The following text was sent to The Left Berlin by Collective Alarm and we think we should share it with you:
On the night of August 16th, four locations in Berlin were simultaneously covered in red paint by pro-Palestinian activists. The locations struck were local representative offices for political parties belonging to the current “Traffic light coalition” (or “Ampel” in German), whose political leaders have been criticised for repression of pro-Palestinian protest. Also targeted were the offices of CDU representatives. The CDU leads the municipal ruling coalition in Berlin, headed by Kai Wagner. Under Wagner’s government, the Berlin police have exercised extreme violence on protestors, including minors.
The actions come as the war in Gaza approaches 300 days, during which a staggering 180,000 people are estimated to have died as a result of military decisions made by Israeli forces. While Germany faces pressure to cease supplying the Israeli military with weapons and provisions through cases brought by Palestinian families to domestic courts and the International Court of Justice, resistance to this pressure from the reigning Ampel coalition remains strong. Occurences of police violence against protestors in many German cities, including Berlin, remain frequent and arbitrary arrests at demonstrations are common. While detained protestors are subjected to sexualised violence, slogans associated with Palestinian resistance to occupation are routinely banned on the supposition that they incite hatred.
Following the paint attacks, Collective Alarm issued the following statement:
For ten months, Gaza has burned and crumbled under a violent and indiscriminate bombing campaign. For ten months, journalists in Gaza have paid high prices – sometimes with their own lives – to bring the world news of targeted aid trucks, intentionally starved civilians, and of a car with a visible child in it, riddled with upwards of three hundred bullets. For ten months, concerned people from many walks of life and of many political persuasions have noted the urgent need to halt a military campaign that does not make anyone in the region safe, and has been noted by experts to present no plausible route to the elimination of Hamas as a military force. For ten months, Germany has done nothing to ensure justice in the region and has actively hindered its realisation in Palestine as it has hindered expression of solidarity with Palestine from within its own borders.
Those who know Germany might know that contemporary politicians present Israel’s security as its “Staatsräson”, that is, the very reason for the existence of the [current] German state. From the outside, this might appear a genuine effort in state-to-state reparations for Germany’s perpetration of the Shoah/Holocaust. Perhaps one has to live on the ground, in Germany, to see how violent and cynical the enforcement of “Staatsräson” really is. A long-time supporter of Israel’s military, Germany has, since October, drastically increased exports of weapons, tank engines and munitions to Israel to approximately €320 million euro per year. Politicians engage in cruel and sometimes bizarre dehumanisation of Palestinians, combined with awkward virtue-signalling of their support for Israel. When a Palestinian and Israeli director jointly accepted an award at the Berlinale film festival earlier this year, making a speech that called for an end to the occupation of Palestine, Germany’s cultural minister Claudia Roth made time to tweet afterwards that while she had applauded the speech, her applause was only for the Israeli person on stage.
For those in Germany who advocate against genocide and occupation, the hostility of the state can be felt every day. Peaceful demonstrators for Palestine are regularly painted by tabloid media as a “Juden-Hass mob” (“Jew-hating mob”); slogans such as “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free”, long since established to be calls for peace and equal civil rights between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean sea, have been banned, on the pretext that they express a genocidal intent. Pro-Palestinian critics of the German state have had their homes raided, and over and again armoured riot police have brutalised activists with little or no pretext. Multiple ambulances are often called to protests as a direct consequence of the police’s actions. Recently, the red triangle was banned on the supposition that it, too, incites hatred and violence. The triangle in question has its origins in social media posts by Hamas, in which it is used to indicate the tanks and positions of the invading Israeli forces that Hamas wishes to target. Its evocation has morphed into expression of Palestinians’ right to defend themselves, whether through Hamas or another organisation, from the incursions of an invading army. Their right to do so could not be any more established or clear. Conversely, to equate, as Germany does, the actions of a violent invading force with the identity and interests of Jews around the world, is itself antisemitic, and demonstrates how unserious Germany is about the actual task of protecting Jewish life. That some Germans also object to the red triangle on the basis that it evokes the symbols used by the Nazi regime to designate communists and queer people, is also an indication that many Germans are simply oblivious to the people who support the Palestinian movement, and are too sheltered to think or inquire beyond their narrow frame of reference.
