Nigel Farage just had the weekend he’s spent his life rehearsing for. Not in the shadows, not on the margins, not even in the smoking area of a middle England pub, five pints deep, fawning over Trump. But centre stage, in a political reckoning too many pretended would never quite arrive.
Reform UK, the far-right party led by Farage, is no longer a flag-waving nuisance on the sidelines of British politics. After slipping into Parliament last year, it has now won two mayoralties and seized control of ten councils across the UK, including, with a particular twist of symbolism, Durham, a place deeply embedded in the mythology of Labour’s past.
Durham was the first county council ever run by Labour, and the birthplace of the miners’ gala, a historic celebration of workers’ solidarity. Labour lost control there in 2021, but it wasn’t the Conservatives who tightened their grip this week. It was Reform—Farage’s xenophobic, division-spreading, spite engine—seizing the cradle of working-class political consciousness. He has since declared his party the “main opposition,” and disturbingly, the claim carries a certain coherence. Reform is not yet a party of government, but it has become the party of resentment, of rupture, of consequence.
But what does Reform stand for? Beneath the talk of DOGE-esque efficiency, free speech, and a “war on woke” (ooops), lies something more familiar: the steady churn of blame. Migrants. Outsiders. Anyone deemed not quite British or “normal” enough. It is a party fluent in both the language and the logic of nationalism. And in places where people feel that everything has already been taken, that language begins to sound like a plan.
It is tempting to cast this as a shock, to speak of a sudden lurch, a rogue current, but there’s nothing sudden about it. The conditions were laid carefully over decades: industries shuttered, communities dismantled, services stripped to the bone. The promise of something better replaced by the reality of nothing at all, and then anger. Reform didn’t invent that anger. They simply arrived at the right time, to cash in on an outstanding political debt accrued slowly, painfully, and without apology since the 1980s.
You can see the consequences not only in the councils that flipped, but in the towns and cities that came dangerously close. Places where loyalty has worn thin, and trust has quietly left the room. Doncaster, where I grew up, came within 700 votes of tipping over. A result close enough to shake those still in power into breaking ranks.
A clear rebuke to Keir Starmer—delivered not in private but in her own re-election speech—the sitting Labour mayor of Doncaster, Ros Jones, criticised Labour’s recent scrapping of winter fuel payments for pensioners, the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions, and the tightening of disability support. She knows that in Doncaster, these aren’t abstract policy tweaks. They land sharply, and shape how people live, or whether they can live at all.
Like Durham, and countless other towns and cities now leaning towards Reform, Doncaster’s story is one of abandonment. These places once thrived on industry—coal, steel, railways—not simply as sources of income, but as cornerstones of identity. Work shaped community, and community shaped purpose. Then neoliberalism arrived, dressed in the language of modernisation and inevitability. In the 80’s, the mines were closed, public assets sold, unions dismantled. Investment, talent, and belief drained away. And what replaced it?
From my experience of growing up in Doncaster in the 90’s, it was replaced by a slow, visible unravelling: boarded-up high streets, rising violence, widespread addiction, prostitution, and a pervasive malaise that crept in like mould. You could feel it in the quiet of a once-bustling market, in the dusty stillness of empty shop fronts and in the way ambition was slowly sucked out.There was no single collapse or headline moment. Just the cumulative effect of being overlooked, year after year. Decade after decade. Politics rarely arrived except to promise, and those promises rarely came with delivery dates. Eventually, though, what did arrive was a sense that no one was coming. And in that absence, people looked elsewhere or gave up on politics altogether.
For some, turning to Reform is less about belief than about absence. It’s a response to the growing sense that Labour and the Conservatives no longer speak to them, or for them.
And this isn’t just about jobs and services. It’s about dignity. It’s about who is spoken for, and who is sacrificed. Labour’s ambivalence on Palestine, its retreat on trans rights, these too are part of the silence and part of why some chose to stay home. What we’re witnessing now isn’t chaos. It’s the cost of looking away.
Activists warn of the growing militarisation of the Indonesian government under General Prawobo
Interview with Activist M. on the growing military influences on civil life threatening Indonesia’s dearly earned peace.
After the Second World War and the political chaos it brought forth, the countries of the global South fought for independence from the genocidal imperialist powers. A process of decolonisation began, which albeit temporarily, restored hope and dignity to billions of people. Country after country expelled its colonisers and recovered its resources and territories after centuries of exploitation.
Decolonisation, land redistribution and access to education for the liberated peoples was the ideal breeding ground for the spread of socialist and communist ideologies in many countries: from Vietnam to Indonesia, from Egypt to Congo, from Cuba to Guatemala.
Indonesia, under the leadership of Sukarno, declared its independence from the Netherlands in August 1945. After four years of struggle and uncertainty, the Dutch finally transferred sovereignty of the country to President Sukarno, a revolutionary, nationalist and deeply anti-imperialist politician.
During his years in power (1949-1967), Sukarno progressively shifted to the left, collaborating with the government and providing support and protection to the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), at the time, the largest communist party outside the communist countries.
Sukarno was a skilled diplomat who, together with Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt, and Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister of India, managed to bring together most of the countries undergoing decolonisation in Asia and Africa, as well as some in South America, in Indonesia at the legendary Bandung Conference in April 1955.
