The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Month: December 2024

“The Netherlands is following Germany in its increasing oppression”

Interview with Daan de Grefte and Juul Seesing about why the ELSC is taking the Dutch government to court


07/12/2024

Thanks for talking to us. Could you each briefly introduce yourselves?

Daan de Grefte (DdG): I am based in Amsterdam, and I am a Senior Legal Officer at the European Legal Support Center (ELSC). It’s a non-profit organization that protects and empowers the Palestine solidarity movement in Europe through legal means. My specific role is to lead the Crimes and Complicity team. The buzzword term would be strategic litigation, but it also encompasses other work, like advocacy and building coalitions.

Juul Seesing (JS): I work as the advocacy and communications officer for the Netherlands at ELSC. When people are faced with any form of repression while advocating for Palestinian rights, we ask them to report this to us. This can vary from facing police violence to an employer wanting to silence you, for example. We can connect people to our networks of lawyers if need be, but we also gather evidence to expose and challenge the oppression in Europe. When any communication or outreach is required, then that is my job.

We mainly want to talk about your latest piece of strategic litigation. You’re taking the Dutch government to court. Could you explain why you’re doing this?

DdG: The Dutch government has been complicit in Israel’s colonization of Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinian people for a very long time. This does not only relate to political support, but also economic support, military support and political cover and backing, especially to shield Israel from criticism on the international stage.

After October 7th, it became apparent that Israel was not only committing more basic war crimes and violations of Palestinian human rights, but also the crime of genocide, which is of a much more severe nature. The Dutch government has continued to unconditionally support the Israeli government, even when its ministers are under investigation by the International Criminal Court.

The recent F35 motor parts case involved the Dutch government exporting F35 parts to Israel that could then be used in its genocidal assault in Gaza, even though there was a very clear risk of serious violations of international law and potentially the risk of being complicit in the actual commission of the crime of genocide. The government has never conditioned any kind of economic or military support on Israel’s respect for international humanitarian law.

Besides this, there’s the long standing problem of what the Dutch government calls the “ontmoedigingsbeleid”, the discouragement policy, where the official line of the Dutch government has always been, “we discourage companies from doing business with illegal Israeli settlements, but we do not take an active role in it”.

If you are a company and you come to the Dutch government with a request for information on the legality of Israeli settlements, then they would advise you about what it actually means under international law, but they do not preclude you whatsoever from doing business with settlements. Even though, in July 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that third states, including the Netherlands, have a legal obligation to take steps to prevent trade with settlements.

Our interpretation of this advisory opinion is extremely clear. We think that the Dutch government is now under an obligation to actively stop any trade with Israeli settlements because they are clearly conducive to the illegal situation that has unfolded in Palestine at the hands of Israel.

Our case of strategic litigation has the primary goal of doing whatever we can here in the Netherlands to stop the genocide from continuing to take place in Gaza. On the other hand, we are also trying to challenge the Dutch government’s discouragement policy, which effectively still allows trade with settlements, even though the world’s highest court has clearly banned it.

JS: The Dutch state argues that there’s no international or domestic legislation that prohibits Dutch corporations from doing business in Israeli settlements, disregarding its own International Crimes Act. The Dutch government isn’t even complying with its own laws.

DdG: In our proceedings against the Dutch state, which is broader than that F35 case, the Dutch government alluded to their policy having changed, saying that they actually do not export any weapons that can be used in Israel’s assault on Gaza any more. That was news for us. They never said that before, even though we repeatedly asked for any kind of updates on their policy about delivering weapons to Israel.

But it seems very strange, because in the meantime, they are still appealing this decision that tells them to do exactly that.

When the Dutch government says that they’re not sending weapons to Gaza, do you believe them?

DdG: To be very honest with you, I don’t. The Dutch government is making every effort to make it as un-transparent as possible for us to know exactly what kind of arms are being sent to Israel, and especially which kind of arms might be used in Gaza. They do publish overviews of the type of export licenses they give, but it is not really certain if they encompass all licenses because, for example, the F35 parts are not even on any of those lists.

There are other issues with the list because it’s quite unclear where any of the dual-use goods are used. These are goods that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. It is completely unclear whether or not there is a risk that they end up being used in Gaza, even though the term dual-use means that there should be at least a risk of them being used for military purposes.

My personal opinion is that I don’t think we should believe what the government is saying.