With the red paint applied to these buildings, we make clear that those who represent these political parties, even at a local level, have blood on their hands. In summer, when Berlin’s anti-fascist museum celebrates the life and courage of Sophie Scholl and others, we condemn the successors of those who killed her for their failure to rise to the standard of courage she set. To those who wish to go through life with their fingers planted in their ears, we remind them that the moral fate of Berlin is intertwined with that of Gaza; as Gaza burns, the moral core of those who proudly arm its aggressors burns along with it.
Free Palestine from German guilt
Land Back
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free
Disclaimer
We receive information and documentation anonymously, and are in no way involved in organisation or planning of actions.
Collective Alarm is a media initiative aiming to provide information about direct actions taking place in Berlin. This is in response to the wide-spread suppression of information about direct action in German media, in particular with regards to Palestine, as well as the ongoing dissemination of defamatory, hate-mongering, and factually incorrect information about actions when they are covered. We believe information and awareness is key, and while it is also important for people residing in Germany to be informed factually and objectively, we believe that at this stage, international awareness is essential to pressure one of the most complicit countries in the occupation of and genocide happening in Palestine.
The open fascist riots in Britain – August 11, 2024
Racist riots and open fascism erupted onto the streets of Britain. What happened and why?
On July 29 at a dance class for Taylor Swift fans in Southport, a young man killed three young girls with a knife. Eight other children and two adults were seriously wounded. Axel Rudakubana, a teenager from the village of Banks, was arrested. “Within hours of the attack, far-right accounts on social media spread a fictitious Arabic-sounding name for the killer and claiming that he was a Muslim asylum seeker who had illegally arrived in the country by boat.”
The following night, right-wing extremists held a rally in Southport, attacking a mosque with fire and hurling bricks. Fascists amplified false allegations including Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson). “He posted on X, criticising Islam and saying that rioters in Southport were “justified in their anger”… his name was regularly chanted by rioters… misogynist Andrew Tate, wrongly claimed the attacker was an “illegal migrant” and told people to “wake up”. (They) had previously been deplatformed on X (formerly Twitter) but were given their accounts back after Elon Musk took control of X.”
On July 30, many other cities were attacked, including central London, where rioters chanted slogans like “Enough is enough” and “Stop the boats.”
On August 2, right-wingers surrounding a Liverpool mosque were countered by huge crowds defending it. In Sunderland, violent right-wing mobs looted and burned shops and cars. The conflagration spread across the UK and Belfast, with far-right rallies attacking police and counter-protesters. Businesses owned by non-whites, libraries and food banks were set alight.
Notwithstanding previous attitudes indicating racism, the police forces defended both non-whites and their businesses & mosques. By August 4 Prime Minister (PM) Keir Starmer labelled the riots as “organized, violent thuggery”.
Leader MPs of the neo-fascist ‘Reform party’ – Nigel Farage and Lee Anderson, fanned the flames:
“Farage questioned whether police were withholding information about who was responsible for the murders…”
Farage challenged Keir Starmer’s argument that the violent protests were the fault of the far right, saying it was “a reaction to fear, to discomfort, to unease that is out there shared by tens of millions of people”. Lee Anderson, the Reform MP and former Tory deputy chair, wrote on X: “This problem has been caused by smug politicians who have refused to listen to the concerns of British people. It has festered and now it has boiled over.
In contrast, on August 5 independent MPs including Jeremy Corbyn pointed out that
Starmer has not “gone “nearly far enough in identifying the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim hatred […] We feel his words do not go nearly far enough in identifying the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim hatred driving this violence […] Government references to ‘understandable fears’ send mixed messages and only give succour to those seeking to sow hatred and division.”