In the city of Bandung, Java, these countries proclaimed themselves to be the third world, that is, countries independent of the opposing axes: Yankee capitalism and Soviet communism. In what became known as the Spirit of Bandung, a new idea of global order was conceived, distancing itself from the colonial first world and the continuation of imperialism with soviet overtones by the second world.
At this Afro-Asian conference, 10 fundamental principles were agreed upon as the basis for international relations, including respect for human rights and anti-racism, the right to self-determination of peoples, and the right to armed struggle in defence of that right.
Unlike the countries of the first world, whose idea of nationhood is based on race or language, the countries of the third world based their nationalism on anti-colonial struggle and social justice. These countries, which are largely multicultural with thousands of indigenous languages spoken by the nearly 1.5 billion people represented at this conference, believed in a new international organisation and diplomacy beyond the colonisation they had suffered, where collective collaboration and coordination would stand up to the global economic order established by the rich countries. Sukarno himself linked the anti-imperialist struggle with anti-capitalism in his speeches.
Needless to say, most of the 29 participating countries paid dearly for their struggle for independence in the years and decades that followed, with wars, dictatorships and economic sanctions.
Sukarno’s anti-imperialist and redistributive policies irritated internal forces – the military and the radical Islamist factions within Indonesia, but also external ones, mainly the US. After the Second World War, the US was strengthening its areas of influence against the USSR, and its newly created CIA was beginning to perfect the tactics of internal and external sabotage that it would later apply savagely and with impunity, across the world.
Under US interference, Sukarno’s government was overthrown in 1967 in a brutal coup led by General Suharto. Literal rivers of blood flowed throughout the archipelago for two years. And so began a dictatorship that, just as the US wanted, eradicated communism and socialism from the country, killing between half a million and one and a half million communists and their families, in what experts describe as political genocide. It also eliminated or expelled the middle classes and intellectuals who were not sympathetic to the new pro-Yankee regime.
The country returned to large estates and semi-slave labour conditions, selling recently nationalised natural resources to the highest bidder, and Indonesia came to owe billions of dollars in debt to the IMF. Corruption, especially in higher ranks, like Suharto and his family, was the norm and the most cruel members of the military rose to the highest spheres of power.
One of them was General Prabowo Subianto, son-in-law of the dictator Suharto and known as the butcher of Timor for his fondness for torturing the peoples of East Timor and West Papua and one of those responsible for their genocide.
Suharto’s brutal dictatorship ended with his resignation in 1998. His vice president, B. Jusuf Habibie, held power until the first presidential elections in June 1999, in which Abdurrahman Wahid was elected president. In July 2001, he was forced to resign, and his vice president, Megawati Soekarnoputri, daughter of the first president Sukarno, became president of Indonesia.
In the election that followed, in April 2004, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was elected president, a position he held until October 2014, when Joko Widodo was elected. A politician from a very humble background, he focused his presidency on the fight against social inequality and, in theory, against corruption.
The presidency of Joko Widodo (2014-2024), known as Jokowi, who has more socialist tendencies, was characterised by a strong focus on economic development and improving social welfare. From the outset, Jokowi promoted major infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and airports, especially in remote areas, with the aim of reducing regional inequality and promoting connectivity. He promoted industrialisation and the transformation of Indonesia into a more productive and self-sufficient country, reducing dependence on raw material imports and the exploitation of cheap labour by multinationals.
In the social sphere, Jokowi strengthened assistance programmes such as universal health insurance (JKN), benefiting millions of Indonesians. He also implemented energy subsidy reforms, freeing up resources for education, health and infrastructure.
In the later years, Jokowi committed to the transition to renewable energy and the construction of a new capital, Nusantara, in Borneo, as a symbol of modernisation and decentralisation.
In 2019, after winning his second election, Jokowi’s decision to appoint his rival in the last two elections, war criminal General Prawobo, as defence minister caused unrest among his supporters, who took to the streets in protest. His years as a minister undoubtedly helped to clean up his image as a democratic statesman.
In the 2024 presidential elections, in which Jokowi did not contest after having served two terms, the former defence minister, the butcher of East Timor, Prawobo, was elected president. The elections were clearly influenced by social media, especially TikTok, where the bloody general was portrayed as a good-natured, affable man who had come to change the corrupt system.
Since taking power, this general has carried out various reforms that are bringing this young democracy back to the brink of a military dictatorship. A series of legal reforms were the trigger for a new wave of protests in March 2025, a month that saw riots in the streets of hundreds of Indonesian cities. These protests were brutally attacked both by the police and the military, leading to dozens of injured people and the detention of hundreds of activists.
To explain the current situation, we interviewed a feminist anarchist activist who, for security reasons, spoke to us anonymously.
Interview: Indonesia’s Shift Under Prabowo – A Conversation with M.
Jokowi’s government certainly wasn’t perfect, but there were at least some efforts—however limited—towards fighting corruption, protecting the environment, and promoting social equality. Since Prabowo took power in 2024, what have been the biggest changes?
