The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Month: January 2025

AGIT Open Call 2025

AGIT calls for applications from Berlin activists facing state repression for a residency including working space & financial support


07/01/2025

Due to the ongoing repression by the German state against all forms of Palestinian solidarity, including the withdrawal of funding to censor and suppress such activities, we want to use this open call to support those who are experiencing or resisting such oppression.

This open call is aimed at groups or individuals who are actively involved in local organising and/or community activities in Berlin and who are unable to obtain city, federal, or other forms of support due to their active work in solidarity with the Palestinian people or with those resisting repression in Germany. We ask you to outline these activities in the application process (see How to Apply section).

Groups who are unable to secure other forms of support for similar political reasons which are not directly related to solidarity with Palestine are also welcome to apply, and encouraged to briefly explain their difficulties.

AGIT residencies should work within one or across three strands of AGIT activities, listed above. Each residency should draw on historical materials from social, left or labour movements to make critical interventions in our present. These can be digital sources or other open access collections, material from other archives, infoshops, libraries, personal collections, and some can be sourced / purchased through AGIT.

AGIT residencies are open in form, which means that what is produced during the residency can take any shape so long as it engages with the remit of the organisation. So far, residencies have included an online archival collection, exhibitions, a publication, video works, research projects, and a mural! See past and current residency projects here.

The residency can draw on your ongoing work and interests but should be a distinct project for the time you are at AGIT.

AGIT is a public facing organisation so each residency should have an element that addresses the public (such as an exhibition, event, publication etc).

The timeframe of the residency can be up to a year however we would expect this to be shorter than this. Minimum timeframe would be a month, but this would include much more intensive working. At the start of each residency we would expect each person or group to provide a rough time frame and outline of intent. We understand that this can change over the course of the residency.

AGIT works in English and German.

 

The open call is for one residency. We would like to keep applications on file for future residencies and opportunities. Please let us know if you don’t want yours to be kept.

How we will support the residency:

  • The fees for the residency is 4000 €. It is open how you spend the fee, it could be as a solo fee, on production costs, to bring in other people etc.
  • Space at Nansenstrasse 2 (office, front room, events room and kitchen). Residents are able to use the space throughout their residency. There are other social movement groups that use the other spaces for meetings in the evening and sometimes as a work space, so use of the other rooms is not exclusive. Exhibitions and displays in the front rooms should be able to coexist with others in the space.
  • For those coming from outside Berlin, accommodation can be provided for the residency at a flat nearby AGIT. Please note this accommodation would have to fit in with other residencies.
  • Support in sourcing material and developing a collection around the residency. The people involved in AGIT work on a number of ongoing open archiving and software projects; Leftove.rs digital archive and Pan.do/ra as well as supporting other archival initiatives that build collections and resources around radical, labour and social movement histories. We will draw on this experience to collaborate and share skills and knowledge with residents.
  • Support with production, printing, design, websites, exhibitions, recording etc.
  • Ongoing check-ins and discussion throughout the residency.
  • Use of AGIT infrastructure: email, server space, website, software, publicity and networks.
  • Support with building partnerships with other organisations.

How To Apply:

  • Please send in a 500 word proposal outline what you would like to use the residency for and how you would spend the fee. Remember that the residency should have a public element and your proposal should include this. Please also include when you are available for the residency and how long you would like to spend at AGIT. If you do not require accommodation please also state this.

Alongside this please send examples for your previous work that is relevant to the residency, this can take the form of a CV but doesn’t have to.

Please briefly explain how your application aligns with the focus of this residency call (see residency details).

Please send your application to contact@aaagit.org

 

Deadline: 21st Feb 2025

We will then shortlist some applications and arrange to have a chat about the project and how it might work as a residency at AGIT. We will aim to get back to all applicants within three weeks after the final deadline.

About AGIT

AGIT is a public residency space which engages with the historical materials from left and social movements to address contemporary questions and present day struggles.

Our work operates across three different areas;

exploring movement histories and contemporary politics in Berlin and beyond;

developing international collaborations focused on building left history and culture;

experimenting with different technologies to develop ways of building and distributing open access archival collections.

Central to AGIT is a series of funded residencies, which will explore different historical materials to make critical interventions in our present. AGIT is a nascent organisation so each residency will leave something behind to help us shape the space going forward, be that a collection of material, or something else. The residences are open to individuals, groups or collectives involved in political organising, theory, cultural, artistic or technological production.

To support this work AGIT will also be engaged in creating physical collections, digital resources and open data sets around political and social histories. AGIT will build on the rich history of radical publishing, libraries, and self-archiving in the left, by developing new forms of archival dissemination, ways of making things public and building technological and social infrastructures of open-access and exchange.

AGIT runs an ad-hoc public programme that builds on the work of these residencies through activities, such as exhibitions, reading groups, work-sessions, screenings, talks, workshops, and publications.

The people involved in AGIT work on a number of ongoing open archiving and software projects; Leftove.rs digital archive and Pan.do/ra as well as supporting other archival initiatives that build collections and resources around labour and social movement histories. We will draw on this experience to collaborate and share skills and knowledge with our residents. The founders of the space are also involved in MayDay Rooms (London) and 0x2620 (Berlin). AGIT is currently a volunteer-run informal organisation supported by an advisory board of friends and supporters. AGIT is in part funded by The Foundation for Arts Initiatives (Ffai).