JS: In the F35 case the Court of Appeal ordered the government not to send F35 parts to the occupation. However, it became clear that F35 parts were still being exported to the occupation but via the United States. That says it all. You can’t trust the government, even after a court order.

DdG: Our case differs from the F35 case in a very important aspect. We do not think that only offensive weapons that can be used in Gaza should be banned. Of course, we think that those weapons should also not be exported to Israel. But we think that the ICJ advisory opinion made it very clear that third states, like the Dutch state, cannot be involved in any way in the illegal situation that Israel has created in Palestine, which means the occupation, the settlements, or anything that is related to them.

On that basis, we think that defensive weapons can also contribute to the occupation. That’s not a very difficult argument to make. But even on top of that, it is very clear that states can in no way be involved in the commission of the crime of genocide and should do whatever is in their power to prevent it from happening when there is a risk.

What are your chances of winning the case?

DdG: This case is politically very sensitive. It touches upon the Dutch foreign policy, where it has to operate through alliances, and there are many geo-strategic and geopolitical considerations that the Dutch government has to take into account. That makes it difficult for judges, especially in the first instance, because it’s just one judge, who potentially upsets Dutch foreign policy.

In the appeal court, it’s different. It’s a three judge system there. They also have a little bit more authority to make decisions that touch upon Dutch foreign policy, but we know that it is very scary for judges to make a decision like this. That, in combination with the fact that it is a case about Palestine, which is always very difficult to win in court.

However, all our research, all our expertise from the people in the coalition and independent advisors have pointed towards the fact that legally, it is extremely clear what the Dutch government has to do, and those are adequately described in our demands.

During the hearing last Friday, it became very clear that the Dutch government actually does not really have a clear policy on this, and that they don’t really have a strong argument to present to the courts to say, what they are doing is adequate to prevent genocide and to prevent other violations of international law.

So I think that there is a very strong chance that in an appeal, and potentially before the Highest Court, we would actually win this case. But it’s very hard to predict. These cases take a long time. It really depends also on what the judge themself thinks. It depends on all kinds of other information that we do not have.

And if you do in either the case or the appeal, what are the implications for countries outside the Netherlands?

DdG: The potential impact of this case for other jurisdictions could potentially be quite big. Of course, the Dutch court does not have any authority over the German legal system or the French legal system. But it does indicate that there is a development happening in the legal system that, under current international law, it is legally impossible for European governments to act as they are currently acting.

You’re not the first people to take the Dutch government to court. There have been environmental actions. Is there something specific about the Dutch legal system or Dutch activism, which makes this more common?

DdG: It’s important to understand that there is this provision in Dutch law. Our tort legislation gives us the opportunity to establish unlawfulness of the conduct of the Dutch state, not only because it is violating certain prescribed legislation, but also because it could violate a certain unwritten norm of fundamental societal value. This allows for international norms to be used to explain those societal values.

This is what happened in the case against Shell, which was litigated recently in the Netherlands. The judges upheld the fact that international norms, like the Paris Accords, can be used to explain this unwritten societal norm.

Article One of the Genocide Convention says that states should do whatever is in their power to prevent genocide when there’s a risk of it occurring. Also, Article One of Geneva Conventions states that third states should do whatever they can to ensure respect for international law.

I think that it’s a very strong argument that since these norms are so fundamental to the functioning of the international legal system and the international rule of law, coupled with the fact that the Dutch state is, of course, home to the ICC and the ICJ. It is a very fundamental value to Dutch society as a whole to respect those norms. That is where I think the Dutch legal system is unique, as it offers that opportunity.

Do you think that the fact that the Netherlands doesn’t have a constitutional court, and so doesn’t test their laws against a standard, is also part of this?

DdG: The fact that we don’t have a constitutional court is one of the reasons that judges actually get to test the constitutionality of certain laws and policies in the first place. It is always a very difficult and sensitive thing for a judge to rule that a certain act or policy of the government is unconstitutional, because it will always have quite significant effects in society.

But our Constitution says very clearly that the Dutch government has to take a proactive role in the progressive development of international law and the international rule of law.

The Dutch government’s argument at this point is that they can go against an ICJ advisory opinion and not link any consequences to the fact that Israel is in active violation of ICJ rulings, when their constitution says that they should be vanguards in the development of international law and the international rule of law.

Going back to the Shell case that you mentioned, this has been recently overturned. Is this something that could happen to you as well?