Since Prabowo Subianto assumed office as Indonesia’s president in October 2024, several significant policy shifts and political changes have emerged, contrasting with Jokowi’s administration in key areas such as governance, corruption eradication, social equality, and environmental protection.
Some of the biggest changes we have observed so far are in the areas of corruption, social welfare and inequality, environmental policies, democracy and human rights, international relationships and economic policies.
Let’s start with corruption—what’s changed there?
The Corruption Eradication Commission, or KPK, has been notably weakened. Even under Jokowi, the KPK was struggling—remember the controversial revisions to the KPK Law back in 2019—but it still managed to act on some high-profile cases.
Now, under Prabowo, there are growing concerns that the KPK is being politicized. There’s a real fear that it’s being used selectively—going after opposition figures while protecting allies. And the drop in high-profile prosecutions recently only adds to the concern. It raises serious questions about the administration’s actual commitment to anti-graft efforts.
What about social inequality and welfare? Has there been any progress?
Prabowo has actually expanded some of Jokowi’s social aid programs—like Bansos, the direct cash assistance—and it’s pretty clear that’s aimed at shoring up support among lower-income voters.
However, critics argue these programs are more politically motivated than structural reforms addressing inequality (e.g., land reform, labour rights). Minimum wage policies have seen little progressive change, with labour unions expressing dissatisfaction.
And environmental policy—where does Prabowo stand?
Jokowi’s administration had a mixed record, for e.g., there was the palm oil moratorium, but also support for nickel mining and deforestation. Prabowo seems to be rolling back protective measures even further– his government is increasing the number of permits for mining and agribusiness in sensitive areas. Also there is slower progress regarding renewable energy transition, compared to Jokowi’s push for solar and hydro-power. With respect to our climate commitments, the Prawobo government’s stance on carbon emissions and peatland protection has softened.
There’s been a lot of talk about democratic backsliding under Prabowo. What are you seeing?
We are seeing increasing authoritarian tendencies. There’s a harsher crackdown on protests, with reports of aggressive police action against demonstrators. There are concerns over pressure on critical journalists, reminiscent of Prabowo’s past ties to military repression and civil society groups—especially those focused on human rights or the environment—are facing new bureaucratic hurdles for advocacy work.
And how has Indonesia’s foreign policy changed since Prabowo took office?
Jokowi generally took a neutral, pragmatic approach—remaining neutral to both the U.S. and China, and focusing on economic diplomacy. Prabowo, by contrast, is much more nationalist and assertive.
We’re seeing stronger military posturing, a sharp rise in defense spending, and tougher rhetoric around maritime disputes. At the same time, he’s leaning more heavily on Chinese infrastructure investment, which raises red flags about debt dependency. Relations with Western democracies have cooled, especially on issues like human rights and environmental accountability.
What’s the approach on economic policy under Prabowo?
There’s still continuity in some areas—especially with Jokowi’s push for resource nationalism, like downstreaming nickel and bauxite. But Prabowo is relying more on state-owned enterprises and state intervention.
Unfortunately, bureaucratic reform isn’t a priority anymore. That means inefficiency and corruption in state-led projects are real risks. The concern is that we’ll see bigger spending with less oversight.
There is a continued focus on downstreaming, for e.g., nickel, bauxite processing, following Jokowi’s resource nationalism. But there are more state-led economic interventions, with state-owned enterprises (SOEs) playing a larger role, as well as reduced emphasis on bureaucratic reform, leading to concerns about inefficiency and corruption in state projects.
In summary, while Jokowi’s governance had flaws, his administration made some, albeit inconsistent progress in anti-corruption, social welfare, and environmental policy. Under Prabowo, corruption enforcement has weakened, environmental protections are declining, and democratic freedoms are shrinking, while populist welfare programs and nationalist economic policies dominate.
What’s the state of the opposition in parliament? Are they pushing back?
Since Prabowo Subianto took office, Indonesia’s opposition—primarily the PDI-P (Megawati’s party) and smaller factions like the Democratic Party (PD) and PKS—has been remarkably passive, often supporting the government’s controversial policies rather than mounting strong resistance. To put the complacency of the opposition in perspective – the House of Representatives is headed by Puan Maharani, the chairperson of the PDI-P, and the daughter of Megawati. There is also only fragmented resistance from civil society, with no major parliamentary pushback.
The controversy surrounding the revised Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) Law stems from its expansion of military influence into civilian governance. Critics argue that this move echoes the Dwi Fungsi (Dual Function) of the military during the Suharto era, which allowed the armed forces to dominate both security and civilian administration. The law permits active-duty officers to hold posts in civilian institutions, raising concerns about accountability and the erosion of democratic principles.
Protests have erupted across Indonesia, with activists fearing a return to militaristic rule and repression of civil liberties. The law’s hasty and non-transparent legislative process has also drawn criticism, with limited public participation fueling distrust. Many people warn that this could lead to abuses of power and impunity, which seems to be taking place now.
The revision of Indonesia’s TNI Law has sparked significant controversy, with critics warning it could reverse democratic reforms and re-militarize civilian life.
Speaking of the TNI Law revisions—what’s so controversial about them?