Elon Musk added by claiming on X that “civil war is inevitable”. Keir Starmer replied “the violence came from a small minority of people and said he did not share the sentiments of the billionaire, who has previously been criticised for allowing far-right figures back on to his social media platform.” Elon Musk responded with “Two-Tier Keir” – alleging that police treat white far-right ‘protesters’ more harshly than minority groups”. Essentially repeating Nigel Farage. This claim was refuted by The Guardian on August 6.
On August 7 social media listed asylum and immigration centres as targets. Thousands of anti-racism protesters held counter rallies “forming human shields to protect asylum centres, and waved placards saying “refugees welcome” and “reject racism, try therapy”… While 100 far-right gatherings were threatened, few occurred as 6,000 riot officers mobilised… The messaging app Telegram said it will be “removing channels and posts containing calls to violence” in the UK. (It) was one of the last places that the “English Defence League (EDL) founder, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) was allowed to post.. a go-to app for the far-right.”
The outpouring of anti-fascist protests, largely ‘spontaneous’ and from below, have impressively pushed back fascists. The counter-protesters stopped the fascists for now. Inevitable comparisons arise to the Cable Street demonstrations of the 1930s against Sir Oswald Mosley’s National Union of Fascists.
Why did this happen?
Two intertwined core reasons – the fall in living standards of the working class and the “normalisation” of racism – formed the dry tinder that Farage and neo-fascist groups danced and lit fires upon.
Recall fourteen years of racism sanctioned by the ousted Tory Government. That ensured a fascist equation of fall in living standards and immigration. Dame Sara Khan vividly exposed the Tory “setting of the tone”. She was PM Sunak’s independent adviser for “social cohesion”, and counter-extremism commissioner to PM May and PM Johnson. Khan explained that:
“The Conservative government left the UK wide open to the far-right violence erupting… ignored red flags and stoked fires with a culture war agenda … (she) said the recent administrations had failed the British people. Repeated and urgent counsel that far-right extremists were exploiting gaps in the law to foment violence on social media had been ignored while top rung politicians in a series of administrations sought to gain advantage by waging culture wars… “The writing was clearly on the wall for some time… All my reports showed these extremist and cohesion threats are worsening; secondly, that our country is woefully unprepared. We’ve got a gap in our legislation which is allowing these extremists to operate with impunity. ‘ “Previous governments have astonishingly failed…”
But even more fundamentally, the Tory government disinvested and ran simple profit-ransacking schemes. This resulted in economic stagnation.
In turn real wages fell. Workers in Britain suffered more than their international co-workers:
Simon Hix (figure originally from ‘The Economist’; cited by Adam Tooze at: – Dec 30 2022; Chartbook #184
All this resulted in what doctors in the British NHS identify as a ‘shit life syndrome.’ Adam Tooze explains:
“Shit life syndrome”.. is a folk diagnosis.. that describes mental or physical health problems …. the causes are a tangled mix of economic, social and emotional problems that they (doctors) … feel powerless to fix.”
Will Labour solve the problem?
Just as in the European elections, the far right led by Nigel Farage won big with five parliamentary seats. True, Labour won a ‘landslide’ in the first-past-the-post system. But Rosenberg described this as misleading, since:
“Starmer won his landslide: 64% of the seats in Parliament but, astonishingly, on less than 34% of the vote share… (But) the far-right populist Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, which collected more than 14% of the national vote share and won five seats in Parliament, taking votes from both former Tory and Labour supporters…. In absolute numbers, combined votes for the Tories and Reform outstripped Labour.”
This even facing a discredited Tory Party in power. Academic pollsters suggest that voters felt “unsure” about the Labour Party, and the population distrusts “politicians”. The working class of Britain are quite right to distrust the Labour Party. Especially under Starmer-Blair. Of course it is perceptably nicer not to have David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak etc – as Prime Minister (PM). What are the Labour omens however?
