The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Against the Weaponisation of Antisemitism to Impose Censorship in Education

Open Letter from Students and Educators


22/01/2025

If you’d like to sign the resolution, you can do so on this page.

We, the students, educators and workers of German colleges and universities, are alarmed by the resolution ‘Steadfastly Opposing Antisemitism and Israelphobia in Schools and Tertiary Education While Securing Free Space for Discourse’. Purportedly dedicated to fighting antisemitism, this resolution more so threatens the safety of students and calls  for the undermining of academic liberty as well as the autonomy of higher education institutions. 

We are in agreement with criticism from scientists, German antisemitism researchers, and international expert organisations and consequently oppose this resolution, together with its predictable and grave consequences for academic freedom and diversity of perspective. Furthermore, according to many legal experts, the resolution raises significant constitutional concerns.

On November 7, 2024, despite heavy criticism, the Bundestag passed a primary resolution under the title ‘Never again is now: Protect, Preserve and strengthen Jewish Life in Germany’ with majority favour in nearly all parties, including the AfD. A new resolution against antisemitism is now being proposed—one aimed at education facilities. It is projected to be put to vote at the end of January. 

The resolution feeds a distorted narrative that denigrates Palestine solidarity activism and undermines the role of the university as a place of open exchange and political debate. The resolution selectively cites studies from the University of Konstanz, omitting important findings that show antisemitism is lower among students than in the general population. It calls for “exchanges between universities and security authorities […] with intensity and regularity” (III.2), the expansion of legal measures and repressive tools, the strengthening of security measures and the expulsion of students who express undesirable views. According to the resolution, supporters of “the ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ movement (BDS for short) and similar movements […] must have no place in German educational and academic institutions” (III.10). The use of such imprecise language to define who should be excluded from German universities is alarming and extends the scope of state repression far beyond the pro-Palestinian student movement. Furthermore, the resolution isolates German universities from international partner institutions, puts them at odds with international law, undermines their credibility and risks global backlash.

The proposed resolution reinforces the very tools that have been and continue to be used to justify police violence against students and terminations of artists, lecturers, speakers, researchers and others for their political views.

In Gaza, all schools and universities have been bombed and literally destroyed by Israel since October 2023. Israel is responsible for the killing of countless students, researchers, artists, doctors and journalists in the Gaza Strip, which amounts to a scholasticide of the Palestinian education system. According to a special committee of the United Nations, Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, to which Germany is contributing with supplies of weapons, among other things. At the international level, Germany has therefore already been accused of complicity in the genocide and yet continues to defend Israel against relevant lawsuits before the International Court of Justice.

On a national level, in the name of supposedly protecting Jewish life in Germany, the state and institutions are increasingly using repressive measures and deterrence tactics against Palestine solidarity activists, including many Jewish people, undermining their freedom of opinion and political expression. The proposed resolution reinforces the very tools that have been and continue to be used to justify police violence against students and terminations of artists, lecturers, speakers, researchers and others for their political views. The Archive of Silence project documents cases of dismissals, firings, and other forms of repression of pro-Palestinian – including Jewish – voices.

The resolution undermines the meritocratic processes of funding allocation inherent in science by emphasizing that “federal funding is awarded exclusively on the basis of scientific excellence” and that “scientific excellence and anti-Semitism are mutually exclusive” (III.9). In doing so, it relies solely on the controversial definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Substantive criticism of the inaccuracy and documented misuse of this definition to discriminate against people on the basis of their political opinion is ignored. As a result, the release of federal funding is made dependent on the political views of the researchers, which is intended to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. Freedom of research is incompatible with state control of research funding and the monitoring of private and political statements and activities. In spring 2024, for example, a girls’ club in Berlin was terminated without notice due to the political attitudes of its staff, while at the same time the BMBF investigated whether funding could be withdrawn from researchers who had spoken out against the criminalization of pro-Palestinian students. The actions of the minister in office at the time of the BMBF “Fördergate” scandal are explicitly welcomed in the draft resolution (I.), which is alarming.