DdG: The reasons for overturning the first instance decision on Shell were related to both practical and factual considerations. For example, the court ruled that it was not made sufficiently clear that the effects of Shell taking action on climate change would be one to one translatable into a reduction of CO2 emissions.

It therefore said that the 45% norm cannot be made to directly apply to Shell, because there is a chance that if Shell does not do it, other companies will do it. I think this is bizarre reasoning, by the way. This is what people usually call the drug dealer justification: if I don’t deal these drugs, someone else will do it. It’s bizarre that the court would make that argument.

But what is very positive about this reasoning is that the courts very explicitly upheld the principle that these international norms can be transposed into a Dutch court.

Let’s get into wider Dutch politics. Recently, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans rioted in Amsterdam. We had some bizarre reporting in Germany. How was the media response in the Netherlands?

JS: It was just as bad as in Germany, I’m sure. The mainstream media in the Netherlands is a far cry from the watchdog journalists are supposed to be. They follow the framing of the racists in the Dutch government usually without question.

On the night of November 7–8th, Netanyahu already spoke of a pogrom in the city of Amsterdam, and even compared it to Kristallnacht. This was at 3am, while the authorities in Amsterdam were still collecting facts and figuring out what happened.

With that first statement, Israel set the frame of a pogrom night in Amsterdam. The mayor of Amsterdam fell for that trap, the Hasbara trap. All of this was a huge gift for the racist wannabe-fascist Dutch government, unofficially led by the convicted racist Geert Wilders, who has been convicted for discrimination against Moroccan people. They were looking for weapons to discriminate against the Muslim population and people with a migrant background in general in the Netherlands anyway, and now they found it. Then the mainstream media followed that frame without any critical thoughts, as most state media do.

DdG: Our prime minister held a press conference after all this unfolded, and said that this shows that in the Netherlands, we have an integration problem. This is a very weird way of spinning what happened when people came to the Netherlands shouting “we want to kill Arabs”, and the Arabs got angry about that.

Our politicians in power also said that what happened in Amsterdam was done at the hands of ‘multicultural scum’. I’m translating literally. I don’t want to make sensationalist comparisons, but this kind of rhetoric is usually the prelude to an insane amount of repression against minority populations.

We can already see that there is much more violence against people from a Muslim or immigrant background. We can see that racists are emboldened by what the Prime Minister has said. There are so many indications for this.

JS: When it comes to antisemitism, both the politicians and the media in the Netherlands keep equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism, and I am pretty sure that at the very least for politicians, that is an intentional choice.

When it comes to mainstream media, they are just following the statements without any critical journalistic eye. This makes the mainstream media complicit in manufacturing consent for the genocide that’s going on, and for the descent into fascism which the Netherlands is experiencing now.

In the middle of this witch hunt, the Amsterdam mayor, who had initially talked about pogroms, retracted her statement. What made her change her mind?

JS: I can’t look inside her head, but I think that she saw how the word pogrom was weaponised against Amsterdammers, both by the Israeli government and by the Dutch government. She is still a liberal mayor and didn’t want to openly discriminate against people in her own city. I think that that’s why she retracted that word specifically.

DdG: A lot of pushback was given to her from civil society and other organizations, including anti-Zionist Jewish organizations, who really do not like their protection being abused for political purposes to create this atmosphere of hostility towards another minoritised people.

JS: Obviously, it is not just the mayor of Amsterdam who spreads Israeli propaganda; it is a common thing for the ruling class to do. What she should have done in that first press conference on November 8th was to keep it very factual.

It was very clear right from the start that there was a huge group of genocide supporters, and even perpetrators, who were unleashed on the streets of Amsterdam and terrorized the streets without the police doing anything about it. Amsterdammers basically defended their own city.

Do you think that the incident with the Maccabi fans will have any impact on your case against the government, either positive or negative?

DdG: I don’t think it would have a direct influence, but it could have a small, maybe significant, indirect effect.

JS: If the legal system works as it’s supposed to work, the judge is not influenced by external events. It doesn’t really have anything to do with our case except that it relates to Palestine. Those are two separate events. But you never really know. Judges are people as well at the end of the day.

What are the next steps in your case?

JS: The ruling will be on December 13th. Then we will know what the outcome is of the preliminary injunction.

