees there. All the more shocking to find out that the one chance for international attention to be brought to the place was wasted on a feature on fashion by the NY Times  broadcast/published in May 2014. I am assuming it was shot well before the refugee protest march to Berlin, as the area is prominently shown and the refugees and their protest camp are conspicuously absent. Otherwise it would have required extremely careful filming and editing (if not deliberately moving of the protest so as not to ruin the film. I think no one could be that cynical).

This month another Freedom March of refugees and supporters arrived in Brussels. The protesters (many from Oranienplatz or residents of the school) were violently evicted from the German embassy on June 20th - World Refugee Day -  and 20 people were arrested (7 of these will most likely be deported). Solidarity statements and protests have been held in Hamburg, Magdeburg and Istanbul.

Where are your articles?

None of what I have written above, it seems, has registered with the so-called quality press internationally. While it would be hard to believe that none of you knew and I would not like to believe that none of you cared it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that this is a deliberate act of omission on your part - I can only speculate about the reasons. Whatever has led to this silence: I am disgusted.

As I write, the situation at the school has escalated to such an extent that several refugees have threatened to jump off the roof if the police try to force them to leave. I don't want to imagine what could happen next. Journalists based in Berlin have also been refused access to the school, to the refugees or to their supporters, therefore this is also a freedom of press issue. Whatever your stance is on the position of refugees, I believe you have an obligation to provide information to your readers and viewers. Act professionally, act politically and act morally.

This is not the time to be quiet.

Yours Sincerely,
Sharon Dodua Otoo

Ally Work

Image: Wolfgang Borrs, April 2013

On Saturday, 20th April I took part in a panel discussion on language, satire and antidiscrimination.* In preparation for the panel, and in the conversations I have had about it since, I began to develop some thoughts about political identity, positioning and the nature of ally work.
These thoughts are relevant to Witnessed project and my role as Series Editor, therefore I would like to share them here.

I believe I was originally invited to participate on the panel because I am a Black woman writer and activist. The debate about the use of the German N-word is still causing emotions to run high in the white mainstream media. My role on the panel should have been to attempt to explain why exactly so many thousands of Black people who live in Germany welcome the decision by Otfried Preussler and Thienemann Verlag to remove the word from the next edition of the much loved children's classic "Die Kleine Hexe" (The Little Witch). Although I had originally turned down the offer, after sleeping on it and talking it over with a close friend, I decided participating on the panel was something I simply had to do.

Despite the fact that a fundamental part of my experience in Germany is tempered by racism and sexism, I of course do also enjoy certain privileges. First and foremost: I am an adult. My voice carries infinitely more weight, than those of my children. And yet it is my children who are repeatedly confronted with the N-word in their educational materials, on the playground and in classroom discourse. Unfortunately in Germany 2013 there are still teaching staff at schools who believe the N-word is a neutral word and that Black children are simply sensitive and immature if they object to it being used in a context which does not clearly problematise it. My decision to participate in the public event and discuss the removal of racist vocabulary from children's literature was at least in part to use my privilege to support the many children in Germany who, like my children, suffer in silence or suffer for speaking out.

The subject of the panel was not only to focus on racist vocabularly however, but also on gender-appropriate language. I am also a cis-gendered, straight woman. In a society which constantly affirms - at least in this aspect of my identity - that I am a "normal" person, those who - in this way - are not like me objectively have a harder time. It was therefore in the end not difficult for me to decide that I needed to sit on the panel: I do have privilege, and I want to learn to be a good ally.

I am pleased I participated in the panel. In the limited time I had, I was able to express my views clearly at the event and later I wrote an article for the taz (in German). I have received many positive comments, messages and emails from people who have a new understanding of the issues.

Activism - I have learnt - is a combination of fighting against, fighting for, but also fighting alongside. I cannot speak for all Black people - I will not even try. Instead I want to make explicit one of my wishes for the Witnessed Series: I want to continue to use those resources which I do have - my networks, my skills, my projects and my activism -  to speak and enable others to do so too, for...

“...when we speak we are afraid

our words will not be heard

nor welcomed

but when we are silent

we are still afraid

So it is better to speak

remembering

we were never meant to survive” 

― Audre Lorde, The Black Unicorn: Poems

*Unfortunately, I left the stage before the official end of the discussion, as did some 30 members of the audience. The circumstances are discussed in detail elsewhere (in German).

After the storm - Migration scholars offer another perspective on DIE ZEIT’s N-word debate.

Open Letter

As fellows of the ZEIT Foundation’s PhD programme in Migration Studies, we have been following the current media controversy regarding the removal of racist language in children’s books with great concern. We are migration scholars from a range of countries and academic disciplines. We all live in countries characterised by migration. Our biographies are interwoven with various forms of migration, often spanning several generations and countries. Some of us are from Germany or have lived there for some time. In solidarity, and with one voice, we speak here. All of us have an interest in this controversy, because it involves the question of how issues of race and diversity should be presented and how racialised and marginalised individuals and groups should be given a voice within public debates. Given that we experience, research and discuss these things on a daily basis, we thought we might offer another perspective that could be of interest to you and your readers.