The space is also used on an ongoing basis by over ten social and labour movement groups, and self-organised education initiatives for meetings and other activities.

 

Germany Must End Its Complicity in Gaza Genocide

A Call to Retract Baerbock’s Statement


05/01/2025

Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, has defended Israel’s targeting of civilians in Gaza, stripping Palestinians of their fundamental right to protection under International Humanitarian Law. On 10 October 2024, she told the German Bundestag, “When Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools … civilian sites could lose their protected status.”

In parroting Israel’s old narrative of human shielding, Baerbock provides a flimsy justification for the genocidal campaign against Palestinian civilians. For this claim to hold, Israel would need to prove that Hamas deliberately prevents civilians from evacuating “hostile zones”. Yet, under Israeli occupation, all of Gaza is a “hostile zone”, a concentration camp, where civilians and militants alike are trapped with no means of escape.

Baerbock’s position ignores the crucial fact that, even if Hamas were found to be using human shields, Israel, as an attacking force, remains bound by International Humanitarian Law. This includes obligations to uphold the principles of proportionality, distinction, and precautions to minimize civilian casualties. Most critically, Baerbock disregards that Israel, as an occupying power, cannot invoke the right of “self-defense” under international law when dealing with Gaza, a territory it illegally occupies alongside the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The Foreign Minister’s stance reveals a stark lack of empathy toward the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza who endured a year of live-streamed extermination. It also represents a blatant disregard for the principles of international law and human decency. Human rights organizations, UN agencies, and free media have consistently debunked the claims she has uncritically echoed. Instead of advocating for an end to the genocide in Gaza and taking a principled stand, Germany appears to be perpetuating its dark legacy by endorsing mass atrocities against Palestinians.

While the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and the global Palestine solidarity movement call for an end to the horrific assault on Palestinians, Germany remains shamefully aligned with genocide, refusing to learn from its past.

We, the undersigned, unequivocally condemn the German government’s support for Israel’s relentless acts of genocide against the Palestinian people. We denounce Minister Baerbock’s stance, which stands in stark defiance of international law and basic human decency. We demand that the German government immediately retract her statement and issue a formal apology to the Palestinian civilians—innocent victims caught in the flames of injustice. It is time for Germany to stand on the right side of history, to reject complicity in these crimes, and to honor the principles of humanity it once vowed never to betray.

Initiated by: The Palestine Academic Group (PalAc)

Palestine Academic Group (PalAc) is an independent non-profit, non-partisan academic organization that aims to broaden deliberation on the Palestinian national project of liberation, self-determination, and safeguarding the human dignity and historical rights of the Palestinian people.
Email: PalestineAcademic@gmail.com

Twitter: Follow @Pal_Ac1

You can sign this statement here.