If the Labour Party were to substantially change Britain, it needs to move against the ruling class. It has denied any wish or need to do so. Starmer himself is a staunch upholder of British traditional power. He is simply a staider version of Blair PR flashiness. His previous ‘form’ puts his much-praised legal skills into a proper context:
“Throughout his legal and political career, Mr. Starmer has displayed a deeply authoritarian impulse, acting on behalf of the powerful…. Mr. Starmer was hired to run the Crown Prosecution Service in 2008, putting him in charge of criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. Professional success brought him closer to the state, which he repeatedly sought to shield from scrutiny. He did not bring charges against the police officers who killed Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian migrant who was mistaken for a terrorist suspect and shot seven times in the head. Nor did Mr. Starmer prosecute MI5 and MI6 agents who faced credible accusations of complicity in torture. Nor were so-called spy cops […] held accountable.
He took a different tack with those he saw as threatening law and order. After the 2010 student demonstrations over a rise in tuition fees, he drew up legal guidelines that made it easier to prosecute peaceful protesters. The following year, when riots erupted in response to the police killing of Mark Duggan, Mr. Starmer organized all-night court sittings and worked to increase the severity of sentencing for people accused of participating.”
Starmer’s Treasurer made it clear that she aims to boost the ruling class profit margin since for her they are the source of prosperity for workers. She will follow “supplyside economics” or policies of the United States secretary of the treasuryJanet Yellen.
Supply-side economics is infamous as Reaganomics: “attempts by the Reagan administration to control the money supply by an aggressive fiscal approach (cutting welfare spending and public administrative spending ) were combined with “Supply side” economics. This entailed cutting taxes to enable a so-called “encouragement to business to invest” which would allow some riches to “trickle down”, to the less wealthy.” Reeves also follows so-called Bidenomics: “The US president’s vast package of subsidies and tax breaks for industry has been dubbed “Bidenomics”… She claimed this will insulate the country against “global shocks.” Reeves even coined the word “Securonomics” to describe her approach: “Much of my securonomics approach has its roots in Yellen’s modern supply-side economics… She is also influenced by the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, who calls for “productivism,” a partnership between governments and businesses to create more productive jobs”.
What does this actually mean? Firstly no rise in taxes and secondly inducements to ‘private sectors”: “Ms. Reeves.. vow(ed)not to raise Britain’s three main taxes… Labour is relying on economic growthto improve the public finances, and it is depending on wave ofprivate-sector investment.” Reeves “ruled out a lot. She said a Labour government would not introduce annual wealth and land taxes; raise income tax; equalise capital gains rates and income tax (something the late Nigel Lawson did as chancellor); rejoin the European single market and customs union; change the Bank of England’s inflation target and reform its rigid mandate; or take private utilities into public ownership, except for the railways.”
But the UK has a problem as US companies have free reign on the UK markets. Economist Michael Roberts notes:
“In Vassal State – how America runs Britain, Angus Hanton shows the dominant role that US companies and finance play in owning and controlling large sections of what remains of British industries. This US takeover was accepted and even encouraged by successive British governments from Tory Thatcher to Labour’s Blair.”
Astonishingly, Reeves noticed this herself:´“In a New Statesman essay, “Our search for a national story”, in March 2021, she wrote: “No other Western country has allowed so many of its strategic assets, great companies and public services to be captured by overseas interest.” But Reeves announced an alliance to Yellen and Biden in May 2023. The Chartered Institute for Export and International Trade summarised:
“The UK Labour Party yesterday (24 May) set out a detailed vision for the UK economy if it wins the next general election. The plan, titled “A New Business Model for Britain: Building Economic Strength in an Age of Insecurity” was announced in a speech in Washington: “…the plan draws very heavily on president Biden’s economic model and in particular his huge Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)”. In the “foreword, Reeves adds that Labour’s new approach… inspired by… “modern supply side economics” as per Janet Yellen, would see the state take a more active role in the economy “making and shaping markets that are essential to a nation’s resilience and future prosperity”. Reeves adds this approach relies on “productivism”, asking both the public and private sectors to boost productive capacity.” Perhaps we can see where this is going? Asking both the workers and industry” to share struggles… means – screw the workers.