DdG: After December 13th, the clock starts running to file the appeal. If the judge does not agree with us, we will file an appeal. And I’m quite sure that if the judge does not agree with the state, it will also file an appeal. In mid-February, maybe March, there will be another hearing, and after that, another judgement.

How can people in Germany follow what’s happening and support you?

JS: We have a fundraiser, and we publish updates on our social media channels. We are most active on Instagram. So keep an eye on our Instagram and website.

The case is also covered by mainstream media. But it is best to hear about it firsthand haha. So I would say just go to our channels.

Is there anything you’d like to say before we finish?

JS: In the aftermath of November 7-8yh there was a demonstration ban which was in direct violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which resulted in vicious police violence. It is really important to counter the narrative in terms of the criminalization of the Palestine solidarity movement in the Netherlands. We have to push back against this. 

We see that the Netherlands is following Germany in its increasing oppression. We see the same playbook to some degree. For example, Samidoun was criminalized here two months ago, and the government wants to ban it. It is banned in Germany already.

On Friday 22 November the Dutch government released a report on fighting antisemitism, which basically is a tool to discriminate against people of migrant background and Muslims. In 2025, they will try to push through legislation that is very discriminatory and fascist. They want to be able to take away somebody’s Dutch citizenship if they are antisemitic, where “antisemitic” means being critical of Israel. Germany has already gone down that path and the Netherlands is following now.

DdG: The failure to challenge Israeli oppression of Palestinians and to take adequate action results in fascism being imported into Europe. Taking away the nationality of people who are convicted of antisemitic offences is a very good illustration of that. It would never happen for any kind of other offence. But it is extremely clearly linked to the fact that Europe is highly complicit in what’s happening in Palestine.

It’s also not a surprise that all the right-wing politicians in the Netherlands, who would rather see the Dutch rule of law deteriorate in order to further their racist goals, are also very close friends and very politically aligned with those in Israel who are trying to do the exact same thing when it comes to the oppression of Palestinians.

Because of our complicity, because of our reluctance to act, we are now importing fascism from Israel to Europe. And it’s a very worrying trend. It should be more visible to people that this is happening and that we are on the verge of copying the things that Israel is doing in Europe.

Questions by Phil Butland and Jitske Grift

Macron has Strengthened Fascists, but Barnier’s Fall Opens Space to Fight Back

Three months after Macron chose a Prime Minister from a party which lost the elections, The Left brought his government down with a no-confidence vote


06/12/2024

France’s July 2024 elections gave us a parliament split into three big blocs: the centre-right around Macron, the fascists of the Rassemblement National (RN), and the left alliance of the New Popular Front (NPF). This last group is dominated by the radical left France Insoumise (FI). The Left bloc had more MPs than either of the other two blocs, but Macron’s main aim was to avoid a government with a radical programme. He named Michel Barnier from the traditional French right as Prime Minister, hoping the fascist MPs would give enough support for the government to survive since the French constitution does not allow new parliamentary elections until next July. You can read a further explanation of the situation until then in this interview from October.

The Barnier government has been dominated by accelerating austerity plans, aiming to slash public spending by a further €60 billion. Macron’s manoeuvres allowed the fascists of the RN to gain respectability and establishment sympathy for their supporting role. Barnier appointed hard right anti-immigrant ministers such as Bruno Retailleau to appease the RN. And his government continued to stoke Islamophobia, for example confirming the ban on long “Abaya” dresses which are considered to look Muslim, from high schools. But in early December, the RN decided to vote in favour of the no-confidence motion put forward by the left alliance.

Once he realized his government was likely to fall, Barnier desperately tried to talk MPs round, squealing about how Brussels would be upset and how international bankers would punish France. President Macron, meanwhile, was in Saudi Arabia on the day of the vote, modelling designer sunglasses and selling fighter jets. Macron has been pretending to be above the storm; in recent months he has squeezed every last bit of sparkle he could from the Olympic Games and the reopening of Notre Dame cathedral, hoping that this will hide his role as salesman for the grubby forces of profit. 

A few voices on the Left are saying it was a mistake to support a parliamentary motion which the fascists were also going to vote for. This is a dangerous error, since fascist parties are not honest or principled, such a position would leave us to be bounced around by their whims. Of course, Macronist leaders in parliament this week were eager to pretend that the fascists and the radical left were now bosom buddies. 