Undersigned

1. Hendrik Süß, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany

2. Sabine Broeck, University of Bremen, Germany

3. Simon-Rafael Fischer, Institute of Mathematics, Georg-August University, Germany

4. Manfred Liebel, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Germany

5. Benjamin Schuetze, Arnold Bergstraesser Institute (ABI), Germany

6. Dennis Büscher-Ulbrich, Kiel University, Germany

7. Christoph Günther, University of Erfurt, Germany

8. Robert Sauer-Ernst, FU Berlin, Germany

9. Berit Thorbjørnsrud, University of Oslo, Norway

10. Monica jaeckel, Independent Resaercher, Berlin, Germany

11. Nour Fanous, SSchulamt Dortmund, Germany

12. Mohamed Zinalabdin, Esslingen Hochschule, Germany

13. Juergen Mackert, University of Potsdam, Germany

14. Doris Bühler-Niederberger, Independent Researcher, Germany

15. Juan Cole, University of Michigan, USA

16. Gilbert Achcar, SOAS University, UK

17. Lila Abu-Lughod, Columbia University, New York, USA

18. Sinam Mirza, Oxford University, UK

19. Joshua Landis, University of Oklahoma, USA

20. Joshua Makalintal, University of Innsbruck, Austria

21. Keiko Sakurai, Waseda university, Japan

22. Melania Brito Clavijo, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

23. Astrid Jamar, University of Antwerp, Belgium

24. Minoo Mirshahvalad, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

25. Hayato Saigo, Nagahama Institute of Bio-science and Technology, Japan

26. Chiara Lanfranchi, Geneva Institute, Switzerland

27. Spyros Marchetos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

28. Randi Deguilhem, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France

29. David Lyon, Queen’s University, Canada

30. Juan M. Amaya-Castro, Universidad de los Andes, Columbia

31. Christian Haesemeyer, University of Melbourne, Australia

32. Paola Rivetti, Dublin City University, Ireland

33. Tatiana Filimonova, National Library of Russia, Russia

34. Mulki Al-Sharmani, University of Helsinki, Finland

35. Carolina Nazzal, Universidad de cHile, Chile

36. Khaled Hroub, Northwestern University, USA

37. Fernanda Liberali, PUC-SP, Brazil

38. Sviataslau Valasiuk, University of Warsaw, Poland

39. Stefanie Baumann, New University of Lisbon, Portugal

40. Sari Hanafi, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

41. Natalia Maystorovich Chulio, University of Sydney, Australia

42. Abeer Al-Najjar, The American University in Sharjah, UAE

43. Walid Darwish, Aalborg University, Denmark

44. Andrea Meza Torres, UAM-I University, Malaysia

45. Jody Rosenblatt, King’s College London, UK

46. Ibrahim Fraihat, Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Qatar

47. Koray Durak, University of Basel, Switzerland

48. Basem Ezbidi, Birzeit University, Palestine

49. Michele Lancione, Politecnico di Torino, Italy

50. Heba Ezxat, Ibn Haldun University, Türkiye

51. Ulrika Mårtensson, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

52. Yadira Cordova, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Venezuela

53. Marc Oliveras, University of Barcelona, Spain

54. Askoka Thakur, Sister Nivedita University, India

55. Altay Karimli, Baku State University, Azerbaijan

56. Faten Ghattas, СУ “Св.Климент Охридски”, Bulgaria

57. Alessandra Bonazzi, University of Bologna, Italy

58. Oliver Scharbrodt, Lund University, Sweden

59. Yoshiko Kurita, Chiba University, Japan

60. Khaled Shnoune University of Boumerdes, Algeria

61. Sahar AlaaEldin, Göttingen University, Germany

62. Hideaki Shinoda, Tokyo University of Foreign Affairs, Japan

63. Samer Abomoghli, Qadisieh college, Iraq

64. William Youmans, George Washington University, USA

65. Mahmoud Abdurrohman, Aarhus universitet, Denmark

66. Yahya Qtaishat, Hashemite University, Jordan

67. Massih Zekavat, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

68. Aicha Elbasry, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, Qatar

69. Mkhaimer Abusada, Al-Azhar University, Palestine

70. Robert Boyce, London School of Economics, (LSE), UK

71. Silvia Maeso, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

72. Federico Della Valle, University of Siena, Italy

73. Ruba Salih, University of Bologna, Italy

74. Luz Gómez, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain

75. Akin Akinade, Goergetown University, USA

76. Mohamed Magout , Free University Berlin, Germany

77. Shaery Yazdi, University of Antwerp, Belgium

78. Monica Dall’Asta, University of Bologna, Italy

79. Heiki Schroeder, University of East Angelia, UK

80. Francesca Biancani, University of Bologna, Italy

81. Eyad Elyan, Robert Gordon university, Scotland

82. Chandana Mathur, Maynooth University, Ireland

83. Jo-Anne Geere, University of East Anglia, UK

84. Lucia amorosi, Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

85. Nadia Fadil, KU Leuven, Belgium

86. Ray Bush, University of Leeds, UK

87. João Rodrigues, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Portugal

88. Azizi Al-Azmeh, Central European University, Austria

89. Samer Chehayber, University of perugia, Italy

90. Punigeaola Manduca, UNIGE, Genoa, Italy

91. Thierry Nath, The Graduate Institue ,Geneva, Switzerland

92. James Smith, UCL, UK

93. Glenn Bowman, University of Kent, UK

94. Caterina Tono, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

95. Barbara Azaola Piazza, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

96. Jonathan Rosenhead, London School of Economics, UK

97. Donatella Della Porta, Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

98. John Esposito, Georgetown University, USA

99. Claire Walsh, University of Edinburgh, UK

100. Pierre-Antoine Vettorello, University of Antwerp, Belgium

101. David Lloyd, University of California, Riverside, USA

102. Richard Rubenstein, George Mason University, USA

103. Eduardo Ballån, Universidad Camilo José Cels, Spain