This law, termed Military Operations Other than War (OMSP), expands military role in civilian affairs, allowing TNI to engage in domestic security, disaster management, infrastructure projects, and even social programs—blurring the line between military and civilian governance. This revives the Suharto-era Dwi Fungsi (Dual Function) doctrine, where the military held political and economic power.
It weakens civilian oversight.The law removes requirements for parliamentary approval before deploying troops domestically. This has resulted in concerns that the president (Prabowo, a former general) could use TNI as a political tool, for instance, to suppress protests or opposition.
It is also a potential return to military business activities.The revised law opens loopholes for TNI to generate income through “partnerships” with private companies. This could revive the corrupt military-business complex of the New Order era (e.g., illegal logging, protection rackets).
The law also offers legal immunity for soldiers.Soldiers accused of crimes during operations may avoid civilian court trials, instead facing internal military tribunals. This raises fears of impunity for human rights violations (e.g., Papua conflict, past crackdowns on activists).
And how are people reacting?
People consider it a threat to democracy.The law erodes 25 years of post-Suharto reforms that had reduced military power in politics and Prabowo’s history as a hardline general (linked to 1998 kidnappings, Papua operations) underlies public distrust.
We are worried about repression.Activists fear the TNI could be used to crush protests (like in 2019 anti-government demonstrations), and silence dissent in regions like Papua and West Papua.
There are high corruption risks. Military involvement in business and infrastructure projects could lead to budget leaks (e.g., inflated contracts for allies), land grabbing (as seen in past TNI-backed projects), and so on.
That is why individuals, students, activists, human rights groups, public figures, academics, workers, legal experts, etc. are protesting, both in the streets and social media.
We all fear this is a return to the past. The government claims the law will help TNI to “modernize” and assist in development (e.g., building roads, schools). They also claim this law will ensure “national stability” against threats like separatism or cyber attacks. But this law marks a dangerous step toward re-militarizing Indonesian politics—a shift that benefits Prabowo’s grip on power and risks the repetition of the Suharto era abuses.
The opposition’s failure to block the TNI Law revisions symbolizes its broader submission to Prabowo’s agenda. Instead of acting as a check on power, most parties are avoiding confrontation, seeking future coalition deals, and are focused on survival rather than principled opposition.
As a result, Prabowo faces no strong parliamentary resistance, allowing him to consolidate power with minimal pushback.
Is there a strong opposition on the streets and who is leading it?
The strongest opposition clearly comes from civil society, comprising of people from diverse backgrounds. There is no single leader of this movement, as the public is united by a shared major concern and a common adversary. Each individual or group takes their own initiative, resisting in various ways and through different mediums. Although the efforts are carried out sporadically, the movement remains interconnected through a decentralized network.
What can people outside of Indonesia do to help?
The legalization of the revised UU TNI is not just an Indonesian problem—it is a global crisis. Indonesia plays a critical role in the fight for democracy and human rights in Southeast Asia and beyond. Therefore, the rise of militarism and neo-fascism in Indonesia threatens regional stability and sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian regimes worldwide.
The people of Indonesia have fought too hard and sacrificed too much for democracy to allow their country to slide back into the militarism, corruption, and authoritarianism of the Suharto era. We cannot remain silent as neo-fascism rises in Indonesia. Together, we must resist, fight back, and stand in solidarity with the people of Indonesia.
We call on the international community to:
Condemn Indonesia’s Authoritarian Turn: Publicly denounce the revised UU TNI and its threat to democracy and human rights.
Stand with Indonesian Civil Society: Support the brave activists, students, and organizations resisting militarization and fighting for democracy.
Impose Consequences: Use diplomatic, economic, and political tools to pressure the Indonesian government to repeal this law and uphold democratic principles.
Monitor and Expose Abuses: Document and expose any human rights violations or anti-democratic actions resulting from the implementation of this law.
Head over to the Indonesian embassy in your country and give them a heads-up, in whatever way you want!
In rage & solidarity,
M.
All Photos: @bara.api
Expulsion without Trial
Four activists ordered to leave Germany due to anti-genocidal activism.
Germany’s New Tactics to Politically Cleanse Unwanted Dissident Voices
In the past month, the Berlin Immigration Office ordered three EU citizens and one US student to leave Germany after police investigations related to their activism in the Palestine Solidarity movement. As aninvestigation for The Intercept revealed, this occurred following a directive from the Berlin Senate’s Interior Department—even though none of those affected had been convicted.
Rally “You Can’t Deport a Movement”, April 7, 2025. Translation of sign: “Expulsion without trial?” Photo by Nadine Essmat
In mid-March, the three EU citizens Shane O’Brien, Kasia Wlaszczyk, Roberta Murray, and US student Cooper Longbottom received notices from the Berlin Immigration Office, terminating their right to residence and ordering them to leave Germany by April 21; otherwise, they would face deportation. In addition, the Immigration Office issued a three-year entry and residence ban against the EU citizens and a two-year entry and residence ban for the Schengen area against US student Longbottom.
The four individuals have been investigated for separate charges related to their anti-genocidal activism in the Palestine Solidarity movement, such as trespassing, insulting police, resisting arrest, and incitement to hatred for chanting the slogan ‘from the river to the sea.’ The one severe and common accusation that connects them all concerns an alleged serious breach of peace for participating in the occupation of the Free University’s presidential office on October 17, last year. None of the individuals has been convicted.