The British Labour Party chooses again to even more firmly attach Britain to the USA’s coat-tails. In Marxist terminology – they adopt a ‘comprador’ position towards the USA.
Recently we noted the wave of right wing support in the European elections. Despite the superficial appearances and the Labour Party propaganda – similar considerations also apply to the British general elections. In these elections while the Labour party won the absolute majority of seats, their electoral base was weak and reflected intense disillusionment. And the neo-fascists made great strides. The root cause of these riots is the enormous crushing of working-class living standards under neo-capitalist norms. This is not going to change under Starmer.
The ruling class was well aware that the “austerity” merchants of the Tory party were completely discredited in the eyes of the population of Britain. The ruling class needed a a new face to exert its political power. The re-moulded, newly purged of ‘too left wing radicals’, newly obsequious Labour Party under Starmer – only a newly cast Blair – was the ideal fit. The neo-fascists, now “officially” under Nigel Farage’s leadership of the ‘Reform’ party – are a back-up for when the Labour Party will become completely exposed. In due course this will happen.
Lastly, police actions in the UK defended mosques and community centers from right-wing neo-fascist attack. That should be the normal function under democracy. But on the heels of these events, have come calls from Starmer, for further militarisation of the police. Starmer’s call for further police powers, comes after the police force was already ‘steeled’ after having crushed the great Miner’s Strike of 1984-1985. Such a force will not only be directed at the neo-fascists, Starmer makes that quite clear. The left will be targeted in the months and years to come.
Conclusion
The British working class has seen off the fascists for now, in an epic reprise of 1936 Cable Street. However the situation remains fraught as the economic and political crisis in the UK is not at an end. Without a Marxist-Leninist party, and without a solid and united Anti-Fascist United Front that brings together all progressives – the threat remains.
This is an adapted and shortened version of an article on MLRG Online
What is a Roadmap to Ecosocialism?
Invitation to an online forum on tackling Climate Change
In the northern hemisphere’s summer months, the climate crisis is undeniable. Even the national, for-profit media outlets focus on devastating heat, droughts, and forest fires. These catastrophes displace stories of the obliteration of Gaza and the pillage of Ukraine with reportsfrom U.S. and European cities. These highlight the opening of cooling shelters for their poor and unhoused population. The more well-off take refuge in air-conditioned homes and workplaces while the wealthy take jets to cooler and safer destinations. This is just a microcosm of the human condition worldwide – where the poorer regions face even harsher devastations
To see how activists shoudl respond, the Global Ecosocialist Network and marxmail.world are holding an on-line forum to address climate change and environmental destruction on September 10th. The planned forum is anchored by four speakers after which there will be discussion. These prominent individuals are briefly introduced below.
From the southern hemisphere, filmmaker Rehad Desai has documented conditions where there are fewer safe places than in the global north for far larger proportions of local populations: “The frequency of drought has increased over the last decade in … African regions … Over the last 8 years, only two seasons have been considered successful. Consequently, malnutrition among children now stands at record levels, affecting just over 20% of all children in the wealthier parts of the region, and climbing to high 40s as we get close to the equator” (MROnline). Desai is a leader of the Global Ecosocialist Network. He wrote that the needed “socialist response … will require, among other things, the public ownership of energy, a massive expansion of public transport, water, housing and land as public goods and the expansion and support of small scale farming” (greenleft).