The resolution expands the one-sided teaching of antisemitism and the state of Israel in the context of education about the Middle East, while excluding Palestine and Palestinians, who are only mentioned in the context of Hamas, as legitimate topics for teaching and research. The Beutelsbach Consensus, which was developed against the indoctrination of the Third Reich, stipulates that learners should have access to different perspectives on social and political issues and thus be able to think critically and form their own opinions. The one-sidedness in research and teaching propagated in the resolution contradicts independent, critical education that is free from political indoctrination.

For these reasons, we reject the resolution and call for an approach that respects different perspectives and preserves academic freedom.

Demands

We, the undersigned, call on university administrations, faculty leaders, student representatives, student initiatives and university staff to take a principled stance against the authoritarian threat posed by the suggested resolution.

We demand that the above-named parties:

  1. take a clear public stance against the resolution’s undermining of academic freedom, freedom of expression and violation of university autonomy.
  2. reject the use of the IHRA definition as the sole, official and legal definition of antisemitism at research and educational institutions.
  3. reject the call for increased securitization at universities through “close exchange with security authorities” (III.12.e) and carceral logics, including by establishing an anti-racism and anti-discrimination office and independent protocols for de-escalating conflicts without police presence.
  4. counter anti-Palestinian bias with balanced curricula that include Palestinian history at all levels of education, Palestinian knowledge production and teaching about Palestinians beyond their role as an occupied people.
  5. “advocate for research and teaching in accordance with international law and for consistent action in cases of non-compliance by universities, research institutes and other academic institutions” (quote from the working principles of the Alliance for Critical and Solidarity Science).

___________________________________________________________________________________

First signatories

Groups

Not In Our Name TU Berlin

Not In Our Name ASH Berlin

Not In Our Name UdK Berlin

Linksjugend [‘solid] Hessen

Linksjugend [‘solid] Fulda

DieLinke.SDS Fulda

DieLinke.SDS Marburg

Students for Palestine FU Berlin

Students for Palestine Hannover

Students for Palestine Würzburg

Students for Palestine Bonn

Students for Palestine Freiburg

Students for Palestine Halle

Students for Palestine Hamburg

Students for Palestine Münster

Students for Palestine Fulda

Students for Palestine Leipzig

Students for Palestine Darmstadt

Bündnis Palästinasolidarität Marburg

BAK Klassenkampf in der Linksjugend [‘solid]

Uni(te) for Pali, Bremen

Queer Liberational Action

Decolonize Charité Berlin

Ingolstadt Eichstätt for Palestine

Stand UP for Palestine

Kritische SKA, Leipzig

KIARA (Kritische Islamwissenschaftler*innen und Arabist*innen), Leipzig

Individuals (alphabetical order)

Enrica Audano, Universität Leipzig

Prof. Michael Barenboim, Barenboim-Said Akademie

Niklas Barth, Linke Frankfurt am Main

Prof. Dr. Christine Binzel, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg

Adam Broomberg, Künstler

Dr. Irene Brunotti, Universität Leipzig

Prof. Celine Condorelli

Dr. Mark Curran

Jasmin Daka

Prof. Dr. Dr. Donatella Della Porta, Scuola Normale Superiore

Anna Ehrenstein

Dr. Jannis Julien Grimm, Freie Universität Berlin

Hanna Hertel, Studentin, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Dr. Thomas Herzmark, Universität Göttingen

Dr. Angela Last

Lucilla Lepratti, Universität Leipzig

Dr. Lara Krause-Alzaidi, Universität Leipzig

Urs Kollhöfer, Mitglied im Landesvorstand der Linken Hessen

Urs Kroll, Student, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Dr. Nils Riecken, Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Matthias Riedl, Mitglied im Landesvorstand der Linken Hessen

Prof. Dr. Marc Siegel, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Maxi Schulz, Student*in, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Prof. Dr. Hendrik Süß, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

Margarita Tsomou, Kuratorin

Laura Oettel, Studentin, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Antonia Marquardt, Jugendpolitische Sprecherin der Linken Hessen

Prof. Dr. Agata Lisiak, Bard College Berlin

Prof. Dr. Olaf Zenker, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Further supporters

