The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

After the Referendum in Chile: The Causes of the Uprising Remain

In Chile, nearly two-thirds of people rejected the new Constitution. Two years ago, three quarters supported a new Constitution, What has happened? Interview with Sam Flewett in Concón


12/09/2022

Why did the convention fail to win support for the new constitution when a solid majority voted for a new constitution?

There are many analyses going around. Some talk of a “silent majority”, others blame fake news, others talk about an image problem of the convention. Personally, I think that by trying to change everything, the convention failed to transmit a clear and believable message that the new constitution was going to deliver improved living standards for the vast majority.

The government has made many social promises, but has so far implemented little of them. The popularity of the centre-left president has fallen dramatically since the beginning of the year. Were the “no” votes also an expression of the deep frustration with the unfulfilled promises of the centre-left government?

Boric does not have a majority in Congress, so any reforms have to first be negotiated. The fact that all relevant social reforms imply government spending, means that the first reform to be implemented must be a tax reform. That is currently in parliament, and will be voted on in the next few weeks. The pension reform is soon to be sent to parliament, however 40 years of neoliberalism means that many people are wary of a pension system that deviates from the orthodoxy of individual savings. Most mistakenly believe that the reason for the poor pensions is due to theft on the part of the administrators, and not the lack of solidarity built into the system.

Another reason is that Boric slammed shut the door on pension fund withdrawals, despite his support for them during his time in opposition. This was an unpopular decision, however a necessary one given the disastrous side effects that these have brought.

What’s the idea behind pension fund withdrawals and why would they have had disastrous side effects?

The pension fund withdrawals came as a response to the lack of support financial from the Piñera administration during the pandemic, and also as a means of supposedly weakening the AFP private pension system. The withdrawals, and especially the political pressure for further withdrawals continued however after the quarantines had been lifted and the economy had begun to normalize.

The side effects came from two sides. Firstly, the release of a large amount of liquidity into the economy with constrained productive capacity further increases inflation, and secondly, liquidating a large amount of nationally held assets has reduced their prices, and pushed credit prices up substantially. Mortgage costs are 50% higher than 18 months ago, and in some places rents have doubled as a consequence of people not being able to buy apartments and being forced to rent. 

Where was the support for the new constitution strongest?

In urban areas, in particular Valparaíso and the southern sectors of Santiago. Also notable that one of the 8 municipalities to vote in favour of the proposal was Ñuñoa, an upper middle class liberal municipality of Santiago. 

And where was it weakest?

In the traditional upper class, and upper-middle class regions of Santiago, and in rural areas. 

Is it possible to draw a conclusion about in which parts of the population the referendum was lost? 

It appears as if was lost in poor and especially rural poor communities. There was no great sensation of working class people “voting for their side” in the urban areas, and in rural areas only 1 in 4 voted in favour of the proposal. It is true that the rich communities also rejected the proposal, but their numbers are irrelevant in a context of compulsory voting.

What was the public political process in the run-up to the referendum like?

Campaigning was much more subdued compared to the run-up to the presidential elections, however there were activities in most cities up and down the country. Supporters of the proposal held a half million strong rally in the centre of Santiago to mark the official end of the campaign, however this was not sufficient to change the result. There was very little technical discussion about the proposal itself, especially with the rejection campaign focusing on other issues such as crime and inflation to sow uncertainty in the minds of voters.

Who organised support for it?

The left wing parties and social movements.

About how many organisations are we talking?

The political fabric in Chile is fragmented. There would have been close to a dozen political parties supporting the proposal, although the Christian Democrats (centrist) were split down the middle. It is hard to put a number on the social movements as such.

Who organised the critics?

Right wing parties and spinoffs from some centre-left parties. Also, the large business organizations.

How much money went into each campaign? 

The rejection side was funded at a far higher level than the approval side, although I am not sure on the exact figures.

How did the supporters of the new constitution react?

Mostly with sadness and disbelief. It is still not understood why the result was so poor for the approval vote.