A “massive expansion” of public goods was central to the campaign platform of Howie Hawkins who was the 2020 U.S. Green Party candidate for president of the United States. Hawkins’ “ecosocialist Green New Deal” has “two major programs, an Economic Bill of Rights and a Green Economy Reconstruction Program.” It includes a “guaranteed basic income” to protect workers from the insecurities of the labor market, and the nationalization of public power utilities to support green reconstruction of energy, manufacturing and agriculture. Hawkins proposes to fund these initiatives through cuts to U.S. war spending and the progressive taxation of income, wealth, corporate profits, and the enormous estates of the ultra-rich. These few have benefited from a half-century of neoliberal U.S. policies that concentrated wealth at the pinnacles of U.S. society. Hawkins’ platform decouples the “ecosocialist green new deal” from dependency on market mechanisms.
In his book, Burning Up, energy researcher and historian Simon Pirani cautions against the market-based “green growth” policies of the U.S. Democratic Party, United Nations, and E.U. countries: Advocates of those policies declared “… that the world was now on the way to ‘green growth’.” But Pirani argues: “Actually, while a shift towards electricity generation from renewables had started in some countries, fossil fuels remained completely dominant in electricity and other energy-consuming systems.” This helps to explain how U.S. President Joe Biden’s supposed policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – in the future – have resulted in record U.S. extraction and export of fossil fuels in 2023. A U.S. federal agency recently bragged that “the United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever.”
As Sabrina Fernandes has explained “fossil capital and green capital… [are not] separate things.” Fernandes, a Brazilian writer and activist, is a Steering Committee member of the Global Ecosocialist Network. On the relationship between the global north and global south, she and co-author, Breno Bringel, wrote: “There is a big difference between a project of ecological transition that requires moving away from the current extractivist model and one that preaches a green and sustainable society in one part of the world through the creation of sacrifice zones elsewhere.” This is “green colonialism,” which is “about how old practices of appropriation and dispossession now take on a ‘green’ façade by taking control of key elements of the ecological transition such as minerals for electric vehicle batteries or hectares of forest for carbon credits.”
Between the hemispheres and among the world’s nations, the roadmaps to ecosocialism have differences and share similarities. Nowhere does the roadmap begin, however, with exhorting individuals to change their behaviors but rather to get people to change the power relationships in our societies. Pirani wrote that “it is social, economic and technological systems that consume resources, that individuals do so through those systems and that there is no direct, arithmetic correlation between their consumption and environmental impacts.” The roadmap to ecosocialism does not end, moreover, with climate mitigation but in reducing “resource throughput” that starts with destructive and inequitable resource extraction, followed by the wasteful use of resources in the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities. Each step of the process releases pollutants. The latter include CO2, plastics, and PFAS “forever chemicals,” which today permeate our environment to sicken both us and the creatures that share that environment. Our challenge is much larger than climate change.
The Global Ecosocialist Network and marxmail.world are sponsoring this forum on September 10th to explore these roadmaps. The event is free. Sabrina Fernandes, Simon Pirani, Rehad Desai, and Howie Hawkins will start with 15 minutes each followed by audience questions. Please join us for this discussion of goals, strategy and tactics that may prepare us for more effective activism worldwide.
Are they just handing out German passports now?
A new law makes it easier for some people to German citizenship. Nathaniel Flakin thinks everyone deserves equal rights
Germany’s new citizenship law took effect on June 27, and there are some major improvements for Ausländer*innen. People can apply for a German passport after five instead of eight years, and dual citizenship is now generally accepted. This law, passed by the self-described »progress coalition« of SPD, Greens, and FDP, has taken Germany a small step away from “Blut und Boden” ideology and towards modernity.
For the conservatives and the Far Right, the changes mean that German passports are practically being given away at a clearance sale: Alexander Dobrindt of the Bavarian conservative party CSU used the term “verramschen”, while other CSU politicians have said immigrants need to “earn” their passports.
Even in my circles, I’ve heard liberals wonder if five years might be too quick. It’s always weird to be the lone foreigner in this kind of conversation. Do all these immigrants deserve full rights? Of course they don’t mean me – they were picturing those other, “dangerous” immigrants.