104. Sondos Sandgren, Uppsala University, Sweden

105. Sevgi Dogan, Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

106. M. Karacan, Germany

107. Sondod Al Sad, UCSF, USA

108. Claudia Laabar, Universität Wien, Austria

109. Les Levidow, Open University, UK

110. Johnny Stiban, Birzeit University, Palestine

111. Sultan Doughan, Glodsmith University, UK

112. Şirin Fulya Erensoy, University of Groningen, Netherlands

113. Omar Elgebely, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

114. Joanne Smith Finley, Newcastle University, UK

115. William Fortich Palencia, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Mexico

116. Ana Santos, University of Coimbra, Italy

117. Laura Nkula, University of Capetown, South Africa

118. Maria Grazia Rossi, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

119. Johanna M. Lems, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

120. Islam Alshamleh Alshamlej, Cambridge University, UK

121. Annelys Devet, Antwerp University, Belgium

122. Lorenzo Iannuzzi, University of Forence, Italy

123. Greg Burris, Northwestern University, USA

124. Liza Goldman Huertas, Yale New Haven Hospital, USA

125. Evelyn Alsultani, University of Southern California, USA

126. Laura Stocker, Universität Wien, Austria

127. Asma Aouragh, TH – Bingen University, Germany

128. Silvana Rabinovich, UNAM university, Mexico

129. Francisco Vidal, Universidad de Jaén, Spain

130. John Gilbert, University of Florence, Italy

131. Ian Almond, Georgetown University, USA

132. Kamile Batur, Vienna University of Technology, Austria

133. Malek Abisaab, McGill University, Canada

134. Jeanette Jouili, Syracuse University, USA

135. Samia Botmeh, Birzeit University, Palestine

136. Stefan Winter, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

137. Julie Billaud, Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland

138. Yvonne Haddad, Georgetown University, USA

139. Jacqueline Perez, Université de Montréal, Canada

140. Tony Axon, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK

141. Hipólito Rodríguez, CIESAS, Mexico

142. Yasir Soleiman, Cambridge University, UK

143. Elise Klein, Australian National University, Australia

144. Laura Feliu, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

145. Zena Hadjivasiliou, University College London, UK

146. Salam Kawakibi, CAREP – Paris, France

147. Nick Riemer, University of Sydney, Australia

148. Mohamed Abdelshafy, Coventry University, UK

149. Israa Asker, Newcastle University, UK

150. Patricia Hoyos, Externado, Columbia

151. Nizamettin Karataş, Tekirdağ Namık kemal Üniversitesi, Türkiye

152. Wael Hallaq, Columbia University, USA

153. Randa Farah, University of Western Ontario, Canada

154. Roger Few, University of East Anglia, UK

155. Mehran Kamrava, Georgetown University, USA

156. Laurie Brand, University of Southern California, USA

157. Mohamed Mohamed, University of Wales, UK

158. Dana Alkhiyami, Northwestern University, USA

159. Itab Shuayb, Cambridge University, UK

160. Halla Attallah, Georgetown University, USA

161. Donatella Donatella, Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

162. Eyas Haj-Obeid, Quebec University, Canada

163. Blanca Camps-Febrer, UAB, Barcelona, Catalonia

164. Fadhel Kaboub, Denison University, USA

165. Prasannan Parthasarathi, Boston College, USA

166. Salwa Mohamed, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

167. Lubna Samman, British Colombia University, Canada

168. Yaser Alsulh, Lund University, Sweden

169. Rafael Bustos, University Complutense of Madrid, Spain

170. Anne Maass, University of Padua, Italy

171. Hayal Akarsu, Utrecht University, Netherlands

172. Rosa Barotsi, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy

173. Rami Khouri, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

174. Nasri Barghouti, Liverpool College, UK

175. Sami Zemni, Ghent University, Belgium

176. Helga Baumgarten, Birzeit University, Palestine

177. Margaret Pappano, Queen’s University, Canada

178. Kim Van der Borght, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

179. Anies Al-Hroub, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

180. Ricardo Marzuca, Universidad de Chile, Chile

181. Bassam Al-Agha, University college of applied sciences-Gaza, Palestine

182. Amilcar Figueroa, Universidad Bolivariana de las Comunas, Venezuela

183. Mahdi Fneish, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

184. Razan Shawamreh, Eastern Mediterranean Univesrsity, Cyprus

185. Robert Austin Henry, CIPPSAL, Chile

186. Paolo Cuttitta, Università di Genova, Italy

187. Atef Lubbad, Al Quds University, Palestine

188. Charles Butterworth, University of Maryland, USA

189. Asmaa Abu alhaijaa, Alyarmouk University, Jordan

190. Chandni Basu, Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata, India

191. Tamer Qarmout, Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Qatar

192. Neyda Lopez, Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela, Venezuela

193. Mohamed Alsudairi, Australian National University, Australia

194. Karima Laachir, Australian National University, Australia

195. Belal Salaymeh, Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland

196. Palpo A. de la Vega M., Cátedra Africa, Medio Oriente y Asia de la Universidad de Tifariti

197. Amjad Abu el ezz, Arab American University, Palestine

198. Tariq Modood, University of Bristol, UK

199. M Fneish, Lebanese University, Lebanon

200. Rachid Jarmouni, Université moulay ismail de Meknes Morocco, Morocco

201. Mustafa Jazar, Lebanese University, Lebanon

202. Ramazan Aras, Ibn Haldoun University, Türkiye

203. Raymond Brassier, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

204. Fathy Alsolh, American University of Sharjah, UAE

205. Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeity University, Palestine

