To content | To menu | To search

Events

Testimony from a Frenchwoman in Dresden: Neo-Nazis parading in my city - what do I do?

by Elise Haddad

I wrote this text ten days ago - it is a unique testimony and an analysis of the situation in Dresden, Germany, concerning the yearly event of February, 13th: anniversary of Dresden's bombing and destruction by the allies, and how it is distorted by Neonazis. In the light of how it turned out, in the context of different types of demonstrations for democracy in the diverse world, in the disturbing comparison of how States and polices deal with them... though at very different scales... it suddenly becomes urgent to share that example at large. Come and observe how misunderstanding and fear spoil even the most consensual motto. A story overlooked by the press, who did not take the time to be there, amongst Dresdner, and listen to them not only on the day, but on the days before.

aa

Fascism: never again! War: never again! (Image: (cc) dielinke_sachsen/ Flickr)

Die Zeit, public discussion forum, in Dresden's City Theatre on Wednesday, Feb. 9th 2011

For more than a decade now, Dresden, East Germany, has been home to a yearly demonstration of neo-Nazis from the whole Europe. They take advantage of a very sad anniversary: the destruction of Dresden on February 13th, 1945, under Allies' bombs. They use this fact, a war crime, to celebrate the German People and the Nazi State of the time as a victim of cruel enemies - "not one camp more inhuman than the other", they try to signify. Each year, they parade in the city on February 13th, whatever day of the week it is, and then in greater proportions on the following Saturday. Then, buses of European neo-Nazis spill on the city, as well as those of protesters who refuse to let neo-Nazis use the commemoration to their own advantage. And it wreaks havoc. In the city, nearly anybody would rejoice at not having the Nazis there - they did rejoice, in 2010, when Right-wings extremists got blocked at their departure point, and were prevented to parade by a massive mobilization of contra-demonstrators. Opinions diverge, though, as of the path of action that should be taken for this purpose. And as a young European living in Dresden, you can't help wondering: "Resistance against neo-Nazis: what is legitimate?"; the question was voiced by a nationwide German newspaper (Die Zeit), in its "public discussion forum" in Dresden's City Theatre on Wednesday, Feb. 9th 2011.

Dresden's sad anniversary - where things got out of hand...

I live in Dresden. I have been there for a year, only just a year: it is my first Feb. 13th here. Which is more, I may not be in-town for the Saturday following the commemoration, when the huge demonstrations, the huge symbolic battle takes place. Still, I hear house-mates, I hear colleagues wondering: the whole youth of Dresden is buzzing with questions. Difficult to say how many of them will be in the streets when time comes, and, which is more, where they will be and to which purpose - but half of them have made it a central discussion topic. Should we be part of the "human chain", supported by nearly all parties and groups? Should we sit and block the street on the way of the foreseen Nazi demonstration, in the hope of forcing the police to cancel the demonstration? This is what happened in 2010. But it is forbidden, and the police later got blamed from Dresden's Administrative Court for not managing to ensure Nazi's constitutional right to demonstrate that day.

As a matter of fact, neo-Nazis are allowed to demonstrate in the city; there is no way around that, as it belongs to Germany's constitutive demonstration freedom. As much as one loathes an ideology, there is no forbidding its expression. And, I must say, I hardly heard anything against this as a principle, from any of my German friends, whatever their position on the matter. Still, other German cities, respecting the same rules and constitution, had to face the same kind of problems and managed to discourage neo-Nazis from demonstrating: Leipzig did it, Iena also, whose Mayor nowadays takes a day of vacation each year to come as a private citizen to Dresden, accompanied by two buses of prominent people, and to take part in the blockade. Of course, if a country chooses to allow manifestations regardless of the ideology behind it, one has to ask why the actual realization of this march should be impeded, be it by a massive amount of citizens? I have no answer. I am not sure anyone does. And still, everywhere else, neo-Nazis demonstrations receded. And in Dresden, they got bigger, until they became the most important in Europe, attracting participants from the whole continent.

Still, this year, February 13th falls on a Sunday, and on this day, neo-Nazis will parade at daydusk, at the very symbolical and emotional hour where churches' bells ring in commemoration of the beginning of the bombing that thoroughly destroyed the city, they will bear torches and signs calling Dresden a "bombing holocaust", through the very central area of the "old town". And it will be only a rehearsal of the huge europeanwide demonstration of the following Saturday. Furthermore, about a week before the event, nothing yet is organized and allowed on that day for anti-Nazis demonstrators. People in Dresden are outraged. What is so complicated?