Germany has recognised that it is a country of immigration given its post-war migration history and the fact that it is the largest racially and ethnically diverse country in Europe. Highly diverse societies such as Germany require negotiation in the public sphere, which involves how public institutions and members of a society address and engage with racial and ethnic diversity and equality. As we all know, media institutions, including newspapers and publishing houses, are an important part of the social fabric of a society as they shape public opinion. It is in this context that we celebrate the success of a progressive initiative launched by Mekonnen Mesghena, Department Head Migration and Diversity at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, children’s book author Otfried Preussler and the decision of German publishing house Thienemann to remove racist language from the children’s book classic “The Little Witch”.

Our welcome for this development, however, has been overshadowed by the news that Mekonnen Mesghena receives routine letters and calls containing racist hate speech and threats after news of his agreement with the Thienemann publishing house reached the mainstream media. We believe that it is not only the responsibility of a publishing house, but also of a leading newspaper such as DIE ZEIT, to mediate debate around race and ethnic relations in a sensitive and well-informed way. The editorial staff of DIE ZEIT, however, failed in this specific responsibility in January 2013. The publication of a cover story (17.01.2013) with racist images and patronising language as in “Children, these are no Neger!” (a term which translates into English as both versions of the N-word) followed by a subheading stating “Our most favourite children’s books will be rewritten political correctly – is that progress?” alone testifies to a populist conservatism, which we consider to be obstructive and inappropriate given Germany’s actual multiracial and multiethnic present and future. Two (out of three) articles in DIE ZEIT’s dossier published on the 17.01.2013 are particularly problematic contributions to the debate about the removal of racist language: Namely, Axel Hacke’s “Wumbaba’s Legacy” and Ulrich Greiner’s “The Little Witch Hunt”.

Axel Hacke’s choice to use a mocking tone to write about his experiences of being criticized by the anti-racist media watch organisation “Der braune Mob” and the black and migrant lesbian organisation “LesMigras,” displays nothing else than his self-image as a “rational white man”. He makes use of a racial narrative that places a positive judgement on white male behaviour (rational, relaxed, non-judgmental, surprised by another white man’s critique) and a negative judgment on migrant and anti-racist activists and their behaviour (irrational, violent, judgmental). Hacke’s lack of historical knowledge and critical reflexivity towards his imaginary white Wumbaba’s colonial legacy are more disturbing than illuminating. The words “Neger”, “negro” or “nigger” were and are not innocent terms, they are signifiers of colonialism and its eugenic policies that sought to oppress, exploit, exterminate or enslave those addressed as such. If one denies an engagement with Germany’s colonial and fascist history and multiracial present, how can one understand the complexities of Wumbaba’s legacy? One cannot. One flees. One controls. One tries to protect his self-image and, alas, DIE ZEIT promotes it.

Ulrich Greiner’s contribution to the debate consists of twisted arguments reaching from accusations of censorship albeit Preussler’s and Thienemann’s voluntary decision to amend the future editions of “The Little Witch” to linking the term “political correctness” and Orwell’s critique of totalitarianism in his novel “1984” clearly to the wrong historical and contemporary figures: the anti-racist political left. Furthermore, we would like to recommend Ulrich Greiner and also Hartmut Kasten, professor of psychology at the University Hamburg (interview with Tanja Stelzer, DIE ZEIT, 24.01.2013) to read the studies of internationally renowned development and social psychologists published in the “Handbook of Race, Racism, and the Developing Child” (Wiley & Sons, 2008) to understand the processes and effects of racial socialisation. The consultation of scientific research, which clearly shows that racial socialisation takes place at a young age and affects not only the racial and ethnic identity formation of an individual child but also inter-group relations in multiracial societies would have been beneficial in this debate. We also recommend that instead of publishing opinion pieces, DIE ZEIT could invite scientific experts, such as Maisha Eggers, professor of diversity studies at the University Magdeburg-Stendal or Grada Kilomba, professor of gender studies at the Humboldt University Berlin, to name only two academics based in Germany to contribute to the debate in a much more well-informed way.

None of the countries we reside in are free of racism. Racism and tensions between racial groups exist throughout the world. The question is not whether racism exists. The question is rather how it is dealt with by those in positions of power that matters. We ask one thing of the media and cultural institutions in Germany and of the editors of DIE ZEIT in particular. Please bear in mind that unbalanced debates around these issues – discussions which deny Germans with a migration background an equal, respectful voice – perpetuate inequalities, alienate large parts of your readership, burden relationships among producers and audiences, and negatively affect racial and ethnic minorities’ belief in the progress that this society as a whole is making as a country of immigration.

Authors: Onur Suzan Kömürcü Nobrega and Anna Boucher

Signatories:

Anna Boucher – Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney (Australia)

Ahmed Dailami – Faculty of Oriental Studies, St Antony’s College, Oxford (United Kingdom)

Onur Suzan Kömürcü Nobrega – Department of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths College, University of London (Germany/United Kingdom)

Maike Koschorreck – Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Universität Bremen (Germany)

Noora Lori – Department of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University (United States of America)

Muhammad Arafat Bin Mohamad – Department of Anthropology, Harvard University (United States of America)

Sanjeev Routray – Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia (Canada)

Stephen Ruszczyk – Graduate Center, City University of New York (United States of America)

Nazgül Tajibaeva – Bielefeld Graduate School in History and Sociology, Universität Bielefeld (Germany)

Emrah Yildiz – Department of Anthropology, Harvard University (United States of America)