206. Baydaa Al Ayoubi, Lebanese University, Lebanon

207. Marta Tawil Kuri, El Colegio de México, Mexico

208. David Mond, University of Warwick, UK

209. Sophie Richter-Devroe, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar

210. Hasan Ayub, Al Najah National University, Palestine

211. Omar Khalifa, Georgetown University, Qatar

212. Hisham Hamad, Al Quds University, Palestine

213. Gabriel Pérez, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico

214. Ahmed Khaled, Birzeit University, Palestine

215. Ali Kuşakcı, Ibn Haldoun University, Türkiye

216. Mira Al Hussein, University of Edinburgh, UK

217. Walid Kharroubi, Belgrad University, Serbia

218. Abdel Hakim Al Husban, Alyarmouk University, Jordan

219. Nada Raslan, RHU, Lebanon

220. Esad Širbegović, Institute for the research of genocide Canada IGC, Canada

221. Carmen Abou Jaoude, University Saint-Joseph of Beirut, Lebanon

222. Haitham Sarhan, Qatar University, Qatar

223. Tariq Dana, Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Qatar

224. Alejandrina Reyes, Universidad Nacional Experimental Simón Rodríguez, Venezuela

225. Isabel Piña, Universidad Central de Venezuela

226. Ibrahim Bechouri, CUNY University, USA

227. Salim Tamari, Birzeit University, Palestine

228. Özmen Metin, Akdeniz University, Türkiye

229. Idrees Ahmad, University of Essex, UK

230. Walid Magdy, The University of Edinburgh, UK

231. Marwa Nassar, Arab American University, Palestine

232. Surer Mohamed, Cambridge University, UK

233. Hazel Marsh, University of East Anglia, UK

234. Adrija Bose, Indian Statistical Institute, India

235. Ibrahim Zabad, St. Bonaventure University, USA

236. Rahmi Oruç, Ibn Haldoun University, Türkiye

237. Luisana Colomine, Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela

238. Abdulrahman Ibrahim, Birzeit University, Palestine

239. May Farah, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

240. Javed Khan, TISS, India

241. Atef Alshaed, University of Westminster, UK

242. Muhannad Ayyash, Mount Royal University, Canada

243. Antonio Barrocu, Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy

244. Detlev Quintern, Türkisch German University, Istanbul, Türkiye

245. Aryak Guha, S C College, west bengal state university, India

246. Bula Bhadta, Sister Nivedita University, kolkata, India

247. Castro Aurelio, University of Bologna, Italy

248. Ömer Yaman, Ankara Üniversitesi, Türkiye

249. Clara Ferri, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mexico

250. Mouna Hashem, University of Michigan, USA

251. Lucia Cirianni Salazar, Grupo de Estudios sobre Eurasia

252. Emine Güneş, Samsun University, Türkiye

253. Benoit Challand, New School for Social Research, USA

254. Emannuel Guerisoli, Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility, USA

255. Jenny Pearce, London School of Economics, UK

256. Scott Bollens, University of California, Irvine, USA

257. Mohammed Bamyeh, University of Pitsburgh, USA

258. Nadia Naser-Najjab, University of Exeter, UK

259. M. Nurullah Turan, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Türkiye

260. Recep Köklü, Samsun University, Türkiye

261. Mehmet Fatih İzgi, Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland

262. Beirach Barak, Cinelab Ifilonva, Nova University, Portugal

263. Rashid Yahiaoui, HBKU, Qatar

264. Jihad Alshwaikh, Birzeit University, Palestine

265. Nuhad Dumit, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

266. Karim Eid-Sabbagh, Independent Researcher, Lebanon

267. Fatih Gumus, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, Türkiye

268. Martha Mundy, London School of Economics, UK

269. James Dickins, University of Leeds, UK

270. Michelle Obeid, University of Manchester, UK

271. Muzaffer üzümcü, Namik Kemal University, Türkiye

272. Anna Kristina Hultgren, The Open University, UK

273. Hikmet Çadır, Namık Kemal Üniversitesi, Türkiye

274. Killian Odochartaigh, University of Edinburgh, UK

275. Nurcan Güneş, Mardin Artuklu University, Türkiye

276. Haideh Moghissi, York University, Toronto, Canada

277. Saeed Rahnema, York University, Canada

278. Bouchra Mossmann, SDU Odense (University of Southern Denmark), Denmark

279. Jork Wiegratz, University of Leeds, UK

280. Francisca Urias, UAM-Xoch, Mexico

281. Che Broadnax, The New School, New York, USA

282. Anthony Gorman, University of Edinburgh, UK

283. Johannes Kurzeder, University of Bologna, Italy

284. Jonathan Jonsson, University of Oslo, Norway

285. Catherine Charrett, University of Westminster, London , UK

286. Ferran Izquierdo-Brichs, UAB, Spain

287. Ziba Mir-Hosseini, SOAS, London, UK

288. Ghassan Khatib, Birzeit University, Palestine

289. Richartd Tapper, SOAS, London, UK

290. Jonas Grabbe, CENIEH, Spain

291. Heike Schroeder, University of East Anglia, UK

292. Betül Başaran, St. Mary’s Collection of Maryland, USA

293. Vanessa Kleinheinz, University of Edinburgh, UK

294. Are John Knudsen, Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), Norway

295. Mohammad Reza Nilfar, Institute for Social Sciences and Humanities, Netherlands

296. Amir Taha, Amsterdam University, Netherlands

297. Daniel Maldonado Juárez, Centro de Estudios de Asia y África, El Colegio de México, México

298. Teresa Almeida Cravo, University of Coimbra, Portugal

299. Mariateresa Crosta, INAF – OATo, Italy

300. Geraldo Campos, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Brazil

301. Roger Hammersland, Statistics Norway, Oslo New University College, Norway

302. Joseph Bryant, University of Toronto, Canada

303. Daniel Lenkeit, FU Berlin, Germany

304. Yusuf Timol, University of Central Lancashire, UK

305. Lara Urban, Helmholtz Munich / Technical University of Munich, Germany

306. Arturo Hartmann Pacheco, Ceai-UFS, South Africa

307. Faysal Bibi, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin / University of Potsdam Germany

308. Geraldine Hepp, Leuphana Universität, Germany

309. Jean-René Ruault, NEMO, Madrid, Spain.

Mary and her monster

Some thoughts on Mary Shelley and Frankenstein


04/01/2025

Mary Shelley was born on August 30, 1797. Mary had the idea for Frankenstein—or the Modern Prometheus as it was known at the time—when she was 18, and she finished writing it when she was 19. This teenager, who was excluded from the kind of education her male peers enjoyed, created not one but two of the most enduring characters in fiction: the obsessive scientist and the monster he creates. For 200 years, Frankenstein has generated multiple stage and film adaptations across all genres, and it remains as firmly embedded in our culture as ever.