On this February 9th, I sit amongst about 500 persons, in Dresden's theatre. Tonight, the newspaper Die Zeit organizes a debate on the topic: resistance to neo-Nazism what is legitimate? Gerhart Baum, NPD politician (right-wing), Ingo Schultze, writer, Christian Demuth, representant of a civil association who organizes resistance in Dresden that day, and Detlef Sittel, representing the municipality of Dresden, will debate, and answer questions from the theatre full of very attentive citizens. I am here because friends of mine wonder, too, and wanted to come. I am here, over all, to understand what is so complicated. As a naïve foreigner, I would think everything is straightforward: if the German People want to ensure the right to demonstrate for all, which is a tough but sensible measure, then they have to live with it. And if Dresdners want to make sure that everyone knows they are massively opposed to neo-Nazi ideology, then a massive human-chain and gigantic assembly during the whole day in the rest of the city should do the trick - it does for foreign media. Never, in France, have I heard any polemic about the "hows and whos" of the protest.

I am to learn that evening why it is not possible. As a friend of mine will tell me later: "If we could just massively stand around the Nazi demonstration and hold signs stating our protest and refusal, I would do it. That would be even better. But as it is, the city administration will not allow it." He has been preparing to non-violent blockade for a few weeks already. Here is the central problem: on the narrow latitude between what is prescribed and what would be dangerous, the City administration does have to position its own decisions. And let me tell you, on February 9th, in the theatre, they were contested: what can be organized, and what gets forbidden, for security reasons?... Or frowned upon - "criminalized", as the writer Ingo Schultze accused that evening. The very bourgeois assembly of old ladies in neat suits, high brow men in their forties, booed the municipality representative - a poor guy without charisma, who did not, indeed, appear to have much to say - and contested it just as much as the lively student youth of the city. It was exhilarating and puzzling at the same time.

"Here, in Dresden", some say, "things happen that would be unthinkable in the rest of the country" - and I am barely beginning to understand why. Political sensibility is high. Maybe political interest is never too far away, either.

- FDP politicians (right), favour an official ceremony on the graves. Of course, they do not oppose a general movement of protest against the Nazi demonstration, but it has to be thoroughly legal - civil resistance is not favoured; and one can sense how loath they would be to stand side by side with Left Extremists, who they deem just as dangerous as neo-Nazis.

- CDU (center-right) politicians, amongst whom City Mayor Frau Orosz, encourage the "human chain" on February 13th, through which Dresdners are to show their refusal of Nazi ideology, in a symbol of enclosing and protecting part of their city from neo-Nazis. Being in charge of the organization, and following their ideas, they also make security an utmost priority on that day - even deciding that the human chain should not take place at the same time than the Nazi Demonstration. Of course, it robs the human chain from a large part of its symbolism - and it raised a scandal, when a right-extremists youth organization took advantage of that to call its member to participate in the human chain, too, before their own parade... transforming it in a mere remembrance ceremony of the destruction of the city, and cancelling the "anti-Nazi" protest meaning it should have had.

- SPD politicians (left-wing) still call inhabitants to participate in the human chain and blissfully rejoice at the unity of action on that front - or do they wish for it? Unofficially, I have heard many left-minded friends talking and wondering about the blockade, even deciding to go. So would kind looking and round-faced established writer Ingo Schultze, and he encourages people of Dresden to pacifically block the Nazis' way. People from outside Dresden, like the Iena mayor, come to the rescue and support the blockers. But they are accused of being "demonstration tourists" by the CDU city council of Dresden. Furthermore, a lot of people are afraid of being associated with the wrong party, if they go, because...

- "Antifas"- far-link organizations who historically combat fascism - criticize all this as hypocrisy, want "the brown pest out of their city" and will block them at any cost... even violence, some fear. To be totally fair, some civil organizations, like "Bürger Courage" on that one evening, do critic a form of hypocrisy too, and the difficulty of the common discussions that took place all year to prepare a united reaction, the petty difficulties, the last-minute changes to what had been agreed upon... Lots of organization saw their proposals rejected, too: the municipality is for example so afraid of security and legal difficulties that it forbade a historical tour of "Nazi places in Dresden" on Sat 13th in the morning, some 6 hours before the beginning of the demonstration. A lot of people - who, agreeably, are not in charge of maintaining order in the city that day - can simply not understand that kind of unmotivated decisions.

Politics, indeed. Not to their best.

- Why, one might ask, in 2010, when everybody rejoiced at the neo-Nazi demonstration not taking place, why was only the human chain credited for it in the press and official statements, falsely, and some blockers treated as troublemakers - their homes and computers investigated by the police, etc? One always come back to that point: do we want the demonstration blocked, or not? Rather not. But it feels so good when it happens. I don't think the city is at all clear with itself about that point.

