The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Women’s Rights in Germany today

Interview with the director of DaMigra and representatives of Zora.


09/03/2025

How is it that Germany doesn’t have a Ministry of Gender Equality, and that the Schutzgesetz (Protection from Violence Law) has still not fully been implemented after three years?

It is indeed astonishing and regrettable that there is no Ministry of Gender Equality in a country like Germany, which has taken up the cause of promoting gender equality. The current organisations in which gender equality issues are often embedded — namely the ministries of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth — reflect a traditionalist perspective. Women are often seen in the context of family and care work, rather than gender equality being treated on its own terms as a comprehensive social goal.

Of course, this contradicts the Constitution. Article 3 clearly stipulates the active promotion of gender equality between men and women, and the eradication of discrimination. The lack of focus on gender equality highlights how deeply embedded patriarchal structures and traditional gender roles are in society.

An independent Ministry of Gender Equality would be an important signal, showing how gender equality is no longer a fringe issue, but rather a central social goal. Gender equality does not only affect women but also men, children, LGBTQIA+ people, and of course marginalised groups as well. The creation of such a ministry would show that policymakers are ready to firmly tackle structural or institutional discrimination and inequality.

The hesitation in implementing the Gewalthilfegesetz — the law for providing help to domestic violence survivors — illustrates this issue clearly, namely how the lack of focus on gender equality has a direct effect on the security and rights of women. The Istanbul Convention, which Germany ratified in 2018, urges clear measures to be taken to protect people from gendered violence. That such a law has still not been passed, three years after it was announced, shows a level of political inertia that is unacceptable.

What do you think of the potential removal of Article 218 (abortion) from the German Penal Code? How do you see the implementation of the promised Gewaltschutzgesetz within the framework of the Istanbul Convention?

We welcome the initiative to remove abortion from the penal code as a necessary and long overdue step towards decriminalisation. The current law criminalises women and creates legal, social and psychological hurdles. The abolition of the law would set a clear example for recognising the bodily autonomy of women as a fundamental right. 

However, we are sceptical if this proposal can still be implemented during the current legislative period. There have been multi-partisan initiatives from certain members of Parliament, but it’s too late, and the political will doesn’t seem to be sufficient. Unfortunately, it will likely take years until a similar momentum comes into being once again — one in which organisations and initiatives can work towards such a reform.

Yet what is often overlooked in this discussion is the access to safe, free and accessible abortions for all women. Decriminalisation by itself is not enough when structural barriers such as cost, insufficient care and treatment, or regional inequalities are not addressed. Access to abortion is difficult (or even impossible) for migrant or refugee women. Immigration laws, residence status or restricted access to the healthcare system create additional obstacles. 

By all proposed legislations or reform initiatives, we must keep in mind that all women must be accounted for equally — irrespective of their background or status. Abortions cannot merely be legally decriminalised, but must also be made practically possible in order to ensure equality and justice.

The Federal Ministry of the Interior’s recently published report shows that “crimes against women are increasing in every sphere”

The increase in crimes against women, as they are pointed out in the federal report, are alarming for all of us. Not only does it point to the urgency of finally taking gendered violence seriously, but also to policymakers’ and institutions’ continued failure to protect women. Violence against women is not an individual but rather a structural problem, deeply rooted in the power structures of society.

The numbers are harrowing: 360 femicides in 2023, a woman murdered almost every day. Since we still don’t have a consistent definition of femicide in Germany, the police registered 938 female victims of homicide last year — but the estimated number of unrecorded cases is much higher. 

That means almost three women per day! 360 women and girls murdered. A large portion of these murders (68.6%) were committed in the context of domestic violence. 

Additionally, more than 140 women and girls are victims of sexual offences every day. It is especially concerning that politically motivated digital violence and misogynistic hate crimes are increasing massively. This development shows that violence against women is ever more present in every aspect of life — from physical assault to online attacks. 

The situation is often worse for migrant and refugee women. Not only do they face violence from perpetrators, but also from a system which doesn’t protect them. Refugee accommodation centres are dangerous places; there is no personal privacy, and there is no public outrage about this. This shows that Germany is far away from a comprehensive and intersectional protection mechanism. 

The consequence is clear: we urgently need political measures to implement the Istanbul Convention and write a law for protection from violence which protects all women — irrespective of their background, immigration status or station in life. The increase in violence is a wake up call to take action. 