Mary Shelley was the daughter of two hugely important radicals: feminist icon Mary Wollstonecraft and political philosopher William Godwin. She was the lover and then wife of the revolutionary poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and friend of the infamous rebel Lord Byron. Frankenstein was conceived while Mary, Shelley, and Byron were trapped indoors by bad weather during their stay in a villa by Lake Geneva in 1816. To occupy themselves, they decided to invent ghost stories, and Frankenstein was Mary’s contribution.

As is so often the case with women writers, Mary has been treated as an appendage to her parents’ and her husband’s literary careers… whose primary function was to guard the reputations of the more illustrious minds that framed her own. Mary’s life after Shelley’s death is usually dismissed as uninteresting. Biographer Richard Holmes writes, ‘She was still obsessed by Shelley’s papers, and trapped by memories both idealised and remorseful, her life attained a curious stillness’. But Mary, who was only 25 when Shelley drowned, was active enough to support herself and her surviving son despite being ostracised by society and by Shelley’s aristocratic family. She was a writer, reviewer, essayist, executor of her father’s estate, and architect of Shelley’s poetic reputation—in addition to writing five further novels which explored gender inequality.

It is apparently quite difficult for some to accept that a young woman was capable of writing Frankenstein. Professor Charles Robinson worked through a hand-written copy of Frankenstein counting some 5,000 changes suggested by Percy Shelley. The professor declared that ‘The book should now be credited as “by Mary and Percy Shelley”.’ This is rubbish. Other critics have noted that Shelley did no more than any editor, mainly correcting spelling and punctuation. When Shelley drowned just before his 30th birthday, he left a literary mess behind him. Many of his poems remained unpublished until Mary edited and published them. Another academic argues that Mary Shelley’s ‘magisterial editions of 1824 and 1837’ were vital in securing the poet’s reputation. Susan Wolfson writes that Mary’s editing demonstrated ‘considerable authority, at times co-creation’. Without Mary, Percy Shelley would never have entered the great canon of English literature. But does anyone claim that Shelley’s poems should now be credited to Percy and Mary Shelley’?

Many women writers are subtly undermined by the patronising assumption that they simply and artlessly describe their personal experiences. Mary Wollstonecraft died after giving birth to Mary, and by the summer of 1816, 18-year-old Mary had already had two children, one of which she buried. In 1817 Shelley’s wife Harriet and Mary’s half-sister Fanny both committed suicide. Bingo! The creation and destruction, the parody of giving birth in Frankenstein can be satisfactorily explained away. But again this will not do. Mary was familiar with all the intellectual and scientific developments of her time. She attended lectures given by chemist Humphry Davy and Dr Luigi Galvani who passed electric currents through dead bodies.

Mary was also a profoundly political woman. Her book is best understood as an imaginative engagement with the Industrial Revolution which threatened to reshape man’s relationship with nature and with capitalism which was still in its blood-soaked infancy. In Frankenstein, she created a tale which continues to resonate because it articulates a powerful response to capitalism, to class division, and to exploitation and revolt.

Frankenstein can also be read as a feminist novel. It is Victor Frankenstein’s attempts to supplant women in the process of reproduction that leads to disaster. The story, with its dead mothers and murdered wives, reveals what happens when women are marginalised.

Frankenstein was set in the 1790s, the decade of the French Revolution and the Haitian Revolution which established the first black republic. As capitalism developed, it provoked a violent response from those it impoverished by new methods of manufacturing—some 12,000 troops were sent to Nottingham to quell the Luddite Rebellion of 1812. Lord Byron’s first (and only) speech in the House of Lords opposed the introduction of the death sentence for machine breaking, but hundreds of Luddite rebels were executed before the movement subsided. Frankenstein’s monster was born out of these social convulsions and protests.

Mary’s monster is not the mute, dumb monster portrayed by Boris Karloff in the 1931 film. He learns to speak and to read, to love music and the poetry of John Milton. ‘I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous’, the monster pleads. Here Mary echoes the pleas of her reforming contemporaries who argued that only improving worker’s lives could prevent violent revolt. But Frankenstein is not just an appeal for worker’s rights—there is a deeper and more fundamental protest going on.

Unlike previous monsters, Mary’s is a dynamic, totalising one. Frankenstein does not stay in the shadows or in the creepy castles like the ghosts in Anne Radcliffe or Lewis Monk’s gothic novels. Frankenstein and his monster chase each other across huge geographical spaces. This reflects how capitalism is also a dynamic system, driven to constantly expand and grow. In addition, the workings of the system are hidden and mysterious and far beyond the control of any individual capitalist, however powerful. From the Communist Manifesto comes this description, ‘Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells’.

Frankenstein’s monster is a metaphor for the condition of the working classes in the early years of the Industrial Revolution. The monster is not natural, he has been created. Like the men and women being forced into the factories, the monster is stitched together from different elements, and like them, he is deformed and debased.

Through the monster’s naïve eyes, Mary invites us to share his disgust at the degradation of workers. He tells Victor, ‘I heard of the division of property, of immense wealth and squalid poverty, of rank, descent and noble blood. I learned that the possessions most esteemed by your fellow creatures were high and unsullied descent united with riches. A man might be respected with only one of these advantages; but, with either, he was considered, except in very rare instances, as a vagabond and a slave, doomed to waste his power for the profits of the chosen few!’