  1. Prof. Dr. Schirin Amir-Moazami
  2. Elakoum Mounib 
  3. Prof. Dr. Michael Zander, Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal 
  4. Nasrin Karimi Rechtsanwältin
  5. Amanda Pope
  6. Norbert Lang, Journalist
  7. John Lütten, Universität Hamburg
  8. Prof. Dr. Robin Celikates, Freie Universität Berlin
  9. Julia Vogel
  10. Prof. Dr. Susanne Leeb, Kunsthistorikerin, Berlin/Lüneburg
  11. Aino Korvensyrjä, Freie Universität Berlin
  12. Dr. Carmen Becker
  13. Prof.Dr. Sabine Broeck, Universität Bremen
  14. Maher Ben Abdessalem
  15. PD Dr. Julia Vorhölter, Max Planck Institut für ethnologische Forschung
  16. Phillipp Slanina, Student
  17. Dr. Roy Karadag, Universität Bremen
  18. Prof. Dr. Manfred Liebel, Berlin/Potsdam
  19. Carla Schumann, Studentin, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
  20. Annefei Borgs-Uhlendorf
  21. Prof. Dr. Uli Beisel, Freie Universität Berlin
  22. Carolin Loysa, Freie Universität Berlin
  23. Jamal Sreiss
  24. Dr. Jeanne Féaux de la Croix
  25. Prof. Dr. Angela Harutyunyan, UdK Berlin
  26. Dr. Hanna Nieber, Max-Planck-Institut für ethnologische Forschung
  27. Kawthar El-Qasem, Düsseldorf
  28. Dr. Anne Menzel, Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg
  29. Yuri Kwon
  30. Dr. Jannik Schritt, Universität Göttingen
  31. Prof. Dr. Anika König, Freie Universität Berlin
  32. Linda Beck, Universität Göttingen
  33. Wolfgang Lörcher, DIE LINKE Fulda
  34. Leonie Benker, Freie Universität Berlin
  35. Dr. Mathias Delori, CNRS-Forscher, Centre Marc Bloch
  36. Prof. Dr. Alice von Bieberstein, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
  37. Nick Bley, Senator Universität Kassel
  38. Thomas Götzelmann, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
  39. Aaron Miller, Universität Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences
  40. Raphaël Grisey, Filmmacher
  41. Marina Luna, Free University Berlin
  42. Christin Sander, FU Berlin
  43. Dr. Philipp Zehmisch, Universität Heidelberg
  44. Dr. Nicole Wolf, Universität London und freiberufliche Dozentin Berlin
  45. Dr. Benjamin Schütze, Arnold Bergstraesser Institut (ABI) Freiburg
  46. Prof. Dr. Martin Sökefeld, LMU Müchen
  47. Pia Berghoff, Freie Universität Berlin
  48. Daniel Shuminov, Goethe Universität
  49. Dr. Bettina Gräf, LMU München
  50. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang M. Schröder, Universität Würzburg
  51. Mithu Sanyal, Schriftstellerin und Kulturwissenschaftlerin
  52. Prof.Dr. Rupa Viswanath, Universität Göttingen
  53. Alma Kulha
  54. Aseela Haque, Freie Universität Berlin
  55. Susanne Schultz, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
  56. Anil Shah, Universität Kassel
  57. Dr. Ximena Alba
  58. Marius Bickhardt (Centre Marc Bloch/Sciences Po Paris)
  59. Huan Chen, Universität Münster
  60. Prof. Dr. Dominik Mattes, Freie Universität Berlin
  61. Christian Strippel, Weizenbaum-Institut
  62. Anna Hofmann Fraktionsvorsitzende der Linken im Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf
  63. Laure Piguet, Centre Marc Bloch/Université de Fribourg
  64. Noémie Regnaut, Université Paris-Sorbonne Nouvelle – Centre Marc Bloch Berlin
  65. Anonym, Centre Marc Bloch/EHESS
  66. Dr. Déborah Brosteaux, Marc Bloch Zentrum (Berlin)
  67. Marianne Adam (Centre Marc Bloch/Université de Tours)
  68. Florian Muhl, Universität Hamburg
  69. Mareike Biesel, Universität Göttingen
  70. Karlotta Bahnsen, Freie Universität Berlin
  71. Layla Kiefel (Universität Konstanz, Centre Marc Bloch)
  72. Elfi Padovan Münchner Friedensbündnis
  73. Dr. Dörthe Engelcke, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
  74. Philipp Rauch, Student TU Darmstadt
  75. Rebeka Nasir, Studentin, Technische Universität Darmstadt
  76. Kaoutar H., Goethe Universität Frankfurt
  77. Leon Kianzad, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
  78. Christos Kourris, TU Dresden
  79. Claire van Loon, Studentin
  80. Anna Müller
  81. Miriam Bartelmann, Arnold-Bergstraesser-Institut (ABI) Freiburg
  82. Luis Kliche Navas, Freie Universität Berlin
  83. Dr. Barbara Orth, IRS
  84. Dr. Tobias Schmitt, Universität Hamburg
  85. Ariane Alba Marquez, Bundesvorstand DieLinke.SDS, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
  86. Prod. Dr. Aram Ziai, Universität Kassel
  87. Nicholas Sagberger – Uni Regensburg