Finally, I sit there and feel like this is all the story of an unnecessary failure. Most anti-Nazis projected demonstrations or events are forbidden. The police has and will again on that day prevent anti-Nazi protesters from getting to the human chain and other legal manifestation - probably for fear that they are rather heading for the illegal blockade. In the end, it very nearly feels like the municipality favours Nazis over anti-Nazis protesters. Although deeply, we all know it is in no way the case. But Nazis will hold the symbolical advantage on that day in a way that made FDP politician Gerhart Baum incredulous: "This is not possible.", he uttered. But we have to report, as the public answered in one voice, "yes, it is, and it will happen". And that is exactly what angers and pushes many pacific protesters to civil disobedience, to try and block the Nazi demonstration - while they could have been content, under another general climate, to manifest efficiently but legally their disagreement and sufferance. And all the time, neo-Nazis take advantage of it.

So, what should I do? What would you do?

PICTURES: cafebabel.com Berlin debate Green Cinema

The 61st Berlin film festival marks the first 'biological' Berlin film festival. It features charity water (a percentage of all sales go to childrens projects in developing countries), energy saving red carpet lights and a carbon emission reducing festival partner in Entega. The German daily Tagesspiel jokes that the Berlinale should also become a completely feminist film festival though: women use far less co2 after all!

From the cafebabel.com corner of the Berlinale, around forty people attended cafebabel.com Berlin's Green Cinema debate on 11 February in Berlin's tazcafe.

ADEBFUNK

In a panel moderated by French journalist Sebastien Vannier...

ADEBMOD

our guest participants Ernst-Alfred Mueller (oekofilmtour), Johanna Schulz (Medienberatung Technische University Berlin) and Natalie Gravenor (EYZ Media GbR)

ADEBNAMES

... came together to debate:

ADEBPART

Can green cinema influence ecological practice? What does the term mean? Does a genre even exist?

ADEBLIS

The debate was attended by members of cafebabel.es, cafebabel.fr and cafebabel.co.uk: you can read articles and see slideshows from a special 'Green Europe in Berlin' edition by Laura Tangre, Melanie de Groot van Embden, Concha Hierro and Ester Arauzo in March in six languages on cafebabel.com

ADEBJOU

There were even home-baked cakes from the cafebabel.com Berlin team to celebrate the magazine's ten-year anniversary (pictured, Christiane Loetsch, for our tummies, thanks Sandra Wickert)

ADEBCAKE

A billion thanks to the cafebabel.com Berlin team who organised the debate, and who were also our hosts for the four days in Berlin (L-R Stefano Lipiello, Sergio Marx and far right Christiane Loetsch. Thanks also to Matthias Jekosch)

ADEBSTEFSERG

If you're feeling brave with your German, read an account of the debate on the Berlin cafebabel.com blog here

The next cafebabel.com debate for Green Europe on the Ground, our monthly cities reporting subjects on all issues green, takes place in ROME on 26 February. SEE YOU THERE!

All images courtesy of our resident Berlinale photographer Katarzyna Swierc

Europe Talks

The powers that be in Brussels are always going on about giving the citizens a voice. With nearly 500 million of us, it’s not surprising that this hasn’t quite happened yet. Last Thursday in Berlin’s European House, however, some 200 of us finally got the chance to speak out.
by Anna Patton and Sébastien Vannier

Organised by the Representation of the European Commission in Berlin and the European Parliament’s Information Office, “Mitreden über Europa” (Talk about Europe) was conceived as a “citizens’ forum”. Responding to questions were MEPs from Germany’s five main parties (Bündnis 90/Grünen, CDU, SPD, the Left Party and the FDP) as well as the head of the European Commission in Berlin.

Compared to the usual debates on Europe, where the “experts” speak and the punters listen, and where the subject matter is theoretical and academic, this time it was up to the public to lead the debate. And the Berliners took that invitation seriously. It was one of the liveliest, loudest Europe discussions we’d ever witnessed, with all manner of heckling, cheering and interrupting going on. There was a tangible sense of satisfaction in the air when someone at the back shouted out loud what we’ve all, at some point or another, longed to say to politicians: “Hang on – you haven’t answered the question yet!”

Question Time

The questions focused above all on energy and the environment, and on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, recently ratified by the German Bundesrat (the upper house of parliament). The concrete effects of the Reform Treaty on people’s lives, judging by the questions raised, remain unclear, and it was up to the respondents to clarify some confusion. Berliners were also concerned by European militarization, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a Europe “of two speeds”, and energy policy.