How long have you been active in women’s rights and how have you experienced the developments in the past few years? 

I’ve been engaged in women’s rights and human rights for a very long time with a special focus on migrant rights, refugee women or other marginalised groups. My work allows me to observe developments and trends at first hand and the last few years have shown that the challenges are bigger than ever. 

On the one hand, we see positive developments: there is a growing sensibility for topics such as gendered violence and femicides. Terms such as ‘femicide’ have now entered into public and political debate. Women’s rights organisations and migrant community organisations such as DaMigra contribute to helping ensure that the voices of those affected are no longer ignored. 

On the other hand, the practical progress is worryingly slow. Despite the Istanbul Convention and increasing awareness around gendered violence, there is a lack of effective structures and measures that truly protect women. Migrant women and refugee women are consistently marginalised. There is often a lack of translation support, information and low-barrier access to protective systems. Additionally, we are experiencing how political conditions such as deportations and mandatory place-of-residence rules put these women in dangerous situations.

The increase in violence across the board illustrates how the measures that have been introduced up until now have not been sufficient. It is our responsibility to continue to apply pressure, to act on our political responsibility and to fight for a change in the way that we think, as a society. Because every woman’s life matters — and every form of violence against women is one too many.

How do conditions for migrant and refugee women differ from others, in this context?

The situation for migrant and refugee women is in many ways more precarious than for women who belong to the dominant group in society. Not only are they subject to violence by perpetrators, but also by structural and institutional conditions, which hinders their protection or makes it altogether impossible. Women who live in refugee accommodation — where there is a lack of personal privacy and the danger of assault is high — are especially affected by this. Often, they lack access to protective services for linguistic, cultural or legal reasons. The mandatory requirement to have a place of residence is often a barrier for refugee women trying to find protection and support.

A central problem is the implementation of the Istanbul Convention in Germany. 

The provision of Article 59 has indeed expired, yet the law itself was nothing more than symbolic until now. The necessary reform of Article 31 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz (Residence Law) — which would grant migrant women a residence permit that is not tied to their marital status — has still not been undertaken. Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention urges clearly that women must receive independent residence permits irrespective of their marital status. However, German policymakers have wasted this opportunity.

What we see now is just a sham. The provision was simply not extended, and the government showcases this as progress. But there has actually been no change that protects migrant women better. This shows how far away Germany is from human-rights oriented policymaking that truly includes migrant and refugee women. Such reforms would mean that women would no longer be forced to stay in violent relationships just because they were afraid of losing their residence permits. But these reforms were considered to be politically risky.

The consequence of this for many women who come to Germany on a family reunification visa is that they still remain dependent on their partner and are thus especially vulnerable to violence. 

Until the immigration law is reformed, the Istanbul Convention cannot be fully implemented in this regard. It is imperative that Germany assume responsibility here and show that legal protection cannot be dependent on personal background, or on immigration status. 

How do you regard the portrayal of immigration and gendered violence in the media and by other public representatives? 

The portrayal of migration and migrants in the media and by public representatives is often problematic and riddled with negative stereotypes. Topics which are reported in relation to migrants or non-Germans often revolve around crime, such as the so-called gang wars or knife fights. Even the language used around these topics — terms like “illegal” or “irregular” migration — is discriminatory and dehumanising. 

How should people who are fleeing from war, violence or prosecution come to Germany or Europe “regularly”? There are no regular escape routes. It brings up that historical question: what regular ways did those who had to flee from the Nazi regime have? Did they just go to embassies totally regularly to get a visa before they could flee to a safe country? Of course not. These double standards and the lack of safe escape routes for people who seek refuge are unacceptable.

Another big problem is the instrumentalisation of gendered violence by far-right parties. Femicides or violence against women are often used to stigmatise migrants or refugees. These depictions obfuscate the fact that gendered violence is a structural problem which affects all parts of society, irrespective of personal or cultural background. This instrumentalisation prevents us from taking an expansive perspective regarding the causes of violence and the scale of gendered violence in Germany. 

Gendered violence is, unfortunately, not taken seriously in Germany, and it is often instrumentalised with regards to migration instead of protecting the women that are affected.

A nuanced and humane media portrayal and political discussion — which strives for structural solutions instead of seeking to blame certain groups — is desperately needed. The media and society must acknowledge that all women, regardless of their background or immigration status, must be protected. 