Some German media explained that Chile is a traditionally conservative country. Do you think that can explain the result? 

More than conservatism, I would say that a complete lack of trust in the political system is more at fault here. Given a long history of broken promises, it is not hard to sow doubts in voters’ minds about some eventual conspiracy to expropriate poor people’s houses, or for the proposed indigenous justice system to allow criminals to walk free. 

Others argue that the government hasn‘t been able to contain the violence in the south. Can you briefly give an outline of the conflicts there?

The conflict has been going on for centuries however it has intensified over the past few years. 

Could you please give a brief outline what it is about?

It is a classic situation of the indigenous Mapuche population seeking to restore their land which was taken from them by force in the second half of the 19th Century. An anti-colonial struggle to put it simply. The Araucanía is one of the few parts of America which was not subject to effective Spanish colonization, rather it was the newly independent Chilean state which finally defeated the Mapuche population. 

Neither this government, nor the previous one has had any success in improving the situation in the south. There are however now indications that organised crime is infiltrating some of the militant groups in the south, further complicating matters.

How would organised crime benefit from infiltrating militant groups? Or militant groups getting involved with organized crime?

In much of the land which is being claimed by the militant groups, large scale industrial forestry operations are in place, and one of the chief crime activities is the theft of the timber – valued at almost $100 million USD per year. It is difficult to know what is really happening down there.

The indigenous Mapuche have been fighting against their oppression for decades. Has the Boric government really changed anything for the people? 

In the 6 months since Boric took office, nothing of note has changed in the south.

Was President Gabriel Boric criticised for continuing military presence, state of emergency, and military the violence in the south even though he had a lot of support from indigenous groups during the elections? 

He was criticized, however in practice he had no choice. It was either a state of emergency, or have the truck drivers shutting down the country, as they did during the summer holidays in February and again in March/April. 

What’s the relation of the truck drivers to the conflict in Araucania?

Truck drivers, and especially the owners have a long history of (far) right agitation in Chile, dating back to 1972 when they accepted CIA money to shut down the country, paving the way for Pinochet. Being associated with the (far) right, they are also close the settler community in the South, who are one of the main targets of the militant groups. Truck drivers have also been target of attacks from militant groups, so they have gone on strike demanding more police presence on the highways. Due to its unique geography and lack of a modern rail system, Chile is especially vulnerable to truck strikes. With just 4 trucks parked across both directions of the main highway, Chile stops. There was also truck strike in the North earlier this year against Venezuelan refugees. 

Will there be a new proposal now to fulfill the decision in favour of a new constitution? 

I will believe it when I see it. It does appear however that there is a real change of tone from the right in favour of a new constitution.

Isn’t the current constitution exactly what the right wants?

The current constitution is what they want, but on the other hand, it is no longer politically viable to maintain it. The right (and everyone else) also needs stability, which the old constitution can no longer guarantee. 

How does the government react to the result of the referendum? 

There was a change of cabinet, however the right is pushing hard for a further weakening of their plans to introduce important changes in economic material. Unfortunately, the result has weakened their negotiating position substantially.

What is the reaction of the radical Left, the Unions and extra-parliamentary movements to that? 

Mostly one of despair. I have not read anything of note from important union groups such as the Teachers’ Federation.

Have the roots of the uprising in 2019 been addressed by the new government? 

No. The constitution, pensions, inequality etc are still all to be addressed. Not having a majority in parliament makes things more difficult, especially in the context of a global economic crisis with the local inflation at 14%.

The government in Chile is not the first left-wing government to dash hopes. What are the lessons? 

I personally think they are doing all they can in what are very adverse conditions. 

Chile is not the only country in Latin America where social upheaval led to a process for a new constitution. Venezuela and Bolivia are cases in point. However, these countries are also far from overcoming poverty, exploitation and oppression. What does that tell us about the prospects of channeling a social process involving millions into a constitutional process?