In our world, organized into capitalist nation-states, a person’s most basic rights are dependent on a state being willing to recognize them. Not having citizenship in the place you live means you can’t always feel truly safe in your home, and you can’t express your opinion the way others can. Do most people know what that feels like?
I was part of a tranche of Americans who got dual citizenship via a legal loophole almost a decade ago. Before that, I spent many years in Germany without as a foreigner. Even though I didn’t experience too much discrimination, it is an enormous burden to know that a faceless bureaucrat could expel you from your home with a stroke of a pen.
I always wonder: What did these right-wing politicians do, exactly, to »earn« their own passport, on the very day they were born? The idea that people’s rights should depend on the coincidence of birth is the very definition of racism.
To make the racism a bit less obvious, they say this is a question of “recognizing our values”, as if immigrants were a threat to democracy. As nd has reported, German authorities have been working hard to deport people accused of “antisemitism” for taking part in demonstrations against Germany’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza.
This is all rather rich coming from the CSU, who are currently in a coalition with Hubert Aiwanger, despite the fact that he was involved with an antisemitic leaflet (that his brother took responsibility for). In fact: White Germans seem to be far more likely to support so-called extremism than immigrants are. There are thousands of violent Nazis living in Germany, and I haven’t heard anyone call for them to be deported to Afghanistan. (Who would take them, anyway?)
An easy way to fight the AfD would be to give voting rights to everyone living in Germany. At the moment, 23 percent of adults in Berlin can’t vote. Can we really call it a democracy when so many people who are living in Germany are excluded because they don’t have the right citizenship?
At the risk of being called a dangerous extremist, I think absolutely everyone deserves the same basic democratic rights. The new law makes things a bit less undemocratic. But in the end, democracy means that everyone has an equal say. So yes, by all means, give those German passports away.
This is a mirror of Nathaniel’s Red Flag column in Neues Deutschland
My Voice, My Choice
New Campaign Calling for EU Action: Ensuring Safe and Accessible Abortion Rights Across Europe
On April 24th, 2024, the European Citizens’ Initiative “My Voice, My Choice” was launched, rapidly gaining support with 100,000 signatures within its first week. The campaign addresses the restricted access to abortion in many parts of Europe, where stringent laws pose serious risks to the health of women, as well as many non-binary people and trans men. These laws place significant economic and psychological burdens, especially on those in financially struggling families. The initiative calls on the European Commission to propose financial support for member states that can offer safe abortion services, ensuring that all European women have access to safe and legal abortion care.
Across Europe, access to abortion services vary significantly, reflecting deep-rooted cultural, religious, and political differences among member states. The campaign seeks to unite voices across these diverse contexts, advocating for universal access to abortion as a fundamental human right. However, the campaign faces significant challenges, particularly in countries like Poland, Hungary, and Malta, where abortion laws are among the most restrictive in Europe.
Poland’s stance on abortion is one of the strictest in Europe. In 2020, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled to effectively ban almost all abortions, allowing the procedure only when the mother’s life is in danger or if the pregnancy results from a criminal act such as rape or incest. This ruling sparked widespread protests, with many women seeking abortion services abroad to circumvent the harsh domestic laws. Johanna, a woman from Poland interviewed by Human Rights Watch, experienced the difficulties caused by these strict abortion laws firsthand. When she had serious complications during her pregnancy, she decided to seek an abortion. However, the tougher laws made her doctor afraid to help her, fearing legal consequences. This hesitation left Johanna without the care she needed as her condition worsened. Her story illustrates how the country’s restrictive abortion laws are putting women’s health at risk and making doctors too scared to provide necessary medical help.
The campaign highlights such cases, using them to demonstrate the urgent need for policy change. One emphasis is the campaign’s call for financial support for countries willing to provide safe abortion services, aiming to alleviate the economic burden on women forced to travel abroad for care.