  88. Dr. Alix Winter, Centre Marc Bloch
  89. Willi Hertelt, Kurt-Tucholsky-Oberschule Berlin
  90. Layla Kiefel (Universität Konstanz, Centre Marc Bloch)
  91. Qusay, TU Darmstadt
  92. Christoph Maier, Uni Leipzig
  93. Mira Schmitz, MLU Halle-Wittenberg
  94. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Gabbert, Leibniz Universität Hannover
  95. Kim Lucht, FSU Jena
  96. Lea Berger
  97. Barbara Gamper, Künstlerin und Pädagogin
  98. Taosif Talukder, TU Darmstadt
  99. Dr. Christian Ambrosius, Freie Universität Berlin
  100. Jorinde Becker, Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
  101. Jared Cobain HGB Leipzig
  102. Anna Orinsky, European University Institute
  103. Prof. Dr. Johanna Schaffer,  Kunsthochschule Kassel
  104. Andreas Weiß, Köln
  105. Eliane Diur, Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
  106. Madlen Ernst, MERA25 Berlin
  107. Abdullah Rahhal – Die Linke Freiburg und Masterstudent Uni Freiburg
  108. Rana Brentjes
  109. Sonja Brentjes, Bergische Universität Wuppertall
  110. Mareike Biesel, Universität Göttingen
  111. Thomas Ruffmann, Kleve, Musiker, politischer Erwachsenenbildner
  112. Dr. Raquel Rojas, Freie Universität Berlin
  113. Tabea Knerner, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
  114. Sara Türen 
  115. Frank Madsen Journalist
  116. Prof Ramis Örlü, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Schweden
  117. Prof. Dr. Christin Bernhold, Universität Hamburg
  118. Jasmin Sarah Hahn, Freie Universität Berlin
  119. Anna-Lena Kutzki, HAW Hamburg
  120. Sonja Rohan, Freie Universität Berlin
  121. Janine Schneider
  122. Luise Dechow, Universität Hamburg
  123. Leyla Tewes
  124. Clemens Grünberger
  125. Samah Schmitt-Razzougui
  126. Verena Müllner
  127. Selim Heers, Universität Leipzig
  128. Hava Aras
  129. Ahmed Tarek Alahwal, Universität Freiburg
  130. Raina Ivanova
  131. Hiba Banat, Studentin
  132. Graciela Bach
  133. Candice Breitz
  134. Dagmar Kohlmeier, Masterstudentin, Universität Freiburg
  135. Felicia Schmidt, Berlin
  136. Bircan Sönmez, Mera25 NRW, Düsseldorf
  137. Guillaume Carpentier, Mera25
  138. Christian Suhr – About People Film Produktion
  139. Deniz Khalifé
  140. Adrian Khalifé
  141. Louay Khalifé
  142. Ilay Khalifé
  143. Isa Khalifé
  144. Ayesha Siddiqi-Sikora
  145. Nadia El-Ali, Freie Universität Berlin
  146. Peter Förster, AK Zivilklausel der Uni Köln, Student
  147. Luca Groß, SDS Frankfurt
  148. Franziska Hildebrandt, SDS Uni Hamburg
  149. Marlies Wehner, M.A., Fachstelle für interkulturelle Bildung und Beratung-FiBB e.V.
  150. Jasper Wittenburg 
  151. J. Kamo Anselm, UHH
  152. Emily Allegra Dreyfus, Filmuniversität Babelsberg
  153. Dr. David Jordan, Ruhr-Universität Bochum
  154. Prof. Dr. Claudius Zibrowius, Ruhr-Universität Bochum
  155. Artur Brückmann, Universität Hamburg
  156. Therese Friedemann
  157. Alp Kayserilioğlu, Universität Tübingen
  158. Peter Förster, AK Zivilklausel Uni Köln
  159. Eliaz Zeilmeir, Goethe Universität Frankfurt
  160. Rand Ashqar, Freiburg Universität
  161. Jean-Marie Yazbeck, Master Student University of Freiburg
  162. Anonym, Universität Freiburg
  163. Selma Härnqvist
  164. Muayad Chalabi, Technische Universität München
  165. Andrea Sittoni, LMU München
  166. Francisco Torres, Fraunhofer ISE
  167. Richard Lenerz, Universität Trier
  168. Lenna Fischer – Uni Hannover
  169. Jana Müller, Studentin
  170. Johannes Heißler, LMU München
  171. Lale Khoshnoud, Hochschule Hannover
  172. Eudy Mahlies, Universität Leipzig, Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS)
  173. Ingo Jäger, Bezirksratsherr Hannover Vahrenwald-List
  174. Marwan Abdelaal, Technische Universität München
  175. Michael Kreich
  176. Michelle Schinkel, Universität Konstanz
  177. Hanna Neghabian, SfP
  178. Gianluca Pagliaro, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics
  179. Miriam Bartelmann, Arnold-Bergstraesser-Institut (ABI), Freiburg
  180. Björn Pohl
  181. Leonie Hiller
  182. Jasper Martins, Leibniz Universität Hannover
  183. Amir Raza (Albert Einstein Institute Hannover)
  184. Franziska Bax, Rachel Carson Center LMU München
  185. Mariel Bernnat, Universität Freiburg
  186. Lucia Grimm (Albert Ludwigs Universität Freiburg)
  187. Prof. Dr. Tahani Nadim
  188. Cora Orlando, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