I am unfamiliar with the details of both of those processes unfortunately. In the case of Chile, the theme of the Constitution has been especially pertinent because it has been one of the cornerstones of the how the dictatorship has maintained a presence despite an appearance of democracy on the surface.

This article first appeared in German on the marx21 Website

 

The Queen is Dead. Republic Now!

A symbol of privilege and colonialism has just died. The Royals are no friends of ours


11/09/2022

On 8th September, 2022, a 96-year old woman died. Nothing unusual there. On average, 1,679 people die in the UK every day. But this time round, everyone from the British Kebab Awards to The Prodigy made gushing sycophantic statements. Britain’s idiot prime minister Liz Truss, called the deceased “among the world’s greatest ever leaders”.

As Britain was sent into 10 days of enforced commemoration, the madness also spread to Germany Chancellor Olaf Scholz called her a “role model and inspiration for millions”, while Berlin mayor Franziska Giffey said that the “power of her great personality has always fascinated us Berliners.” Brandenburger Tor was lit up in the colours of the Union Flag in her honour.

Even John Lydon, who as Johnny Rotten once wrote; “God save the queen. She ain’t no human being. There is no future in England’s dreaming” got involved. He posted the following message on social media: “Rest in peace Queen Elizabeth II. Send her victorious From all at johnlydon.com”.

Extinction Rebellion had been planning a so-called Festival of Resistance in London. They issued a statement, saying “Due to today’s news about the passing of Queen Elizabeth, the Rebellion Planning team, and other groups involved, have made the difficult decision to postpone the Festival of Resistance this weekend in London until further notice.” So, there is no time to waste in resisting climate change – unless a privileged old woman dies?

The Trade Union Confederation (TUC) postponed its conference. The post and rail unions called off planned strikes, although interestingly, barristers will continue to strike. The leader of the RMT rail union Mick Lynch said “RMT joins the whole nation in paying its respects to Queen Elizabeth.”

This is the same Mick Lynch who a few days before had proudly declared his love of James Connolly. In a television appearance, he asked his interviewer: “Do you know who James Connolly is? He was an Irish socialist republican and he educated himself and started non-sectarian trade unionism in Ireland. And he was a hero of the Irish revolution.”

James Connolly was indeed an Irish revolutionary who wrote the following: “A people mentally poisoned by the adulation of royalty can never attain to that spirit of self-reliant democracy necessary for the attainment of social freedom.” Unfortunately Connolly’s most famous supporter is showing exactly this sort of adulation.

Just like Us?

Labour leader Keir Starmer tweeted “Above the clashes of politics, she stood not for what the nation fought over, but what it agreed upon” (you can read the full, sickening statement by the Labour Party here). But just how much did the life of this privately educated woman with 30 castles resemble that of a normal pensioner?

One of the last acts of Elizabeth Windsor was to pay £12 million to cover the court fees of her son Andrew. Andrew is accused of sexually abusing Virginia Giuffre when she was a teenager, and the evidence against him looks compelling. It is not even a matter of dispute that he regularly partied with known paedophiles and sex traffickers.

Andrew is not the first sexual predator to visit royal palaces. Serial rapist Jimmy Savile used palace visits to seize young women and lick their arms. When Prince Charles and Princess Diana had marital difficulties, they employed Savile as a counsellor. Charles asked him to help improve the image of his brother’s soon to be ex-wife Sarah Ferguson.

How Much?

While many British pensioners die of hypothermia each Winter, the Royals have an annual gas bill of £2.5 million. This is not something they find difficult to pay. Forbes magazine estimated last year that the royal family is worth $28 billion. Last year, the Sovereign Grant, which replaced the Civil List, allocated them £86.3 million, compared to £42.8 five years previously. This money is paid by the British tax payer.

As Bailey Schulz reported in USA Today, the queen’s “personal assets from investments, real estate, jewels and more have an estimated worth of $500 million”. Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall inherits all the wealth of people who die in Cornwall without making a will. His estate, worth £1billion now passes to Prince William.