The Monster warns Frankenstein: ‘Remember that I have my power …You are my creator, but I am your master!’ In the monster, Frankenstein has created his own gravedigger. Two hundred years later, Mary Shelley’s novel is more relevant than ever because capitalism is today more monstrous than even she could have imagined.

Charlotte Gordon’s double biography Romantic Outlaws: The Extraordinary Lives of Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley is available from Bookmarks bookshop .

The Gisèle Pelicot Case: A Catalyst for Change in Justice and Society

The trial over the decade-long abuse involving numerous men has shaken many, and requires us to demand societal and judicial change


03/01/2025

The case of Gisèle Pelicot, a woman from the small village of Mazan in southern France, has captured attention across France and beyond. Her horrific case made headlines when the court hearings began in September, bringing her harrowing story to light. 

For nearly a decade, her husband Dominique Pelicot had systematically drugged her by lacing her food and drinks with sedatives, leaving her unconscious. Initially, Dominique sexually assaulted his wife alone. However, he soon found that this no longer satisfied him. 

He later admitted to becoming addicted to assaulting his wife and subsequently began seeking other men to participate. He recruited strangers from a website called “against her will” and invited them into their home to rape her. 

Dominique’s abuse extended beyond Gisèle, deeply affecting their entire family. The investigation revealed that Dominique had secretly taken nude photographs of his adult daughter and his sons’ wives without their knowledge, further demonstrating his pattern of abuse and exploitation. 

Gisèle’s daughter, Caroline Darian, testified about the devastating impact on the family, describing how they initially believed Gisèle’s symptoms were caused by illness. The emotional toll on the children has been profound, with their son David Pelicot recounting his horror upon discovering that his wife had been photographed without her consent, including during her pregnancy. 

Dominique Pelicot’s manipulation of Gisèle went beyond the physical. He gaslighted her into believing she had health problems, such as Alzheimer’s, when she began experiencing memory loss and unexplained weight changes due to prolonged drugging. 

What particularly shocked people around the world was that the perpetrators were “ordinary” men. The case broke the stereotype of a rapist. It’s not someone outcast from society, moving in the shadows. It could be your brother, neighbor, or colleague. A trusted member of a community. 

It reveals that “roofying” is not limited to nightlife or bars; it can also happen behind closed doors, committed by someone you trust most. In this case, the perpetrators worked in professions such as firefighter, nurse, soldier, journalist, prison officer, and lorry driver. Ranging from highly respected job to more common ones, the French media appropriately referred to them as “Monsieur Tout-le-Monde” (“Mr. Everyman”). 

I’ve seen the refrain “Not all men” frequently surface in social media discussions about sexual violence against women. This phrase cannot be justified. While it’s true that not all men are rapists, it’s undeniable that, in this case, all the rapists were men. Such arguments diminish the lived experiences of survivors and deflect attention from the systemic issues that enable sexual violence to persist. 

Even more telling is the geographic proximity of these men, all the convicted lived within a 60km radius of the village of Mazan. The case exposes the deeply rooted rape culture in our society that persists through silence, stigma, and complicity. As Gisèle herself said, “Shame must change sides.”

The case was closed on the 19th of December and 51 men were sentenced. 46 men were convicted of rape, two of attempted rape, and two of sexual assault. While Gisèle has become a role model for women worldwide, the lenient sentences for many of the perpetrators have sparked outrage, showing an urgent need for systemic reform. 

While the convictions appear to be a victory, when you look into the sentences, they tell a different story. Dominique Pelicot, the mastermind behind the horrors, received 20 years in prison – significant but arguably insufficient given the gravity of his crimes. Other men also received lighter sentences than the prosecutor requested, with some perpetrators walking free due to medical conditions. 

These inconsistencies send a troubling message: the well-being of a rapist is more important than the trauma of the victim. This lack of harsh penalties undermines public trust in the justice system and raises serious doubts about its ability to deliver true justice for victims of sexual violence. 

Some perpetrators justified their actions by stating they believed Gisèle had consented because Dominique had told them she did – as if a husband could decide over the wife’s body. Or they believed Gisèle’s silence was part of a consensual “sex game.” These justifications reveal their complicity and the dangerous misconceptions surrounding consent. This is further underscored by the existence of over 20,000 recordings, which clearly show that Gisèle was incapable of consenting as she was drugged into a coma.

Gisèle’s case serves as a catalyst for change. It is heart-wrenching that only after someone has suffered profoundly those in power decide to act. This case highlighted the outdated legal framework in France for addressing sexual violence. The absence of a clear legal definition of consent complicates prosecutions and retraumatizes survivors. 

In fact, it wasn’t until a horrific rape trial in 1978, where two women were attacked during a camping trip and brutally beaten and assaulted by three men, that rape was officially recognized in the French Constitution. Even then it came only after intense public debate and pressure.

A rape case in Spain prompted a reform of the laws around consent, leading to the adoption of the “Yes Means Yes” standard, also known as affirmative consent, which has also been implemented in Sweden and Denmark. Briefly explained, this framework requires explicit, mutual, and informed agreement for any sexual activity, marking a significant shift from traditional laws. 

Under this model, silence, passivity, or lack of resistance cannot be interpreted as consent, ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the perpetrator to demonstrate that clear and enthusiastic consent was obtained. 