How can we combat these depictions and stereotypes? 

Several steps are necessary to combat stereotypes and simplistic depictions. 

First of all, we must change public debates by speaking about the causes of migration, why people seek refuge, and gendered violence, in a nuanced way. Of course, better educational programs, public campaigns and dialogue between a multitude of groups can also be helpful in breaking down prejudices and fostering empathy. 

But media portrayals are of primary importance. 

The media has an enormous responsibility. They are the ones who help create the images that come into being in our minds, and they are also the ones who can correct these images. They can publish nuanced stories which show the complexity of such topics and the viewpoints of those affected, instead of simplistic and sensationalist stories. Journalists should be encouraged to avoid discriminatory language and depictions. The media must reflect the diversity of society. This applies to both the media employees and broadcasting corporations themselves, as well as the choice of topics and type of reporting. Migrants and women should not only be depicted as criminals or victims, but also as active agents which contribute to, strengthen, and innovate society. Both economic and social progress would be impossible without immigration and the influence of these groups. 

It is incredibly important to combat populist narratives — whether in political discussions, media or in society. Only through countering discriminatory narratives can we achieve a change in society.

Migration and female-focused organisations such as DaMigra play an important role here as well, because they shed light on the perspectives of those affected and provide substantiated information on these topics. As such, their financial security must be ensured, and they must be integrated more prominently into public debate and political processes. 

We can only combat these stereotypical depictions if we change narratives, systemically shed light on issues, bolster migrant voices and display diversity. This is a task for the whole of society, which requires courage, engagement and lots of perseverance. 

Photo Gallery – Until Total Liberation Demonstration on International Women’s Day

Saturday 8th March, Oranienplatz to Hermannplatz


All photos: Cherry Adam

Not One Person and Not One Cent for Militarism!

Germany’s new government wants to amend the constitution to spend half a trillion euros on weapons. The ruling class wants cannons instead of butter


In 1887, Wilhelm Liebknecht, the founder of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), put out a flyer for the Reichstag elections: “Not one person and not one cent for militarism!” As Liebknecht explained: “Militarism is incompatible with the freedom and the prosperity of the peoples.” For many decades, until 1914, the social democrats refused any support for the government’s budget, even when increased social spending was offered as bait.

Now, some 140 years later, the always amusing dialectic of history has turned the SPD into Germany’s biggest proponent of military spending.

As the social democrats prepare to form a government with Friedrich Merz’s CDU, they have announced plans to amend the Basic Law. While maintaining the debt brake that mandates balanced budgets and permanent austerity, the emerging “Grand Coalition” wants to create two exceptions. Firstly, military spending will be exempted from the cap on borrowing — they are talking about 500 billion additional euros in the next decades. Secondly, a special trust of up to 500 billion euros for infrastructure will also not be counted as part of the regular budget.

In other words: all the parties, but especially the CDU, have insisted that there is no money to repair schools, to properly staff hospitals, or to keep the trains running. Yet in a few days, they conjure up a trillion euros (more or less) for weapons. The Nazis had a slogan for this: the nation needed “cannons instead of butter.”

Cynical in the extreme: CDU and SPD want to pass this constitutional reform at high speed, before the recently elected Bundestag constitutes itself on March 25. In the old parliament, they have the necessary two thirds majority together with the Greens; in the new parliament, with the FDP ejected and Die Linke strengthened, they would need support from a fourth party.

Cannons Not Butter

Half a trillion euros for infrastructure might sound like a good thing — but while there is talk of spending on schools, hospitals, and digitalization, much of the money will go to building Autobahnen and subsidizing fossil capital in other ways. And as previous wars have shown, highways and rail infrastructure are also part of military readiness.

Depressingly, a recent poll shows that rearmanent is quite popular, with 76 percent in favor. Even among supporters of Die Linke and BSW, two parties with (undeserved) reputations for opposing war, majorities support militarism. But this will shift as austerity, already underway, makes itself felt in people’s daily lives. Prices will continue going up as social services crumble, to pay for tanks and fighter jets.

The only good news is that no one wants to put their own bodies on the line. The Bundeswehr, like almost every imperialist army, faces extreme difficulties finding new recruits. As a Forsa survey from 2025 shows, some 60 percent of people in Germany could not see themselves fighting for their country. And why should we? This is a state of billionaires, by billionaires, and for billionaires — are we supposed to risk our lives for a system that doesn’t even give us decent housing?