The Royals own 1.4% of all land in England, including nearly all of Regent Street and most of the UK seabed. They have their own train costing at least £800,000 a year and a helicopter costing nearly £1 million. A new royal yacht is being built at a cost of £250 million. Even Elizabeth’s funeral will cost British taxpayers £6 billion.

Ten million pounds of the queen’s private money was invested in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. It is a step forward that she feels the need to hide her tax. She only agreed to pay any income tax at all in 1992, when the popularity of the Royals was at rock bottom.

During the Corona pandemic, the queen gained an exemption from the ongoing eviction ban and evicted a couple from one of her many properties. The reason? They had used a communal plug socket to charge their electric car. In 2004, the queen asked a state poverty fund used to help low income families to pay for heating Buckingham Palace.

Notwithstanding their vast wealth, the Royals were not prepared to look after their own family. In 1941, Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, Elizabeth’s first cousins were sent to the “Royal Earlswood Asylum for Mental Defectives”. They each had a mental age of around 3 and never learned to talk.

In 1961, they were recorded as deceased, although Nerissa actually died in 1986 and was buried in a pauper’s grave. Katherine died in 2014. There is no record of anyone visiting them. A nurse reported: “They never received anything at Christmas either, not a sausage.” The Royals sent the hospital £125 a year for their care, but never publicly acknowledged their existence.

The Legacy of Colonialism

The British monarchy has always had a close relationship with colonialism and imperialism. Elizabeth’s great-great-grandmother Victoria styled herself the Empress of India and presided over the expansion of the British empire.

Princess Elizabeth learned that she was going to be queen when she was representing Britain’s colonial interests in Kenya. Later that year, British troops brutally suppressed the Mau Mau rebellion in the same country. As the New York Times reported: “The clampdown on Kenyans, which began just months after the queen ascended the throne, led to the establishment of a vast system of detention camps and the torture, rape, castration and killing of tens of thousands of people.”

The monarch is the head of the British army, and has the right to recruit, appoint commissioned officers and negotiate the stationing of British troops on foreign soil. Under Elizabeth’s watch, British troops invaded Egypt after President Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, shot dead 14 unarmed civilians in Derry, and acted as bag carriers on countless US imperial adventures.

The royal family continues to benefit from the plunder of the colonial years. The new queen Camilla will inherit the crown which contains the Koh-i-Noor diamond, valued at $400 million but considered to be priceless. Indian economist Utsa Patnaik estimates that goods stolen by the British between 1765 and 1938 from the Indian subcontinent alone were worth $45 trillion

The royal family continues to aid imperialism. When BAE systems sold 72 Typhoon fighter jets to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, Prince Charles was in Riyadh dancing with Saudi princes on the evening before the deal was signed. According to Andrew Smith from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade: “It is clear that Prince Charles has been used by the UK government and BAE Systems as an arms dealer”.

In 1975, when a majority of Australians had the temerity to voted for the Labor politician Gough Whitlam, it was the queen’s representative who sacked Whitlam and ushered in a Conservative government. So much for the Royals being above politics.

Racism

Elizabeth’s husband Philip was famed for his racism, which the media quaintly reported as “gaffes”. On a state visit to China in 1986, he told British students that if they stayed in the country they would go “slitty eyed”. In 1998 he asked a British student in Papua New Guinea “You managed not to get eaten, then?”. Four years later, in Australia, he asked an Aboriginal man, “Still throwing spears?” Philip’s brother-in-law was a close aide of SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

Philip was not the only racist in the family. Elizabeth’s mother was fond of calling black people “nig nogs”. When Stephen Fry told the queen’s sister Margaret that he was Jewish, she “expressed her horror by shouting to everybody else at her table: ‘He’s a Jew. He’s a Jew.”’ Margaret once told the Mayor of Chicago that “the Irish are pigs, all pigs”.