While Gisèle’s case highlights national failures, it also underscores the need for broader European-level reforms. One could argue that the European Union could standardize this approach across member states, aligning with its commitments to human rights and gender equality under the Istanbul Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

By implementing “Yes Means Yes” as an EU directive, the bloc could ensure consistent protections for victims and promote a cultural shift toward respect and accountability in all member states.

The case also shows that in addition to judicial reform, we need a societal one too. It shows how rape culture is integrated into our societies and “accepted”. Education plays a critical role. Teaching young people about consent and respect can challenge the attitudes that underpin rape culture. 

Communities must move beyond the passive bystander role, actively demand change, and point out the wrongs to prevent abuse. In this case, many of the perpetrators said they noticed something was “off” but still failed to act. After leaving their house, they thought the situation was wrong but still didn’t report that further. 

Online platforms like the one Dominique used, which normalize sexual violence, must be held accountable. Stricter regulations are needed to prevent the facilitation of such crimes. The fact that pornography categories like “rape” or “sleeping” exist reflects a societal issue that blurs consent and objectifies women. 

Despite the shortcomings of the judicial process, Gisèle’s courage has had a profound and far-reaching impact. By forgoing anonymity and insisting on a public trial, she has shattered the stigma surrounding sexual violence and become a global symbol of resilience and feminist advocacy. 

Her bravery has not only inspired survivors worldwide to speak out but also ignited a movement demanding justice, accountability, and change. Across France, public demonstrations have amplified her message, calling for an end to rape culture and stronger protections for victims. 

Gisèle’s story is more than one of survival –it is one of empowerment. She has shown that even in the face of unimaginable pain and betrayal, it is possible to reclaim your voice and spark change that resonates far beyond your personal experience. Her strength reminds us that change begins with courage, and her advocacy has given hope to countless women around the globe who have faced similar struggles. 

As we reflect on the injustices Gisèle endured, let her bravery inspire us to channel our outrage into action – through judicial reform, education, and grassroots activism. Most importantly, we must listen to survivors. Their voices are invaluable in shaping a society that prioritizes justice, compassion, and equality. Gisèle’s journey is a testament to the transformative power of speaking out, and it is up to all of us to ensure her courage continues to light the way for others.

News from Berlin and Germany, 1st January 2025

Weekly news round-up from Berlin and Germany


01/01/2025

NEWS FROM BERLIN

BVG & ver.di argue over pay: strike on the horizon

Public transportation in Berlin could see major disruption at the start of 2025, as pay negotiations between BVG, the city’s transport association, and union ver.di start to ramp up before they have even begun. According to the Berliner Zeitung, ver.di said it was impossible to rule out strikes in the new year. On January 15 BVG and ver.di will sit down to hammer out the details of collective bargaining agreements for the 16,000 employees represented by the union. According to ver.di negotiator, Jeremy Arndt, the wage disputes are as intense as they were leading up to the strike in 2008, when walkouts lasted 6 weeks. Source: iamexpat

NEWS FROM GERMANY

Newspaper article by Musk on AfD goes on making waves

Following the publication of a guest article by billionaire Elon Musk in the newspaper “Welt am Sonntag” (WamS) with an election appeal for the right-wing populist and in some cases far-right party AfD, Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) have sharply criticised the publishing. “The fact that the Springer publishing house is offering Elon Musk an official platform to advertise for the AfD is shameful and dangerous,” affirmed SPD General Secretary Matthias Miersch. The CDU and CSU candidate for chancellor, Friedrich Merz, also sharply criticised Musk’s election appeal for the AfD. The German Journalists‘Association (DJV) protested too against the “free pass given to Musk by the editors of Die Welt’’. Source: dw

AfD strengths contacts with Swiss right-wing extremists

Several AfD members are said to have met with members of the far-right group “Junge Tat” from Switzerland, including Roger Beckamp, member of the Bundestag, and Lena Kotré, member of the state parliament. This is the result of research by the Correctiv network. The meeting is further “proof of the AfD’s antagonism to the constitution and its close and international links to the extra-parliamentary far-right underground”, affirmed Matthias Quent, Professor of Sociology at Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied Sciences and founding director of the Institute for Democracy and Civil Society in Jena. Source: nd

2024 was too warm and too wet

The year 2024 was the warmest year since comprehensive measurements began in 1881, as the German Weather Service (DWD) realised. “What is particularly alarming is that 2024 exceeded the previous year by an extraordinary 0.3 degrees,” said Uwe Kirsche, press spokesperson for the DWD. “This is accelerated climate change.” At the same time, 2024 was too wet. According to initial evaluations by the DWD, 903 litres per square metre of precipitation fell in 2024. The average reference period from 1991 to 2020 is 791 litres. The duration of sunshine also exceeded its target from the period from 1961 to 1990, being just under 1,700 hours (target was 1,544 hours). Source: tagesschau

MPs demand consequences after Magdeburg attack

Following the deadly attack in Magdeburg, the Greens in the Bundestag called for someone to take responsibility for the alleged failure of the authorities. “I think that political responsibility must be taken at the end of such an event,” said Green Party interior expert Konstantin von Notz before a special session of the Bundestag’s Committee on Internal Affairs in Berlin. Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) also answered the committee’s questions. At the meeting, which unusually took place between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, the MPs wanted to uncover possible mishaps at the security authorities. Source: t-online