What actually happened was that the fascists were forced to vote for a no-confidence motion which included a clear denunciation of last year’s racist immigration law, described in the text as “vile” and “morally bankrupt”. In his opening speech for the motion, Eric Coquerel of the FI denounced the concessions made to the RN, insisting that taxing the rich has to be at the centre of politics, expressing his support for the strike movements starting up, and called for Macron to be impeached. Marine Le Pen, in her speech immediately following that of Coquerel, defended entrepreneurship, cutting taxes, and attacked immigrants while opposing the impeachment of Macron.

The fall of Barnier is a victory for the Left. The NPF alliance, as the biggest group of MPs, should be allowed to form a government, and this is what FI is demanding. The alliance has a radical programme and a compromise candidate for PM, Lucie Castets, ready. 

The day after the no-confidence vote, Macron made a solemn speech to the nation which may go down in history as the emptiest speech of the century. He simply insisted that the far Right and the Left do not care about ordinary people, but he does.

Macron is now faced with a choice of three options, since he refuses to resign. He could respect democracy and allow the Left to form a government. He could name a new right wing PM even more open to working with the fascists than the previous one was. Or he could try one more time to split the left alliance and draw some Socialist and Green Party MPs into a Left-Right joint government.

Fragile unity

The left alliance is holding for the time being, but is fragile. The right wing of the Socialist Party is looking for a way out. In September, the party’s national committee voted 38 to 33 to stay in the alliance. But polls show that a third of Socialist Party voters did not want Barnier to fall, and 5 of their 62 MPs refused to vote him down, so the party’s right wing feels they have room to manoeuvre. Continuing the huge smear campaign against Mélenchon and FI, accusing them of being antisemitic and supporters of terrorism, is an important part of their tactics, and this campaign is cheerfully supported by most of the media.

In the Green Party and the Communist Party there are also groupings which are unhappy with the radicalism of the NPF compromise programme, and fearful that the FI will continue to grow in size and influence. They are looking for ways of moving rightward. Yannick Jadot, one of the most influential Green leaders, announced on national radio on Thursday that he did not want Macron to resign. Unwilling to openly criticize the left programme, these groups are saying that another prime ministerial candidate, less opposed to Macron than Lucie Castets is, would be a good move. But these various manoeuvres are very unlikely to produce a viable Left-Right government any time soon.

And the centre of gravity of the Left remains the France Insoumise. In recent months its MPs have been aiming to keep in debate the major issues concerning working people. For example they presented a bill to reverse last year’s raising of the standard retirement age (Macron’s MPs had to resort to obstructive tactics to prevent a vote taking place). Another bill would have abolished the crime of “making statements in support of terrorism”, an offence which in reality has been mostly used against environmental activists, pro-Palestine leaders and trade unionists.

On the ground, some claim there are now over 400,000 people in the local FI action groups. This is probably an exaggeration, but it is certainly the biggest activist network for a number of decades. Since it is a left reformist grouping, much emphasis is of course placed on elections, but FI action groups are very much involved in the movement against the genocide in Gaza. Each local group has a large amount of autonomy. FI activities near me include mobilizing in support of homeless migrant groups occupying buildings for shelter, organizing a “know your rights” caravan to tour housing estates, collecting for foodbanks, and so on. In a nearby town, FI groups initiated leafleting of schools in order to marginalize a far right group of “vigilant parents” who were fomenting hatred against trans people and other LGBT+ groups. 

In voting for the no-confidence motion, the RN insisted they were defending ordinary people from the budget cuts which would reduce retirement pensions, as well as from the rise in electricity prices. But recent months have only confirmed their horrifically reactionary core ideas, as they argued to suppress all sex education in schools, and as a “right-wing feminist” group called Nemesis with links to the RN hit the news for their campaign to claim that immigration is the main cause of sexual violence.

Combativity and the need for spectacular change

Whoever Macron chooses to replace Barnier, resistance to austerity is ongoing. On Thursday 5th of December a one-day strike in the public sector saw at least two thirds of primary school teachers walk out, as well as waste workers, local authority staff and more. Two hundred thousand demonstrated around the country. From the 11th of December, rail strikes are planned. Even university presidents are in revolt against budget cuts in higher education. Meanwhile the private sector has seen a wave of redundancy announcements in recent weeks. Tyre manufacturer Michelin, hypermarket chain Auchan, and car company Valeo are among those who announced factory closures. 