Further supporting groups

Bündnis Yousef Shaban

Estudantes por Justiça na Palestina (FCSH Nova, Portugal)

Students for Palestine Mainz

Sozialistisch-Demokratischer Studierendenverband (DieLinke.SDS)

Students for Palestine Frankfurt

Die Linke Hessen

Hochschule for Palestine Darmstadt

Studis gegen Rechts Leipzig

Fachschaftsrat Politikwissenschaft (Universität Leipzig)

Uni for Palestine Munich 

Linksjugend [‘solid] Leverkusen

Decolonise HU, Berlin

Is Elon Musk a Nazi?

…


21/01/2025

Of course he is. End of article.

ICHRP – Germany Launched on International Human Rights Day

Growing the solidarity movement for a just and lasting peace in the Philippines


20/01/2025

 The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) – Germany was launched in Berlin to mark the 76th International Human Rights Day. The event brought together Filipinos, Germans, and other international solidarity supporters. ICHRP-Germany aims to amplify the campaigns for human rights in the Philippines, expand the solidarity network and promote wide global support for the cause.

Under the theme “Living Solidarity – ICHRP Germany for Human Rights in the Philippines,” the event opened with a discussion on human rights violations in the Philippines, led by Cynthia Deduro of Gabriela Germany. A victim of human rights abuses herself, Deduro recounted being forced to seek asylum in Germany due to government harassment targeting her and her husband for their activism and staunch defense of human rights. She emphasized the worsening situation under the Marcos regime, highlighting the continous and even worsening human rights abuses from Ferdinand Marcos Sr. to his son, the current Presidnet Ferdinand Marcos Jr. She added that there had been no fundamental changes to the dismal human rights situation in the Philippines.

The discussion followed by testimonies of Revd. Christopher Ablon and Kiri Dalena on the genesis and development of their activism. Dalena, a Filipina filmmaker and human rights activist, revealed that her desire for film making exposed her to basic sectors in society who fell victims of human rights violations.  These strengthened her resolve to engage in activism and expose these social injustices using the lens of her camera. She added that because of her activism, she and other activists were charged with perjury filed by the National Security Adviser and retired general Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.