Attempted Occupation of Free University’s Presidential Office, October 17, 2024. Photos: Nadine Essmat
While these are not the first expulsion cases following Palestine-related activism, the reasoning behind these particular cases and the circumstances around them are quite remarkable and raise major concerns about the rule of law and fundamental principles of democracy.
Departure Order without Conviction
The Berlin Immigration Office based the revocation of US national Longbottom’s student visa on German residence law. According to Sections 53 and 54, a foreigner without conviction can be expelled—after a complex balancing of considerations—if their residence poses a threat to the public order and security, the free democratic basic order, or to the security of the German state. The latter is assumed where there is reason to believe that the foreigner was a member of a terrorist organization or supported such an organization.
The Immigration Office considered the blanket police accusations against Longbottom in the FU occupation case sufficient proof of a threat to public order and security, despite the fact neither the police files specify what action Longbottom is accused of nor has the prosecutor filed an indictment against them.
In the cases of EU citizens Shane O’Brien, Kasia Wlaszczyk, and Roberta Murray, the Immigration Office invoked Section 6 of the Act on the General Freedom of Movement for EU Citizens, according to which there must be reasons for public order, public security, or health to terminate the entitlement of residence. The law also states that a criminal conviction alone shall not constitute sufficient grounds for the revocation and only insofar as the criminal action indicates a personal behaviour that constitutes a real and sufficiently serious threat to the public order, affecting the basic interests of society. Notably, Article 27(2) of the EU directive 2004/38 EC explicitly prohibits justifying withdrawal of residence rights on grounds of general prevention.
While the threshold for revoking residency rights of EU citizens is explicitly higher than for non-EU foreigners, the Immigration Office argued in the case of the three concerned EU citizens that a conviction was unnecessary. It deemed the blanket police allegations against them as sufficient evidence of a threat to state security. Notably, the Office classified the accusation of chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ as indirect support for Hamas—without providing further legal reasoning for this determination.
Invoking German Staatsräson
The Immigration Office also invoked the so-called German Staatsräson (German raison d’état) to justify a serious threat to the fundamental interests of the society, as provided in the EU Freedom of Movement Act. It did so by saying: “(i)n particular, Israel’s right to exist, its protection and the integrity of the State of Israel are German Staatsräson and, especially given Germany’s historical responsibility for Jews in Germany and Israel, are of great importance and particularly worthy of protection. It is in the considerable social and state interest that the German Staatsräson is filled with life at all times and that at no time – neither at home nor abroad – is there any doubt that opposing currents are even tolerated in Germany.”
The authority also used German Staatsräson to justify immediately enforcing the departure orders. Normally, revocation of residence rights does not require immediate departure; enforcement is typically suspended during pending appeals unless authorities demonstrate urgent necessity. In these cases, the Berlin Immigration Office asserted such urgency by declaring: ‘The continued presence of foreign nationals in Germany who—like the defendants—disseminate antisemitic and anti-Israeli hatred and hate speech against the backdrop of the terrorist attack on Israel by the radical Islamic group Hamas on October 7, 2023, must no longer be tolerated but ended as quickly as possible.”
The four individuals have appealed against the departure orders before the Berlin Administrative Court and filed urgent appeals against their immediate enforcement. As of the article’s publication date, the Court has only ruled on EU citizen Shane O’Brien’s urgent appeal, which it found successful.
On the matter of conviction, the Court agreed with the immigration authorities that a conviction was not compulsory for the revocation of his right to residence. This position is remarkable, as in another recent case of EU far right-wing politician Martin Sellner, the Potsdam Administrative Court rejected an entry ban to prevent Sellner from attending a far-right conference on „re-migration“ last year. The Court argued that the consequences of such a ban were so serious that it could not be assumed prematurely that there was a threat to public order and security. It came to a similar conclusion in the case of British-Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abou Sitta. It rejected the entry ban imposed on him in connection with the Palestine Congress last year.
However, the Berlin Administrative Court criticised the Immigration Office for its flawed examination of O’Brien’s case and found fault with its reliance solely on vague police accusations instead of requesting the prosecutor’s investigation files to examine them closely, particularly with regard to the concrete level of evidence.
The Berlin Court also criticised the Immigration Office for not stating in more detail which alleged actions of the defendant constituted a threat to the basic interests of society and to what extent. In this context, it emphasized that charges related to insult and violating the Berlin Assembly Act are considered of a lower criminal category and—even if they would have been committed numerous times—were not suitable to constitute a serious threat to the basic interests of society.
As for the accusations of using signs of terrorist organisations by chanting the slogan ‘from the river to the sea,’ the Court recalled that the legal assessment of that slogan is controversial among the courts and that Section 86a of the German Criminal Act falls under the lower criminal category anyway.
The Court, however, did not challenge or otherwise address the authority’s invocation of German Staatsräson. It is important to note that the nature of the Staatsräson is neither a law nor a legal concept but rather a purely political idea aiming at safeguarding the state’s interests. German Staatsräson asserts that the state’s primary interest is the security of another state. That alone seems bizarre and completely illogical.