The crisis in France is entering a new phase. It is necessary both to insist that Macron respect democracy and allow a Left government, and to build the strike movements. The anti-austerity strikes (teachers are opposing attacks on the right to sick leave; rail workers are fighting the privatization of freight trains) are crucial. Ways need to be discussed to link this combativity to a political vision and strategy for “spectacular change” (to use Mélenchon’s expression). Marxists should have plenty of ideas to bring to these debates.

Reflections on a year of grief, care, and liberation

Looking after each other is a revolutionary act


04/12/2024

Makeshift dwellings on Gaza's coast. Marcin Monko (2007), Wikimedia Commons.

It is now November 2024, a year since the genocide in Palestine began. Like many others, my life has been profoundly transformed by the events of the past year. I have felt extreme grief, rage, sadness, anxiety, and despair. For a year now, I’ve been disoriented, dysregulated, unwell, and struggling to comprehend how this could be happening. Since the genocide began I’ve been living in Berlin, a city that has also faced brutal repression and violence from the German state for solidarity with Palestine.

In the first six months, I attended many protests with my partner and friends. We spoke constantly about what was happening, reading, listening, and engaging in whatever way we could. But like so many others, I started to burn out. The constant repression, apathy, and overwhelming grief and rage left me exhausted. My partner and I began to talk about how we couldn’t sustain this momentum any more. I started dissociating, numbing myself from the constant onslaught of horrifying images and news, both from Palestine and from what was happening here. I felt closed off and distant, emotionally drained, and in desperate need of support.

In the midst of this, I found refuge in spaces of care. I always understood that such spaces are vital for our movements, but I didn’t truly feel this until I experienced it first-hand. One space that has been especially healing for me is the Bodywork Community Salon, a weekly, free, queer-run bodywork clinic in Berlin offering support to Palestinians, activists, and allies affected by the genocide. I’ve visited this space numerous times over the past few months, and it has become a sanctuary. The offerings vary each week—massages, cranial work, somatic trauma healing, NADA acupuncture, and an apothecary stocked with local herbal remedies. All of it is free.

Each time I enter the salon, I am greeted with warmth and genuine care. The practitioners meet me where I am, offering bodywork and time to rest. Afterward, I often visit the apothecary, where I can speak openly about my needs, and always find a remedy. The experience of receiving care without the exchange of money, as a means of sustaining the struggle for liberation is something I have always longed for. In a world where urgency often overrides our ability to slow down, this space has encouraged me to rest and heal—something so vital in these times of crisis.

The care I’ve received here has not only nurtured my body and heart but also reignited my hope. The practitioners are offering their time and energy freely, which has inspired me to think about new ways to care for others. It has expanded my capacity for giving, which is essential to sustaining a movement. In a time of profound grief, the care we offer one another becomes both a refuge and a revolutionary act.

From the beginning of this year, I’ve witnessed an outpouring of community-driven spaces for somatic expression, grief work, free therapy, herbal medicine, peer support, and collective processing. People have been offering care freely, knowing it is necessary to sustain our collective struggle. We recognize that Palestine’s liberation is inextricably linked to the liberation of all oppressed people. Imperialism, neoliberal capitalism, the expansion of prisons, and the militarization of police—these systems are interconnected, and the fight for Palestine is the fight for us all. This understanding has deepened our commitment to caring for one another in tangible, meaningful ways.

Amidst the catastrophic moment of societal collapse we find ourselves in, I see people creating communities of care outside of the dominant systems. Abolition, as a philosophy and praxis, teaches us the value of radical hope and imagination. In We Do This ‘Til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice, Miriame Kaba writes, “I don’t believe in self-care, I believe in collective care, collectivizing our care, and thinking more about how we can help each other.” Abolition is not just about dismantling harmful systems—it is about building the alternatives that will replace them. Over the past year, I have witnessed these alternatives taking shape, embodied in the care that has become my lifeline.

Community care is vital to any movement because it strengthens our capacity to care for one another, creating a cycle of support. Care reproduces more care. It also allows us to dream of a new world—one in which care is freely given and received. I am reminded that when we prioritize community care as a practice, we are honoring the lineages of care that have come before us. I think of the People’s Free Medical Clinics started in my hometown, Oakland, by the Black Panthers—a revolutionary act of care during the Black liberation movement. These clinics were designed to provide free health services in order to model an alternative to the existing, inequitable healthcare system. I think of mad, disabled, crip, and psychiatric survivor communities who always have had to fight for survival, creating their own networks of care outside of ableist and oppressive systems. We recently witnessed a resurgence of mutual aid initiatives during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, honoring a growing recognition of our interconnectedness and long held lineages of care.