We are often told the “tragic story” of Elizabeth’s uncle Edward who had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee. The truth is that the establishment were more worried that both Edward and his fiancée were open Nazis who regularly visited Hitler in the run up to the Second World War. In 2015, the Sun released exclusive photos of Edward teaching a young Princess Elizabeth and her sister to make a Nazi salute under the headline “Their Royal Heilnesses”.

Until at least the 1960s, Buckingham Palace banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from work. Even now, the monarch is exempt from several laws, including those concerning racial, ethnic or sexual equality

The racism continues to the present. When Meghan Markle was expecting the queen’s grandson,  members of the British royal family expressed “concerns and conversations” about how dark her son’s skin would be. Her husband Harry said that racism was a “large part” of the reason for the couple leaving the UK.

Do we need a Figurehead?

Shortly after Elizabeth’s death, the Blairite journalist Polly Toynbee wrote an egregious piece in the Guardian in which she stated: “Every nation needs a figurehead; and, however perverse the sheer randomness of being born into that role, she did it with remarkable skill and dignity.” In other words, know your place, plebs.

But do British people really need a figurehead to unite behind? Working class Britons have more in common with other working class people in Berlin and Kolkata than with a Tory government that claims that we’re all in this together while attacking living standards and handing over the profits to their friends in the City. We don’t need a fake unity with the people responsible for keeping our wages low and our rents high

We are asked to lay off the queen because she was an old woman, just a symbol. But what she symbolises is exactly the problem – Empire, colonialism, and the fact that if you’re born into the right family, you’re guaranteed a well paying job.

The monarchy cannot survive without the racist belief in birth privilege. As John Mullen says: “the existence of a king or queen represents the principle that one family is born superior to another – more deserving of privilege, purer, more virtuous, because of their blood line. This is the idea that plagued humanity from ancient slavery to Nazis.”

It is not just that Royals get their jobs because of birth, rather than merit. It is much worse than that. They are all born into privilege, are privately educated, and do not understand how most of us live. It is not a coincidence that so many of them end up as far right racists. Even the “progressive” one who married a Black woman went to a fancy dress party in a Nazi uniform “for a laugh”.

The Royals are not representative of the country as a whole. They are representatives of their class. When Paris Hilton tweeted that the queen was the “original girl boss”, she was right, even though she didn’t understand the implications of what she was saying.

People say that the monarchy is above politics, that the role is purely symbolic. If this is true, why must the British people pay them so much? Why are Elizabeth’s relatives allowed to keep the expensive booty of colonial expropriation? When the victims of colonialism rightly claim the reparations they are owed, their first stop after the British Museum should be Buckingham Palace.

What happens Now?

So what happens now that Britain is being ruled by a man who is much less popular than his mother, employs someone to iron his shoelaces and once fantasized about being his mistress’s tampon?

There’s a shift going on in British society which we shouldn’t overstate but which is not insignificant. A statista poll in 2022 said that “younger age groups are progressively more likely to oppose the monarchy, with 31 percent of 18-24 year olds opting instead for an elected head of state.” This was under the relatively popular Elizabeth. Another poll in 2022 showed that two-thirds of Britons did not want Charles to succeed his mother.

The British Royals have been declining in support for several decades. This is why my friend Jacinta Nandi is trying to popularise the hashtag #THETIMEISNOW. Although I think that the time was 1,000 years ago, rising prices and a growing discrepancy between poor and rich means that Britons can no longer afford the Royals. It’s time for them to go.

Verdict announced in the case of Farah Maraqa vs. DW: Victory, but vindication awaits

“The judge asked if Farah understood that she won”, recalled an eyewitness of Maraqa’s trial. Will Farah’s reinstatement be followed by the reputational rehabilitation she deserves?


10/09/2022

This week marked another important milestone in the ongoing case of Farah Maraqa against international German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW). Fatah is one of 7 Arab journalists fired by DW based on allegations of antisemitism. Unlike the climate of the previous trial in July, the room was noticeably empty. In Germany, it is not typical for the parties to be physically present for the announcement of the verdict. However, Farah refused to sit at home and passively await news about the case that has consumed her life for months.