The court decision on the remaining urgent appeals is still pending. In the meantime, the other three individuals concerned are protected from deportation.
Notification Orders by Political Command
What made The Intercept’s investigation particularly explosive was that the departure orders were issued following a political directive from the Berlin Interior Department, the supervisory body of the Immigration Office. The German NGO FragdenStaat published the internal email communication between the SPD-led Interior Department and the Immigration Office, which reveals that the Interior Department had ordered the authority to terminate the stay of the four individuals with immediate effect over their alleged involvement in the FU occupation. The immigration officer in charge refused to comply with these instructions, citing legal concerns from the head of the Immigration Office, Engelhard Mazanke, as none of the EU citizens had any criminal conviction, and the lawyer’s statement regarding US national Longbottom was still underway. The officer from the Interior Department responded “with astonishment” that the directive was not being complied with and upheld the order without further reasoning. The Immigration Office eventually relented and issued the requested departure orders against the four individuals.
Dangerous Trend
These circumstances and reasons given for the departure orders mark a new chilling low point of an already dangerous trend in Germany, in which the state seems to use common authoritarian tactics to eliminate unwelcome dissidents.
The statements of Burkard Dregger, policy spokesman for the CDU parliamentary group in the Berlin House of Representatives, expose this dangerous escalation when commenting on the departure orders to the Axel Springer daily news Die Welt: “These are criminals, and it is important to set an example when it comes to the so-called pro-Palestine demonstrations, which are, in fact, pro-Hamas demonstrations.”
Dregger’s statements constitute a clear infringement of fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. First, by defaming defendants as criminals and thereby disregarding the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 of the European Human Rights Charter. The statements further reveal that deterrence is used as the state’s primary rationale for issuing the departure orders, while EU law clearly prohibits that. Furthermore, they frame peaceful demonstrations against the genocide in Gaza as support for the banned Hamas without further evidence—thus vilifying and criminalizing freedom of speech, while, by referring to the protests as “so-called pro-Palestine demonstrations,” the reader is conditioned to believe that Palestine doesn’t actually exist.
It is also not an isolated case in which an official was pressured to follow an evidently unlawful directive and according to an email correspondence published by FragDenStaat, the former FDP Education Minister Stark-Watzinger instructed officials from her ministry last year to compile a list of academics openly opposing the evacuation of the FU campus in May 2024 to withdraw state funding from them. The email correspondence further reveals that officials did raise legal concerns regarding this order.
But in particular, Germany’s increasing tendency to invoke political concepts like German Staatsräson and adopt non-binding resolutions- instead of passing their content through a proper legislative and democratic process – is a worrying authoritarian tactic aimed at encroaching on fundamental rights and freedoms through the imposition of measures that are otherwise legally untenable.
The critical point has been reached, where courts begin to legitimize these tactics as a potential legal justification for violating these fundamental rights. This is precisely what the Berlin Administrative Court did in the recent cases by not clearly objecting to the use of German Staaträson as a justification for expulsion. In the Shapira case, the Berlin Criminal Court went even further. It invoked the non-binding and controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism to justify a three-year prison sentence against a German-Palestinian student for dangerous bodily harm on the grounds that the defendant had an “antisemitic” motive; a punishment that even the prosecutor did not request.
The signs that Germany is transitioning to an authoritarian state are already evident. This shift is driven by the above events and trends, which appear to initiate a countdown toward arbitrary and politically motivated trials. That, in fact, seems to be the real and most serious threat to our fundamental interests as a society, one that we all must stand up and fight against if we don’t want to fall back into a new era of fascism.
An earlier version of this article was published on April 22 on the author’s Substack. The case has developed further. On May 6, the Berlin Administrative Court also upheld the urgent appeal of Irish national Roberta Murray, citing the same grounds as in Shane O’Brien’s case. This time, the Court additionally expressed concerns about using the concept of German Staatsräson as a justification to determine Murray’s loss of the right to free movement.
Judgement UK Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers & relating EHRC-Guidelines
Your Excellency, The judgement of the UK Supreme Court in the case For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers has a devastating effect on the daily life of transgender and non-binary people, not just in the UK but anywhere in the western world like it has in Germany too. That´s why we‘re reaching out to you.
We are convinced that the court´s unanimous judgement is unanimously biased and that the judges sided with the appellants, regardless what transgender people had to say about it. They simply haven´t been heard. In a case like this that is not just unusual, it looks like basic procedures like those in any other supreme or constitutional court in the western world have been omitted. Though we are no experts in British judiciary, that can´t be right. The judgement itself does not create “clarity” as the British Government calls it. In our opinion, it contradicts the Gender Recognition Act (2004) and the legal framework that made it come to life: The judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice. On the contrary, the Supreme Court gave no hint that EU case law had to be set aside. The UK are still a member of the European Council on Human Rights. Back in 1997 the European Court of Justice decided discrimination on grounds of being transgender is discrimination on grounds of “sex”.
That judgement is part of the Supreme Court´s opinion making but hasn´t been fully taken into account. Even worse, the UK´s Equality and Human Rights Commission vastly overstretched the Supreme Court´s judgement with its preliminary guidelines published recently.