Some of the more unusual questions included “How do you become a member of the European People’s Party?” A girl who can’t have been older than 15 stood up and demanded, admirably, “What are you going to do about our education system?” (Unfortunately, as the MEPs pointed out, education remains a national competence.) A 20-something year-old brought the discussion back to basics: “Europe is pretty rubbish, it costs a lot of money – so, tell us: what’s the alternative? What would Germany look like without the EU?” In response, each speaker was given the chance to justify EU membership; the usual answers were reeled out – peace, freedom, prosperity, open borders, environmental protection. The representative of the Left Party, tapping into the mood of the day, called for “more a Europe of the citizens, less a Europe of politicians”.

Democracy or Hypocrisy?

Yet even as this same politician was saying “We must learn to listen”, three disgruntled students in our row were being ignored. Their concerns related to the militarization of member states (the Lisbon Treaty’s obliges states to improve military capacity) were substantial. But instead of following up on the issue, the MEPs dismissed concern with the wording (“obligation”) as merely a translation issue. The same students also criticised the “hypocritical democracy” of the EU, though this was rejected by the Left Party politician, who saw the Lisbon treaty on the contrary as providing “an instrument for citizens to get directly involved”.

All six speakers were, then, more or less in agreement on most issues – even the Left politician was, unlike most of her party, pro-Lisbon Treaty. Of course, it makes sense that those invited to such events are going to be pro-Europe. Still, if there is a greater difference of opinion between the people themselves and the politicians who are supposed to represent them, than there is among a broad spectrum of politicians, one has to wonder just how representative of their constituents they really are.

The debate only touched the surface of most issues, unsurprising given the format of the event. But the discussion did show that many citizens are well-informed on European politics, and well able to challenge politicians’ platitudes. “Listening” to citizens, however, isn’t as easy as it sounds. Involving the people was all well and good, it seemed – but it had come a year too late for many of the audience. Sneaking a peek at the feedback form our neighbour was filling in, we saw he had evaluated the event as “an irrational exercise of authority”. Clearly, Brussels needs to do more than just talk about democracy – or risk losing the support of a whole generation.

Learning With Oranges

Robert Bosch Foundation, first floor, plenum. 35 young journalists from eleven countries gathered here. From January 17 to January 20 they were set in motion during the 2nd Babel Academy in Berlin. Reportage workshop on the third floor, writing lab in the fourth, events everywhere in Berlin. Nobody got lost on the way, though. On the contrary, their way into professional journalism was supposed to be paved.

„After all, Journalism is also a handcraft“, said Georg Baltissen of the Berlin-based indepented newspaper taz. And handcrafts can be learned. Other than Baltissen, who spoke about writing a reportage and commentaries in his workshop, many other speakers shared their experience and knowledge: Meike Dülffer of “eurotopics“, a European Press review website, Andreas Metz from N-Ost, a network of correspondents in Eastern Europe as well as Inga Majer of the television production company „United Visions“ and „tageszeitung“ editors Barbara Oertel, Thomas Eyerich and William Totok.

35 young journalists from all over Europe improved their skills during a busy weekend in January.

For some insights however, participants had to cover a longer distance than just a few floors in the same building. The Polish ambassador to Berlin, Marek Prawda, welcomed them in the far West of Berlin, in Grunewald. His openness rewarded the young journalists for the long travel. During the rule of the Kaczynski brothers, he recalled, doors of almost all German politicians were open to him because Poland was always at the center of public attention. However, as he said, his work consisted mainly of damage limitation during that time.

Not only did the Polish ambassador make participants familiar with his country. They also got to know each other and their respective countries. „The academy really widened my international circle of friends“, Stephanie Lehner from Austria summed up her experience. She will visit another participant from Brno soon. International contact was easy during evening events – like joint dinner at the „Hell oder Dunkel“ restaurant or dancing at „Roter Salon“. Consequently, one of the goals of „Jugend für Europa“ was accomplished: Bringing together young Europeans. The German agency of the EU programme „Youth in action“ had financed the academy.

Even after the academy has ended, two participants will set off on their way: Christiane Lötsch from Berlin and Pim de Kuijer from Brussels won the journalism competition, into which 27 articles had been entered. As a price they will get their travel expenses for a research trip reimbursed. Christiane will portray the film academy in Lodz, where people like Roman Polanski studied in the past. Pim reported from the independence referendum in Kosovo. Both articles are being published at cafebabel.com. It’s not sure whether Pim will include Oranges in his report. „I didn’t know that Oranges can be so inspiring“, he said after the writing lab with Andreas Metz. Metz placed several Oranges on the table. And then, it was up to the creativity of the young talents. That is what makes a good writer in the end – even though oranges might play a minor role during a journalist’s everyday work.

Entries feed