When the court adjourned on 20 July, the judge declared his expectation that a joint statement be submitted by Farah and DW before September 2nd. This joint statement was supposed to set the record straight by addressing DW’s accusations of antisemitism head on. Unfortunately, no such statement was produced due to DW’s clear lack of interest in reaching any sort of joint statement.

According to Farah’s lawyer, Dr. Hauke Rinsdorf, DW’s lawyer denied ever having agreed to the joint statement. In recent weeks, Farah’s lawyer submitted a draft of the joint statement, initiating the court sponsored actions in order to begin repairing the reputational damage caused by DW. But DW produced nothing but silence.

Alice Garcia, who serves as the Advocacy and Communications Officer at European Legal Support Center offered a statement: “The absence of response from DW to Farah’s proposed joint statement as a settlement is indicative of their unwillingness to cooperate and to recognize their mistakes, even after being sued. DW’s new Code of Conduct – which urges support for Israel, among other things – is another indication of this direction: they have not questioned their practices or positions.”

Recent summer months have provided several moments of celebration for a group of 7 Arab journalists fired by DW in February based on specious claims of antisemitism. As of this week, two of the journalists, Farah Maraqa and Maram Salem, have secured strong victories related to the politically charged purge. A third case has been settled out of court, while the others are still pending.

Code of Conduct

Amidst their defeats in court, DW recently managed to find time to concoct a conspicuous McCarthyite addition to their compulsory Code of Conduct, to be signed by their 4,000+ employees of more than 140 nationalities. DW’s new and improved Code of Conduct further reveals their undeniable institutional allegiance for the state of Israel, a foreign government widely considered to be practicing apartheid and systematic human rights abuses.

Ali Abunimah writing in The Electronic Intifada expands on this deeply concerning development: “Despite its court defeats, there is little sign that Deutsche Welle is backing down from its institutionalized anti-Palestinian policies.” He continues, “One cannot support ‘freedom, democracy and human rights’ on the one hand, while also supporting Israel’s racist state ideology Zionism on the other.”

As Hebh Jamal outlines in the +972 Magazine, “In many ways, the broadcaster is simply following the example set by the German government. The clampdown on criticism of Israel in Germany has intensified considerably since the Bundestag adopted the controversial definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, which was put forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2017.”

The updated Code of Conduct declares: “Freedom, democracy and human rights are cornerstones of our journalistic and development message and profile. … We advocate the values of freedom and, wherever we are, take independent and clear positions, especially against any and all kinds of discrimination including sexism, racism and antisemitism.” While pretending to prioritize antiracism, the document also states: “Due to Germany’s history, we have a special obligation towards Israel. … Germany’s historical responsibility for the Holocaust is also a reason for which we support the right of Israel to exist.”

A freelancer working for DW offered an anonymous statement to The Left Berlin regarding DW’s recent updates to the employee Code of Conduct: “I felt immediately that it was an invasion of privacy. As journalists, we are of course supposed to maintain ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ as far as possible, so I do – to some extent – understand not being very overtly political. Not that I think it actually compromises the work, but it opens you up to critique about being biased. But the way that the Code of Conduct was worded was explicitly to say that we are representatives of DW in our private lives, which is very inappropriate from what I see, especially as the whole reason for the Code of Conduct change (Farah’s trial) is completely obstructed. I find the terms of the new Code of Conduct an invasion of my ability to live a private life away from DW, to be honest.” This document further institutionalizes and makes obligatory support for Israel, not only in a professional setting, but in the privately held views of employees as well. 

Vindication

On Monday, Farah attended her hearing, accompanied by activist companion Phil Butland. Present in the small courtroom were also the assumed representatives: the judge, a legal intern, and a legal notetaker. Notably absent was any representation from DW’s side.