In our opinion it´s a violation of Art.11 Human Rights Act (1998) to tell women-only, lesbian-only or gay-only and men-only associations who should become a member or not. EHRC is telling these associations they have no say in that. If an association like those deliberately doesn´t admit trans* people so be it, but we think it´s illegal to force them. The supposed “clarity” will probably lead to transgender men applying for membership in a women-only club let´s say a gym. A transgender man (“biological woman”) with a beard and a low voice there or a nice “female” looking trans* woman entering a men-only gym, forced into this situation by law, will clarify only the ignorance behind this legal action. Moreover, employers are now be forced to actively ask their employees whether they are trans* or not to avoid trespassing English law. Once a trans* person is known to the management, she will be forced to out herself as trans* every day, once she uses a bathroom.
This kind of “clarity” creates embarrassing and discriminating situations and contradicts provisions of the Equality Act regarding gender reassignment. First examples became apparent in May. For us, EHRC´s guidelines are a 21th century version of apartheid. EHRC is degrading itself to an institution promoting inequality on a path already laid out. We´d appreciate an answer from you to the following questions:
How exactly will the British Government ensure the dignity of transgender people in light of our arguments brought forward?
The Supreme Court Judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers will probably be contested at the European Court of Human Rights. Will the British Government accept a verdict from that court?
Does the British Government support or not support any change of how sex data are recorded, leading to passports and other documents showing the sex recorded at birth of transgender people rather than an updated gender marker?
mit freundlichen Grüßen
Jenny Wilken, dgti
We Are All in the Gutter, But Some of Us Are Girlbossing the Stars
Two weeks ago, a friend sent me a video on TikTok that looked very much like an outtake from Greta Gerwig’s Barbie. A gaggle of women, clearly fresh from the hair and make-up department and wearing matching midnight blue spandex spacesuits à la iconic cartoon trio from Totally Spies, hopped onto a spaceship for a blink-and-you’ll miss it zoom into the galaxy. I only recognized Katy Perry, but some of her cohort seemed hazily familiar. I chuckled at the video, because I immediately assumed it was AI-generated. I was even reluctantly impressed: somebody had obviously presented AI with a ludicrous prompt and it had risen to the occasion splendidly. Hours later, I found myself back on TikTok, and realised in horror that this was an actual thing, that had actually happened, in actual real life. You have to hand it to Katy Perry, who as the most famous member of the bunch is receiving the most press. Every time she seems to take her most embarrassing misstep, she returns with an even fiercer flop.
Since COVID, general feeling towards celebrities and the elite class has soured. You couldn’t really place the blame on an exact moment in time, but Gal Gadot and her assortment of celebrity mates crooning John Lennon’s Imagine a mere fortnight into lockdown always seemed to me significant domino in this line of disenchantment. (We were social distancing for two weeks, Gal. Why do you want us to imagine there’s no people?) The cannier of celebrities—or maybe their public relations teams—have caught onto this and seemed to conspire a pivot, striving to straddle a line between relatability and aspiration. Perry has never quite levelled up to her shrewd peers. But despite this, I was still blown away by her involvement in such a breath-taking misfire at empowerment and spirituality. I’m not surprised she and the women she took to the skies with are out of touch, but I am amazed that they didn’t have the sense to pretend not to be.
The eleven-minute “mission” (trip? Jaunt? Expedition?) was an initiative of Blue Origin, a Jeff Bezos-founded company envisioning “a future where millions of people will live and work in space with a single-minded purpose: to restore and sustain Earth, our blue origin”. Bezos has made the dubious claim that the rocket had no carbon emissions, with a variety of experts promptly calling into question the likelihood of this. BBC News almost immediately explored and critiqued the green credentials touted by the billionaire. Despite his philanthropic initiatives, Bezos has been embroiled in a number of controversies, from toxic work environments to tax avoidance to drastically underreporting Amazon’s carbon emissions. As with many billionaires, there’s an altruistic surface and a sinister underbelly. But as ruthless as I imagine him to be, I wouldn’t have expected the concoction of such a ridiculous scheme from him. Unless, of course, it was planned to go viral due to cringe in the age-old spirit of “all press is good press”. If that’s what he wanted, he succeeded magnificently.
Alongside Perry, the mission’s crew included journalist and Bezos’ fiance Lauren Sánchez, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, CBS Morning’s co-host Gayle King, film producer Kerianne Flynn, and former rocket scientist for NASA Aisha Bowe. Sánchez spearheaded the mission/trip/jaunt/expedition, and hand-selected her crew. “All of these women are storytellers in their own right. They’re going to go up to space and be able to spread what they felt in different ways,” Sánchez told ELLE Magazine before the flight took place. An ambitious order for eleven minutes.
I don’t wish to disparage these women for their achievements. All of them have clearly excelled in their respective professions. I also don’t intend to undermine femininity or frivolity: I’m a bigfan of glam, and the outfits and freshly blown-out hair were probably the best part of their venture to me. If you’re going into space, you may as well serve face. Considering the punishing lens women in the media are often under, I do try to approach stories like this with as much measure as possible. But I am fairly confident that, in a parallel universe where the mission/trip/jaunt/expedition took place with Justin Timberlake and Jimmy Fallon, it would go down with the public almost the same way. Of course, boasting that this was only the second all-female space flight since Valentina Tereshkova’s in 1963, Blue Origin attempted to employ a veneer of female empowerment, a veneer flimsier than Gal Gadot’s ability to read a room.