In Hungary, under the leadership of Viktor Orbán, a series of controversial abortion laws have been introduced. These include mandatory counseling and a “heartbeat law,” which requires women to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat before proceeding with an abortion. These measures create significant psychological barriers, making the process more traumatic and leading many women to seek abortions in neighboring countries. Adri, a Hungarian woman, found herself in an increasingly restrictive environment when seeking reproductive healthcare. With Hungary’s abortion laws tightening, she faced numerous bureaucratic obstacles, including mandatory counseling sessions and long waiting periods, which added stress and uncertainty to an already difficult decision. Unable to access the care she needed, Adri decided to travel to Austria, where abortion services are more accessible and supportive. Her experience reflects the growing trend of Hungarian women crossing borders to seek medical care, as restrictive laws at home force them to look elsewhere for their reproductive rights. The campaign uses stories like Adri’s to show the emotional and psychological toll of such policies, pushing for EU-wide support that would reduce the need for cross-border travel and ensure women can access safe, legal abortions in their own countries.
Malta has the strictest abortion laws in Europe, with abortion only permitted if the woman’s life is in serious danger. This severe restriction reflects Malta’s strong Roman Catholic heritage, where even limited access to abortion services faces strong opposition. The re-election of the Maltese politician Roberta Metsola as President of the European Parliament, despite her anti-abortion views, has heightened concerns among reproductive rights advocates about the future of abortion access in Europe. The My Voice, My Choice campaign is particularly critical of Malta’s laws, arguing that they deny women the basic right to make decisions about their own bodies. The campaign advocates for the EU to take a stronger stance in challenging the harsh restrictions still in place in countries like Malta.
In Italy, although abortion was legalized in 1978, cultural and religious influences continue to create significant barriers to access. Over 70% of Italian gynecologists refuse to perform abortions due to conscientious objection, making it difficult for women to find providers willing to carry out the procedure. Additionally, recent laws allowing pro-life protesters to demonstrate inside clinics have sparked public outrage and raised concerns about the erosion of women’s privacy and autonomy. The campaign draws attention to these ongoing issues in Italy, further emphasizing the need for EU intervention to protect reproductive rights. By highlighting the widespread practice of conscientious objection, the campaign seeks to ensure that women in Italy and other countries facing similar challenges can access abortion services without fear of stigma or harassment.
Germany’s abortion laws, though more liberal than those in Poland or Malta, still reflect a conservative approach. Abortion is technically illegal but not punishable if performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy following mandatory counseling. Recent proposals to decriminalize abortion entirely have sparked debate, with strong opposition from religious groups and conservatives who argue that such changes would undermine the country’s moral fabric. The campaign views Germany as a critical battleground for reproductive rights in Europe. Despite its relatively liberal laws, access remains restricted. As a leading EU member state, reforms in Germany could inspire broader changes across the continent, encouraging other nations to reassess their restrictive policies and ensuring that no one is denied the reproductive healthcare they need.
My Voice, My Choice aims to collect one million signatures by the end of April 2025, which would make the European Commission to consider recognizing it as a European Citizens’ Inititative. At the beginning of August, the campaign announced that it still needs 450,000 signatures to reach this goal. Its success could lead to significant policy changes, including increased EU funding for member states that provide safe abortion services and greater pressure on countries with restrictive laws to align with European human rights standards. Beyond policy change, the campaign also seeks to reshape public opinion across Europe. By raising awareness of the struggles women face in countries with restrictive abortion laws, the campaign hopes to foster a more supportive environment for reproductive rights, encouraging a shift in societal attitudes that could pave the way for more progressive legislation in the future.
With the campaign’s momentum growing, it has become a powerful call to action for women throughout Europe. It challenges the fragmented system of national abortion laws that leave millions without access to safe and legal services, calling for a unified European approach that recognizes abortion as a fundamental human right. In a continent where cultural, religious, and political differences often create deep divides, the campaign seeks to build bridges, advocating for a Europe where no one has to suffer or die because of restrictive abortion laws.
You can find more information about the campaign My Voice, My Choice here.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkNoPrivacy policy