Palestine will be free. Our liberations are interconnected. When we understand that this moment is about freeing us all, we can ignite what is truly important. It is our duty to sustain this movement for the liberation of Palestine. When we create spaces of care—no matter how small—this becomes an act of resistance and a reach toward the possibility of a new world. Despite the ongoing horrors we witness everyday, I will continue fighting for liberation, building new communities of care, and holding onto the belief that the care we dream of is not only possible, but essential to the world we are working to create.

The proposed Cuts in Berlin will hit the most vulnerable the most

Speech by a social worker at a demonstration against cuts in Berlin


My name is Michele, I work as a social worker in the housing emergency aid and am privately politically active within the areas of anti-racism, anti-fascism and anti-capitalism. Today we stand, lie and sit here in front of the Rotes Rathaus to protest against the announced cuts for the housing emergency aid, that the senate has now announced and confirmed.

As complex as the social challenges of the last years may seem, there is an undeniable interaction of political decisions, that further deepen social inequality.

While our government wants to economise funds for the aid of exactly those people who are already suffering from discrimination, marginalisation and social exclusion, the rich continue to get richer, the poor even poorer, and us social workers can only watch from the outside how these funds that seem to be much more needed elsewhere are put into armaments, the militarisation of public space and a politics of continuous displacement.

As social workers we inhabit an unavoidable ethically challenging dual role within our work. While we aid our clients as best as possible, orientating on resources and strengthening their ability to aid themselves, we often find ourselves as involuntary “henchmen” of a capitalistic system, when we follow avoidable nonsensical instructions and bow to regulations, just to avoid the restriction of desperately needed resources. It is blatant and yet still shocking how dependent we are on the state within our aid projects or narrowly district-funded institutions, how quickly people in need of aid become sums and numbers.

And if we are already talking about numbers, we should be aware that our Federal Government has granted 4163 export licenses for weapons and military equipment worth 10,9 billion Euros between the 1st of January and the 15th of October this year, while we are here in sleet at 3 degrees Celsius, standing and lying and having to beg that our projects aren’t being given up that are meant to help people here who need that help because of war and military support. This is often all to no avail.

We are begging for 150 euros more that have been promised to us a year ago (Cue: Capital Allowance), we are begging for four layered toilet paper, and the preservation of important social and sociocultural institutions, and that we and especially the people that are already freezing will be spared from the icy social cold of the senate. And yes, we would damn well also like some recognition! Beause at the end of the day, it’s not Mr. Evers, who is smoothing out social injustices, and also not Mrs. Kiziltepe, who has to rescue people. “Berlin stays a social capital”, because we are social. Because we don’t let ourselves be divided, and we continue to recapture the people who are systematically pushed out of the city centre before they fall behind.

Hostile architecture, like benches with massive gaps and music and bright lights at train stations, are just some examples of how homeless people are pushed out of the public space. Just recently I read, that the BVG are currently busy widening repression against homeless and “maladjusted” people – against people who, considering the upcoming cold spell, will be increasingly situated within train stations and public transport. There will be an increased amount of security staff at these places, to surveil them and to oust homeless people. But where are the homeless meant to go, dear BVG, where?

Even if they were able to get a place, many homeless people avoid forced communal mass emergency shelters. These usually have to be left during the day anyway. Two thirds of all homeless people report experiences of violence in these emergency shelters, as well as theft, conflicts, racism and aggression towards each other. Many also report that the counselling is inadequate, if there is any at all. There is a massive lack of day centres for the stay until the next evening. There is – who would have guessed it – just “no funding”.

The question we should be asking ourselves is: Why are so many resources put into the military complex – through the financing of weapon exports to countries at war, in the armament of police and military and the expansion of surveillance structures within the city center, while the social infrastructure within our country is ruined through savings measures? Why are billions flowing into warfare, but not into the construction of social housing or into the expansion of aid for homelessness that would help the ones who are truly in need?

The paradoxical effects are clear: weapons that are delivered to other countries are furthering the displacement of people, who then have to flee here. Instead of supporting these people, they are further marginalised in our country through a combination of military armament, criminalisation and social neglect.