Reb Chris, a Filipino priest, activist and musician, recounted that his faith and ministry shaped his engagement in activism.  He shared that it started with his involvement with the ecological justice campaign programs of the Church, then later in human rights and peace activism.  He live by the conviction to stay grounded in the faith that humans are made in God’s image. He also mentioned the failed “riding in tandem” attempt on his life together with five other priests in Manila in 2019 and the intensified red-tagging against him in 2022 and 2023 that eventually forced him to leave the country.

The launching was also graced by congratulatory messages by Peter Murphy, chairperson of the ICHRP Global Council and Christina Palabay, chairperson of KARAPATAN Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples’ Rights in the Philippines. Both emphasized the importance and urgency of international solidarity to expose and fight against the grave human rights abuses under the US-supported Marcos Jr. regime.

The event concluded with group discussions where relevant recommendations and perspectives on next steps forward and desired activities to further campaign for the protection of human rights  in the Philippines were collected. As a manifestation, the participants created two placards, one with a call for the release of Tomas Dominado, a political prisoners, arrested only a few day before December 5; and one placard calling for action and accountability: “Kung hindi tayo, sino? Kung hindi ngayon, kalian? (If it is not us, who will? If it is not now, when will it be?).##

What is ICHRP?

The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) is a global network dedicated to campaigning for just and lasting peace in the Philippines.

We coordinate with partner organizations on the ground in the Philippines to draw attention to the most pressing issues, and generate moral, political, and material support for the most oppressed and exploited people in the country.

With 65 member organizations across 15 countries—ranging from grassroots solidarity groups to churches, trade unions, and environmental organizations—ICHRP is more active than ever and is always growing.

Here are some of the highlights of our solidarity work this past year:

Campaign on US-backed counter-insurgency

In response to calls from the mass movement in the Philippines, ICHRP prioritized the issue of US-backed counterinsurgency and its effects on the Filipino people this year.

We recognize the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) as a co-belligerent force with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), qualifying the civil war in the Philippines as an armed conflict subject to international law. The GRP’s frequent violations of international rules of war disguised as counterinsurgency continues to block efforts to build a just peace in the country.

In 2024 we exposed the so-called “counter-insurgency campaign” of the Philippine government through statements, urgent alerts, webinars, videos, and submissions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. We also fundraised for peasant communities who are facing the brunt of state violence.

International People’s Tribunal

In May of 2024, ICHRP was an official sponsor of the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) in Brussels. The tribunal was organized by the grassroots solidarity movement, and brought together a panel of legal experts to produce a verdict based on evidence and testimonies.

The 2024 IPT focused on the war crimes of the Duterte and Marcos Jr regimes, and identified the Biden administration as culpable. After hearing over a dozen harrowing testimonies, the jury unanimously agreed that the Philippine government was guilty of gross violations of International Humanitarian Law with the backing of the US government.

The verdict of the IPT was an important moment in exposing the world to the realities of “counter-insurgency” in the Philippines, which amounts to sweeping repression and violence against any and all dissent.

Conference on Peace Talks

In Europe, ICHRP member organization Catalan Association for Peace held a conference on the path towards peace which featured members of the NDFP negotiating panel and representatives from various other liberation movements around the world, including Columbia, Ireland, Guatemala, and South Africa.

A new ICHRP member organization, CHRP-Germany, was founded and launched this year.

Get involved!

ICHRP’s mission is to advocate for just and lasting peace in the Philippines. Our solidarity is most powerful when we’re unified and organized in action. You can help us build this unity by joining a local ICHRP member organization, or forming your own. Reach out to ICHRP at ichrp.net/contact if you aren’t sure how to get involved!

Must Dance and Have a Moustache

Thoughts on gay male culture as the Village People perform at the Trump inauguration.


The Village People were absolutely not any kind of gay community project. Many of them weren’t gay, and this was a commercial venture—in the early 70s there existed a post-Stonewall gay market, largely male, who danced to disco in new commercial clubs and liked hearing songs that alluded to, if in a roundabout way, queer life. And so, the band produced an album called Cruisin’—gay slang for seeking casual sex in public places—which included their biggest hit, “YMCA”, a reference the famous sexual shenanigans at the titular chain of institutions in New York. George Chauncey’s classic history Gay New York refers, for example, to a “free for all” and “never ending sex” in the showers (this perhaps isn’t widely understood—a few years ago, visiting Stockport, where I grew up, I chanced on the local Pride parade where the Scouts marched past to the tune of “YMCA”).