Stop Putin? Defend Freedom?

The capitalist propaganda machine is running at high gear, telling us that if we don’t tighten our belts, Putin’s tanks will soon occupy Berlin. Watching the Russian army’s lackluster attempts to seize a sliver of Europe’s poorest country, this is not particularly convincing. 

Think of the historical precedent: as the European powers launched ever-greater armaments programs in the early 1900s, they promised their citizens that battleships and artillery would guarantee peace. Yet it turns out that they do not spend this much on weapons with no intention to use them. The First World War cost some 20 million lives.

It is ominous that Gregor Gysi of Die Linke has called for class collaboration between workers and capitalists to “defend our freedom” — this is an echo of the social democratic traitors who voted for “national defense” in 1914. Jan von Aken has also been signaling willingness to negotiate about more money for the Bundeswehr. Tens of thousands of young people joined Die Linke in the last few months — and they need to campaign against the army.

As capitalist governments inch toward new imperialist conflagrations, they can barely offer an explanation for what they’re fighting about. This is just a competition for which billionaires get to rule over the globe, and they’re not even bothering to hide it.

If they were really interested in “defending our freedom,” they could create a people’s militia — as Liebknecht proposed 140 years ago — under the control of working people, and not ordered around by capitalist officers. Opportunists will say it’s not possible to oppose militarism when majorities are in favor. But in 1887, the SPD, with its hard no to military spending, got 10 percent of the votes — its best result to date, and not much worse than the SPD today.

Red Flag is a weekly column on Berlin politics that Nathaniel Flakin has been writing since 2020. After moving through different homes, it now appears every Friday at The Left Berlin.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Statement by the Before Forgetting film collective on cultural repression in Denmark


05/03/2025

Who are we?

We are the Before Forgetting film collective. Though our members are scattered all over the world today, our collective was born four years ago in Copenhagen, Denmark. Since Before Forgetting’s inception, we have been organising film screenings and discussions, focusing particularly on anti-colonial and anti-capitalist themes.

What did we do?

Before Forgetting was invited to produce a video installation and curate a film screening for the Young Danish Photography exhibition at the Fotografisk Center in Copenhagen last November. Working as a collective, we produced a film essay that spoke to the nature of resistance in the Global North today. Reflecting the urgency of such a question amidst the ongoing genocide in Gaza, our work examines how lifestyles in today’s northern metropolises are built on imperialist exploitation and the violent preservation of privilege under the guise of ‘global security’. In such a world, we ask: what might resistance look like?

How did it go?

On the 14th of October, two weeks before the exhibition opening, we were informed that the Fotografisk Center would require us to modify parts of our film. Specifically, a) a clip showing direct action at Terma, a Danish arms manufacturer deeply involved in arming the genocide, headquartered in Copenhagen, and b) a QR code at the end of the film, linking the viewer to a fundraiser for Palestine Action.

The justification for the request was rather strange. The Copenhagen city government sent out a missive, informing the Fotografisk Center that they, as a cultural space that receives support from Copenhagen municipality, were expected to restrict their political critique to domestic issues and to avoid difficult conversations about foreign politics. As it transpired, a large number of cultural spaces and artists in Copenhagen had been sent precisely this missive, best summarised as: don’t worry your pretty little heads about foreign policy; the grown-ups will take care of that. 

This policy, if one might call it that, emerged in the context of escalations in protests and actions against the genocide in Gaza. No such missive was issued when Danish civil society was engaged in protesting the Russian invasion of Ukraine—conversations about foreign politics become ‘difficult’ only when one calls into question Danish capital’s complicity in genocide.

Under Danish [federal] law, it would have been a lot harder to make a case for a blanket denial of funding or the outright cancellation of events, screenings, and exhibitions similar to ours. The outsourcing of this responsibility to the city of Copenhagen is the state’s workaround to this at a time when the complicity of Danish capital and industry in the genocide is more evident than ever. It accompanies other restrictions on protest, with raids on Palestinian activists’ homes, restrictions on cultural events, and arrests of protestors both at Maersk and at the University of Copenhagen.

What happened next?