Because an important point which should not be overlooked within this whole thematic, is that these developments harm especially refugees, migrants, people of colour and other marginalised groups who don’t fit the dominant societal image. They harm those who are confronted with discrimination and disadvantage every day – not just in the job market or within education, but also in access to the basic social services.

The influence of structural racism is enormous on the topic of homelessness. Migrants and People of Colour are not only more often affected by homelessness, because they have a harder time finding housing, they also have a harder time getting access to aid at all. They are confronted with the double burden of poverty and exclusion and are often stigmatised in housing aid. If we don’t address these unjust structures, the situation for many people will get worse and worse.

The developments of recent years also show that the currently rampant racism against migrants, asylum seekers and Muslims also serve as a distraction from the budget crisis and the escalating capitalist competition. The shift to the right within our country is clearly felt: Parties like the AfD and the CDU are using the crisis to further exacerbate their inhumane anti-migrant politics. While implementing the new European asylum rules, the Interior Ministry is using optional EU rules to make German asylum law particularly restrictive. This poses the threat of restrictions on freedom and the detention of people seeking protection, including children, as well as more “safe countries of origin” and “safe third countries”.

The reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was passed in June 2024 and has to be adapted in the individual member states until summer 2026. This means further change for the worse for people in search of protection. This prognosis is sadly also confirmed in regards to the planned implementation in Germany.

For us as social workers and other people in the social sector it should be even more clear, that we will not continue playing this game and we will not let ourselves be divided. Neither refugees nor recipients of Bürgergeld carry the responsibility for empty funds. It is not the homeless or asylum seekers who decide about investments, salaries and contracts in the public service, but the state! It is not asylum seekers or the homeless who are overworking hospitals, medical practices and the healthcare system, but the government’s dismantling of the healthcare system at the expense of citizens. Nor do homeless people or migrants determine how high rents are – that alone is determined by a profit-oriented market dominated by capitalists who are not the least bit interested in the “margins of society”.

Here is a recent example that just occurred. In Neukölln, a provider of emergency housing aid wanted to open an emergency shelter for 100 people during the cold weather season. And even though the Senat and the district had already given the go-ahead and the beds were already being delivered, the project ultimately failed because the owner of one of the neighbouring properties feared a “loss of value” of his own property. Because across the street people who had no roof over their heads were to be cared for at night. Capitalism: 1. Solidarity: 0.

Homelessness is more than just the lack of a roof above one’s head – it is a social crisis that pushes people to the margins and massively restricts their chances at a dignified life! Housing emergency aid tries to alleviate these emergencies by providing shelter and assistance. However, the financial erosion of these services exacerbates the situation by restricting access to existential support. It provides emergency accommodation, housing support and advice for the most marginalised people in our society. However these support services have been cut back more and more in recent years, dramatically intensifying the already difficult situation for homeless people.

It is time for us to stand up for a fairer society – a society that is not based on control and exclusion, but on help and support for the people who are most in need. We must fight against this development and stand up for policies that fight social inequality instead of furthering it. It is time to take a stand against the mad cuts in housing emergency aid and all other social areas, against structural discrimination against those in need, against the emerging shift to the right by parties that displacement and deportation plans in their election platforms; against armament and financial support for war and against the militarisation of public space, which relies on more control, instead of real solutions.

Translation: Katharina von Stackelberg. Reproduced with permission

Racism on Trial

Reveal and resist racism in Germany’s criminal legal system


Racism on Trial is a campaign initiated by Justice Collective to reveal and resist racism in Germany’s criminal legal system.

The criminal legal system fines, jails, and sentences to probation hundreds of thousands of people each year. People from racialized and migrantized groups are disproportionately punished by the system, including because they are racially profiled by police.

Punishment by the criminal legal system systemically works to keep in place our current unjust economic and social systems. Punishment serves the border regime, exploits people who are poor, and maintains racial heirarchies.

This mass criminalization is largely out of view for those not affected by it. Most people know little of the system’s day-to-day workings, including of its systemic injustices. Those who are criminalized are often alone in court, without a lawyer or solidarity.

To change this, the Racism on Trial campaign:

  • Documents racism on trial through court observations, revealing the injustices we observe in court in our case archive and findings
  • Organizes for justice, including by sharing resources for others to courtwatch as activism and materials for people impacted by these systems; and
  • Shares the perspectives of other activists and communities impacted by and resisting the systemic injustices of the criminal legal system.

Join us.