Other tracks included “Macho Man”, at a time when a look featuring 501s and moustaches was huge in gay venues. The original recruiting advert for group members specified “Macho Types Wanted: Must Dance And Have A Moustache.” “Go West” referred to San Francisco as a “gay El Dorado”. The journey from New York to the west coast was undertaken by Harvey Milk among others, and the golden memory of pre-AIDS San Francisco is depicted in Armistead Maupin’s Tales of the City books. The repeated “Together!” of the lyrics references, I think, both personal relationships and a new-found sense of community—amid the nod-and-wink references and exploitation of the audience, there are moving bits of social history in the mix. “In the Navy” plays on tropes about horny sailors and on-board sex, with puns about seamen/semen and recruitment to “openings in the navy”.

All of this is tacky, sure. But gay male culture in the 70s, outside of New York and San Francisco, was cobbled together out of all kinds of tacky things. In 70s Britain, John Inman and Larry Grayson were on television. Gay bars were decorated (New Union in Manchester, I’m looking at you) with flock wallpaper and little reproductions of Michelangelo’s David. Disco tracks featured black divas singing of men they had lost (such as Phyllis Nelson’s “Don’t Stop the Train” in clubs where no actual black women were ever present. You can’t invent a subculture overnight, and all this allowed room for retreat and disavowal should it become necessary—it’s a statue by a respected artist, it’s a song about heterosexual love, the Village People are only joking.

The thought that the Village People were only joking, or a straight unwillingness to acknowledge what they were actually referring to ( for example, that a disco song could mention anal sex, even via a double entendre) led to confusion back in the day, as when the US Navy considered using “In the Navy” in recruitment adverts. And the space left open for ambiguity comes into play again now that Victor Willis, the last remaining member of the original group, is performing as part of the Trump inauguration and trying to disentangle “YMCA” from its status as (come at me, Willis’s lawyers!) a gay anthem. A wide streak of opportunism and an eye on the money were always big parts of Village People’s take on queer folk. During the election campaign, presumably thinking of their fanbase, they tried to stop Trump using “Macho Man”. But now that he’s won, “YMCA” is to be, well, straightwashed if that’s where there’s money to be made. The ambiguities of gay male enthusiasm for macho aesthetics return to haunt us as a celebration of hairy-chested hotness is used to praise Donald Trump. Fifty years on, you might think, we have unambiguous queer voices like Lil Nas X and Chappell Roan. But then you hear a censored version of “Call Me By Your Name” playing in Tesco, and questions about representation arise all over again.

AfD plans Deportation ticket for non-Germans

In the run up to the German elections, the AfD make their racist plans clear


19/01/2025

A massive 15,000 people traveled in 200 buses from all over Germany aiming to block a national conference of the far-right AfD in the Saxon town of Riesa on Saturday, January 11.  But two days earlier, a new hate campaign against migrants and refugees from the AfD had claimed public attention. Let’s review events by last week’s timeline.

On Thursday, January 9, Elon Musk had entered the fray. He had decided to influence the February 23 German Federal elections by supporting the AfD. So he had a 74-minute live chat with the party’s leader Alice Weidel. The AfD, which won 10.4% of the vote in the 2021 elections, is polling second in Germany this time, with 22% of the potential vote. The interview was rife with false and dangerous statements, covering topics from migration to National Socialism. In her typical right-wing and revisionist-of-facts fashion, Weidel dismissed pandemic-era mask measures as a “bluff and fraud”. Members of the party have often taken part in demonstrations of the so-called “Querdenker” movement against COVID-19 restrictions, alongside neo-Nazis. 

During the interview, Weidel claimed that Hitler was not right-wing but “communist and socialist” She portrayed her party as “libertarian and conservative” and “the only party that protects Jewish life in Germany.” This lie was challenged by the conservative Central Council of Jews in Germany. Musk’s collaboration with the AfD perfectly aligns with the party’s revisionist and inflammatory rhetoric.