As the judge announced the verdict, he explained that the legal rationale would be released in 6 weeks time. According to Farah, the judge’s verdict was articulated with great respect and sincerity, and she appreciated his efforts to reiterate and elaborate so that she clearly understood the meaning of his decision.

Phil Butland described the event as a “complete victory.” “The judge was sympathetic to Farah and even quoted her lawyer in the summing up. Although he could only rule on the single thing Farah had said when she worked for DW, it seemed clear that he knew that she is not an antisemite and that Deutsche Welle had no reason to sack her.” The judge even went so far as to explicitly ask if she “understood that she had won,” behavior that is against typical protocol in cases like this. 

The judge declared that Farah had won the case against Deutsche Welle based upon several worthy positions that were deemed unlawful in accordance with Germany’s labor law. Firstly, DW failed to adhere to the legal termination terms. Due to the politically heightened nature of this specific termination, it took DW two full months to terminate Farah instead of two weeks mandated by law.

Secondly, regarding the highly contested, allegedly antisemitic writings–the court threw out anything published prior to Farah’s employment at DW, as these were not seen as relevant in the context of her tenure as an employee of DW. What remained was a single statement which Farah has made when she was a freelancer for DW. In this statement she said: “the Israeli experts are putting poison into the history.” The court determined this comment did not constitute justification for the harsh termination Farah experienced.

The court’s stance on the case of Farah Maraqa vs. Deutsche Welle enabled an immediate reinstatement of Farah’s employment at DW, Farah is once again eligible to receive her salary and benefits from DW. The immediate reinstatement of her employment also means that she would be expected to perform her duties at the drop of a hat, should the request be made.

The court ruled that DW must pay all legal fees, which come to over €37,000. Onerous legal fees, like these, typically discourage employees from seeking justice against large institutions like the state-funded media organization Deutsche Welle that can afford drawn out legal proceedings.

A full explanation of the ruling must occur within 3 weeks. After this, DW has 6 weeks to appeal this ruling, which would exempt them from the legal fees. If they win the appeal. But this would require the higher court to overturn a decision that has found Farah innocent on every single count.

What now?

What remains unclear is if DW will choose to appeal this verdict. Farah and her lawyer eagerly await the anticipated release of a lengthy document by the court, due within 3 weeks. This will contain an exhaustive review of the case at hand which outlines the court’s legal position and interpretation of the law in Farah’s case. Based on the release of this information and depending on the specific legal reasoning behind the court’s decision, further opportunities for appeals or other legal actions may present themselves to either Farah and/or DW.

At the time of writing, it remains unclear whether or not the labor court will allow Farah any means of reputational rehabilitation in the form of requiring DW to make a statement disavowing its previous characterizations of Farah as antisemitic. Despite the verdict being cause for celebration, Farah and those who support her still wish to see DW publicly come clean about its slanderous accusations and set the record straight. 

 

Initiative Wahlrecht für Alle

Voting Rights for Everyone


08/09/2022


The “Initiative Wahlrecht für Alle” (Initiative voting rights for everyone) invite you to a meeting on Friday, 9th September 2022, 7pm in Oranienstraße 159 (kub/Allmende, shop on the ground floor), Here, we would like to discuss with you how we can let people know about the demand VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL around the International Day of Democracy (Internationaler Tag der Demokratie, ITD, 15th September).

In addition, we would also like to chat with you about how we can middle- and long-term make public this subject which time and again falls into obscurity.

Because of the short time and other planned meetings on ITD, we have discussed our own idea.

With an A2 poster and leaflets, we want to make people aware of the undemocratic situation in Germany, to emphasize the demand for VOTING RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE.

The posters are to be hung up throughout the city, and will be naturally designed by a graphic designer.

Who are we?