Perhaps in 2014, when the Oscar selfie took the internet by storm, this may have been better-received. I doubt it. Even prior to the sullied feeling towards the rich and famous gaining traction, I struggle to imagine the most fledgling feminist finding the spaceflight to be empowering. And yet, they took to the skies seeming thoroughly convinced that the footage would inspire a frenzy of female admiration. Perhaps Perry thought by taking this step for us normies, she’d return to a planet much like that shown in the music video for her song Woman’s World, released last year. People were actually very ready to welcome the campy songstress with open arms and she was certainly primed for a comeback. Then she brought us a shallow, pseudo-liberating, clumsily executed, and melody-lacking flop produced by the same Dr Luke who Ke$ha had accused of sexual and emotional abuse. The album was duly universally panned. That’s partly why I was shocked she was on the flight; after the backlash, I’d imagined she, or a publicist, or her partner, or a friend, or a pet, or a bird in the trees would have raised concerns about the optics.
The optics were this: reeking of performativity, the group boarded the ship like they were readying themselves to burst out of it en-masse once high enough, to then Kill Bill the harmful radiation affecting the ozone layer. Instead, they bobbed ineffectually inside, mugging at the cameras, wide-eyed, breathless, toting personal mementos. Look, I’m sure it was a humbling moment, peering down at the earth from so high above. I can understand their wonder. I just can’t fathom why they expected it to be inspirational.
“Taking up space!” the group cheered, a mantra repeated when they returned to land eleven minutes later. Flinging themselves from the ship, they struck power poses and burst into noisy, extravagant tears. They saluted the sky and kissed the ground. It was clear the team of women had bought into the notion that the world would react with fervent applause. King, probably imagining the story to be profound, recalled afterwards how Perry burst into an acapella version of What a Wonderful World on their way down, finished by the singer dreamingly gazing at the landscape rushing towards them and remarking, “I haven’t sang that song in years”.
A panel discussion was hosted afterwards, wrapped in a bubblegum-pink facade of superficial girly pop-feminism. I—and most others—was confused by the sanctimonious, self-satisfied discourse bestowed upon us viewers as if they were a pack of wise storybook owls. “We’re making space,” Perry said, with the honeyed, emotionally wrought, yet oddly vapid tones of a Yoga instructor at The White Lotus. “I hope [people] can see the unity that we modelled, and replicate that, and understand that we weren’t just taking up space, we were making space… for the future.” Lauren Sánchez underscored how the event made her feel, “connected. More connected than you realize”. They referred to each other as “celestial sisters”, bonded by this singular experience.
As of yet, it’s still unclear what they modelled. They certainly took up space, in the literal and figurative fashion. Making space? Where? The average woman on the street is as likely to find themselves in the next Blue Origin ship as they are to sprout wings themselves. Female astronauts who have studied assiduously for years do not seem to have received anything of worth from what has boiled down to a catastrophic publicity stunt. Personally, the only thing I felt upon realising the footage was real (oh, how I wish it was AI) was mirth, mingled with disgust. The estimated cost of the mission/trip/jaunt/expedition is between $200,000 and $500,000, and a further estimated cost of $150,000 to reserve a seat. It’s difficult to ascertain whether the attendees paid this fee. Either way, it was an exquisite and unnerving show of wealth, wrapped up in a bow of platitudes and presented to a planetful of people facing climate catastrophe, tariff chaos, and social oppression.
Valentina Tereshkova’s three-day stint in space in 1963 was, and still is, hailed as a landmark achievement and an inspiration for women worldwide. Tereshkova, a textile factory worker and amateur skydiver prior to joining the Soviet space program, orbited the Earth 48 times solo. That single trip logged more flight time than had been amassed by all American astronauts who preceded her. Dubbed an international role model following the feat, Tereshkova received masses of letters and telegrams from all corners of the world. Women in particular reacted with acclaim and excitement, as the event sparked a wave of think pieces, academic articles, and news stories celebrating the sense of visibility and symbolic progress it projected around the world. 61 years ago, Tereshkova’s journey achieved what Bezos and company wanted: she reached women of all ages, and she expanded the idea of the spheres in which women can take up space.
Almost all coverage of the Blue Origin mission/trip/jaunt/expedition, from Loose Women to The New York Times, has noted that a billionaire-funded parade of women taking a brief joyride to the edge of space does little to advance real progress or meaningfully shift the needle for women’s equality. The people involved in the event—most of whom would claim to be liberal—have undoubtedly wreaked havoc on the climate already, and now they’ve indulged in another upper-crust experience completely inaccessible to us mere mortals. And absurdly, they expected us to be thrilled by it. I haven’t yet watched the latest season of Black Mirror, but despite its good reviews I wonder if Charlie Booker ought to hang up his hat. His dark reflection of our society keeps being outdone by the grotesque reality. I imagine Saturday Night Live will parody the space-excursion, but at the same time, how much further can they go? It’s already satire.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkNoPrivacy policy