On Saturday, January 11, anti-fascist demonstrators arrived early in Riesa to block all roads leading to the hall, delaying the conference by two hours. However the conference proceeded, aided by police using pepper spray, truncheons, dogs, horses, water cannons. All that had for more than a year become familiar to those demonstrators against the genocide in Gaza. They faced tactics of pushing, punching and kicking to clear the blockades. Party co-leader Tino Chrupalla called the demonstrators “terrorists” and thanked the police for their intervention. Why did the police apply these tactics? Ostensibly to ensure “protection of the fundamental rights of both sides.”

It’s worth noting that the AfD is being monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a suspected right-wing extremist party. Saxony is one of three states where the party’s extremist nature has already been officially confirmed.

The conference chose Weidel to be the AfD’s candidate for chancellor. In her acceptance speech, she called for “remigration”. In right-wing and Nazi parlance this means the deportation of millions of people, including non-whites with German passports. It is a term that became notorious after a secret meeting between Nazi “activists” and AfD officials in Potsdam a year ago.

During the conference, a new flyer in the shape of a plane ticket was distributed among delegates. Titled a “deportation ticket,” it featured the AfD logo and was addressed to a “passenger: illegal immigrant.” The flight details were transparently xenophobic and racist: departure “From: Germany,” destination “Safe country of origin”. The passenger is to board at “Gate AfD” on 23 February, the day of the election, from “8 am to 6 pm”. Two sentences at the bottom of the “ticket” read: “Only remigration can save Germany” and “It’s nice at home too”. 

The 2025 flyer is almost an identical copy of 2011 and 2013 election flyers by another far-right party, the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) – which then changed its name to Die Heimat. In 2017, Germany’s Constitutional Court found that the NPD pursued unconstitutional goals in line with neo-Nazi ideology, but stopped short of banning the party.

The campaign bears an unsettling resemblance to the mock-up “one-way” “free train tickets to Jerusalem” for Jews that were distributed in public spaces across the German Reich during the 1920s and 1930s. Whether or not this historical reference was intentionally chosen or even known by the AfD, the striking similarity in political rhetoric and ideological patterns highlights a shared alignment in beliefs.

A QR code on the front of the flyer links to the website of the AfD branch in Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg. Marc Bernhard, a member of parliament for the AfD in Karlsruhe, has confirmed the party’s recent flyer distribution campaign. According to Bernhard, between 20,000 and 30,000 flyers were printed and distributed through election campaign stands and by dropping them into letterboxes. He emphasized, however, that there was no targeted search for letterboxes with foreign-sounding names during the distribution process.

On Monday, the Karlsruhe branch published an additional statement on its website, defending the flyer as “fully in line with the current legal situation and the Basic Law.” The reverse of the flyer outlines a xenophobic program titled “one-way economy”. This includes proposals such as “Humanitarian residence only as long as there is a reason for asylum”. History has a lot of examples of future developments of such ‘adequate’ reasons. The programme goes on to “Deportation of all persons obliged to leave the country”. This is explained as: “The demand to leave the country refers in particular to people who are in Germany illegally… such as the 1 million Syrian (former) civil war refugees in the country”. This rhetoric is not unique to the AfD nor to Germany. One day after Assad left Syria, a number of countries have already announced they will stop processing asylum applications. 

Most German political parties, including the CDU, SPD, Greens, and FDP, support deportations in various forms. For instance, CDU MP Carsten Linnemann recently called for deportations after just two criminal offenses. This is a low threshold taking into consideration that “offences” like using public transport without a ticket are still considered a crime in Germany.

The AfD’s flyer also called for the “reduction of false incentives”. This includes restricting unemployment benefits (“citizen’s money”) to German citizens, and denying residency rights to asylum seekers and a general call to “stop illegal immigration”. Additionally, it demands an end to “Islamisation,” perpetuating a long-standing and infamous trope in European (far-)right rhetoric. The flyer attempts to placate any potential public outrage by claiming that citizens would not be deported, asserting that the party’s demands were “completely legitimate and legally compliant.”While other political parties may publicly distance themselves from the AfD’s overt xenophobia, the underlying policies are often alarmingly similar. The AfD’s ability to openly express such views allows other parties to appear moderate by comparison, despite sharing overlapping agendas. Meanwhile, Karlsruhe criminal police have begun investigating the campaign for incitement to hatred, but given historical precedent, it is unlikely to lead to significant consequences.