  •  At the end of 2021, representatives of the groups ABA (Aktionsbündnis Antira – activity alliance anti-racism), Right2TheCity (Deutsche Wohnen & Co working group for non-Germnas) and Nicht Ohne Uns 14% came together to set up our    initiative         
  • In February 2022, we issued a statement to the Berliner Senat, which was signed by around 50 organisations         
  • In mid-April we organised a rally at Kotbusser Tor

After the Summer break, we want to be active again, and extend our group to include you.

How can you get involved?

  • Best case, regularly come to our meetings and join the work and help make decisions         
  • If you can’t regularly attend our meetings, you can practically support our work, for example by putting up posters on the evening of 14th September, so that people wake up to the posters on 15th September 🙂

More Information

Documenting Gaza in graphic format

Review: Footnotes in Gaza, by Joe Sacco (graphic novel)

“Why are you writing about 1956? It’s so much worse now.” This question, from one of the characters in Joe Sacco’s graphic novel, Footnotes in Gaza (2009), puts the focus on the story that the American journalist pursues between 2002 and 2003 in the Gaza Strip: the indiscriminate killings of the Palestinian population in Khan Younis and Rafah in November 1956.

Someone might believe that a graphic novel cannot contain all the elements that a journalistic investigation requires, but the author warns that he is going to do what many journalists have not done: to relate rigorously, in this case, to some specific events within the framework of the Sinai War. Joe Sacco’s alter ego and his local companion-guide Abed accompany us during the investigation, at a time when the world (including the Gaza Strip) was shocked by the start of the criminal Iraq War.

The story mixes the present and the past. The demolitions of houses in Rafah at the time of Sacco’s visit (2003) with the inquiries about the 1956 assassinations in Khan Younis and Rafah. Interviews with elderly people who remembered those events, along with conversations around tea and honey cakes in which Gazans tell them about the miseries of a conflict that is much talked about, but rarely portrayed truthfully (at least to the West).

In Khan Younis and Rafah, the Israeli army indiscriminately killed dozens of men under the pretext of searching for hidden Egyptian soldiers and Fedayeen. The accounts from the Palestinian population, which Sacco meticulously contrasts, questions and tries to sift through, to draw common conclusions, are clear: there was no resistance on the part of the Palestinian people and the Israeli army killed, wounded and arrested without any kind of humanity hundreds of people (almost all men of “military age”).

Those who enter the story may end up feeling the loss of a loved one, the frustration at the demolition of a house or the despair of those who do not see a future.

The accounts of the victims or relatives of the victims may be blurred by the passage of time, exacerbated, embellished or partially forgotten, but Sacco extracts the common threads they all have, in an impeccable exercise of journalism. He even collects the testimony of a former Israeli soldier, Marek Gefen, which coincides in the main with the other testimonies. Lastly, in some final appendices, he includes letters and reports from UN observers and members of the US army expressing their “concern” about cold-blooded murders against the Gazan population at that time at the end of 1956. The questioning of David Ben-Gurion by Knesset member Esther Vilenska of the Communist Party of Israel, demanding an investigation into the events. Ben-Gurion chose not to respond to such an interpellation and instead justified his actions on the grounds of alleged Palestinian violence and the need to find Egyptian soldiers hiding in Rafah.

The story, which allows us to enter into the life of the investigative journalist, almost manages to make the reader feel in a timeless moment of the conflict in Palestine. Because the situation is not so different in the present of the work (2003) with respect to the events of 1956. The death, fear, colonization and despair to which the Gazan population is subjected knows no dates, because it has been their daily life for decades. Sacco himself comes under the fire of tracer ammunition when he walks through the streets of Rafah in search of testimonies, for the mere fact of walking with a group of men at night.

As for the drawing, Sacco’s exquisite lines contain a restrained severity that tries to avoid being excessively gruesome or morbid. The images, already harsh in themselves, are accompanied by even harsher narratives that penetrate the mind of the reader who, in the combination of text and image, can feel almost present in the story. Those who enter the story may end up feeling the loss of a loved one, the frustration at the demolition of a house or the despair of those who do not see a future.