Despite intense repression, Denmark also sees more pushback from civil society than Germany—particularly from cultural workers. Since the end of last year, workers in the cultural and art scenes have begun to organise a campaign against the municipality’s measures. A petition calling out the municipality and demanding the policy be revoked received broad support among over five hundred institutions and practitioners. This pressure and media coverage highlighting the move as being in violation of Danish law led the Copenhagen city council—where the largest party is presently the left-wing Enhedslisten—to take up the issue near the end of last month. There, a majority of parties opined that the municipality had been in the wrong and that it must reverse course and issue new guidelines that negate the previous letter. 

These wins are worth celebrating. They are not, however, anywhere close to the end of the struggle. While art has some power to foster reflection, its ability to put an end to the complicity of Danish capital in the genocide is (unsurprisingly) minimal. The need of the hour is direct action, as we witnessed in Copenhagen last week when our comrades broke through police barricades to storm the very same perimeter of Maersk’s central office that appears in our film.

The fight continues in Denmark, Germany, and the rest of Europe. It is our task to take whatever optimism these small wins give us and channel it towards ever-larger and more meaningful action.

You can follow Before Forgetting on Instagram here.

The CDU is Already Attacking Civil Society

CDU and its 551 questions: a long way to imply that NGOs’ neutrality is at stake


04/03/2025

Within the first days after the CDU and its sister party, the CSU, won the largest share of votes in the German federal elections, Friedrich Merz had already started to piss people off. In a parliamentary Kleine Anfrage (small inquiry) signed by Merz and the Chairperson of the CSU’s parliamentary group, they asked 551 questions about various German civil society groups. The questions focused especially on potential links between the various groups and political parties or state funding, which the Anfrage claims could be considered breaches of the political neutrality expected of groups which receive state funding.

Kleine Anfragen are tools through which fractions or members of the Bundestag can pose questions to the government, often forcing the government to provide information or take a stance on a given issue. They are addressed to the governing coalition.

The CDU’s questions appear to clearly constitute retribution against organisations who critiqued Merz’s breaking of the Brandmauer, when he relied on the AfD’s support in an attempt to pass rightwing migration reforms. Groups such as Omas gegen Rechts (who do not receive state funding), Foodwatch, the anti-Deutsch Antonio Amadeus Stiftung, Greenpeace and more were targeted for their supposed role in organising mainstream anti-fascist demonstrations.

Also targeted is the investigative media outlet CORRECTIV, who have released various reports on the extreme right in Germany. Most famously, they were responsible for investigating and breaking the story on the “remigration” conference in Potsdam last year. There, members of Europe’s white nationalist Identitarian movements met with AfD politicians to discuss a plan for sending migrants and Germans with immigration backgrounds to North Africa. Also featured in the CORRECTIV story were two CDU members with high-ranking positions in the party’s grassroots WerteUnion (values union) in North Rhine-Westphalia. 

The questions in the Anfrage include issues such as whether Omas gegen Rechts gets funding from international NGOs, or whether the group has direct connections to political parties or actors. Regarding CORRECTIV, the CDU asked whether the (journalistic) organisation influenced “media reporting on political issues.” Both CORRECTIV and Greenpeace have already published answers to the questions, for which they rely mostly on information already available on their websites. 

Particularly concerning is the preamble, where the CDU alleges that “some voices” claim (the vagueness appears intentional) that there is a “shadow structure”, which uses state money to influence politics. While the CDU does not use the word, their source for this claim is a Welt article talking about the German “Deep State”. The use of far-right terminology with antisemitic undertones so early after the election victory is a concerning sign of things to come.

The logic behind the 30 pages of questions can be seen in the context surrounding the the Anfrage. The CDU, having won the largest majority in the election with their partner the CSU, will most likely be the leader of the future governing coalition. Having failed to win an outright majority, however, they need to negotiate with other parties before forming a government. Until that takes place, the old Bundestag remains in place, meaning the SPD are still in effect ruling Germany. 

The CDU are having one last run at playing opposition, in what appears to be a pre-planned stunt. Merz, not known for his subtlety, has left it perfectly clear that this was planned: while the questions were only released after the election, the document is actually dated to Friday the 21st, two days before Germans went to the polls.

This is why the questions in the Anfrage are posed to the SPD, rather than the organisations themselves, because parliamentary Anfragen are posed to the government. How the SPD is actually meant to answer a lot of these questions, many of which are questions for the NGOs themselves only posed to the government by means of tortured wording, is beside the point. Merz’s 551 questions should be read as a statement of intent.