The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

A Room of One’s Own

Access to housing is central to women’s emancipation. Under capitalism, society punishes women for not having a partner.

When I was 17 I went to study and lived away from home, sharing a flat with three other girls in Salamanca. It was the first time I left my parents’ home and the first time I was sharing with people I didn’t know previously. When I was 22, I migrated to Germany and was living with a family I didn’t know either. At 23, I migrated again, to Ireland this time. I’ve been living on this island for more than seven years and have had to move out at least seven times, always sharing with different people who came in and out. During these years I also lived for a short time in Scotland, once again sharing with strangers. I have lived with many different people from different countries. I’m still in touch with some of them, but most of them, as soon as they moved out and left their keys behind, have disappeared from my life. I’ve also left many keys and disappeared from many other lives.

In less than two months I’m about to be 30. Although when I was younger I thought I would be adventurous and meet as many people as I could, the truth is that right now all I want is to have my own space. My priorities and needs are changing as I’m maturing and that’s fine. But in all these years I have never been able to even consider renting something for myself, as my salary does not allow me to do so. I don’t ask for much: a room, a kitchen, a bathroom, a living room where I can keep my books (if possible on shelves and not piled up in the corners I find in my room or under the bed), my paintings and, if I could, a small balcony to have my breakfast and some plants. That’s it. I’m not even talking about buying a flat for myself, an unattainable project. Sadly, I would not even be considered for a mortgage, neither in Ireland nor in Spain.

Living together as precarious single women

On reflection, the impossibility of accessing my own shelter is related to several factors: housing as a market product and not as a basic fundamental right, the resistance of governments to not to regulate rental prices, the excessively expensive standard of living, and salaries that are not enough to be able to have an independent life, especially for those of us who work in the feminised, and therefore most precarious, sectors.

It is devastating that in our thirties and even forties we have to continue sharing flats with strangers because we cannot afford to rent our own space. Now the media has created a new language to disguise the reality of this precariousness and how the housing market exploits this situation, they call it co-living. When I explain this personal and social concern to my friends and family the answer is always the same: wait until you have a partner, then you can have your own space.

But my question is, why does society punish us for not having a partner? A relationship should not be the glue you need to keep your life stable and secure. A relationship should be two people (or more in the case of polyamorous relationships), financially independent, who decide in their freedom to create a path together and share their life. But there can be no freedom and independence without the material conditions for this, which is why capitalist society forces us into relationships for the sake of our economic survival, especially for the most precarious workers. Many abusive relationships occur precisely for this reason: women, even if we work, are generally in more precarious financial situations than our male partners (in heterosexual relationships) and because of that abused women cannot leave the family home as they do not have economic independence. In 2021 we are still not fully emancipated.

Many authors have already written about this concept of singleness, female emancipation, and capitalism- from Flora Tristan to Rosa Luxemburg to Alexandra Kollontai to name a few historical examples. In her book Autobiography of a Sexually Emancipated Woman, first published in 1926, the Russian Communist revolutionary Kollontai argued that we must invent another way of relating to each other and change the sex-affective dynamics that we repeat almost unquestioningly under capitalism. More recently, in Why women have better sex under socialism? (2018) anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee outlines why “unregulated capitalism is bad for women and if we adopt some of the ideas of socialism, women’s lives will improve. […] socialism encourages economic independence and improves working conditions, work-life balance and, yes, even sexual relations”. Starting from the fact that capitalism cannot be regulated since it is a system that bases its wealth on the exploitation of labour and natural resources, if we want to have real emancipation of women and all those who do not fit into the heteropatriarchal binary system, we must overcome capitalism.

As long as society continues to live under capitalism, patriarchal, sex-affective relationships will follow an abusive pattern and we precarious single people will continue to be unable to have a space for ourselves. It is not only capitalism that prevents us from economic emancipation, but also from emotional and personal independence. In this patriarchal society, we, single women, are seen as broken, incomplete, demanding, grumpy and many other adjectives basically amounting to “there’s something wrong with you”. In my opinion, the natural state of any person is singleness, having a romantic and healthy relationship would be when we freely (emotionally and economically) decide to form and create it, being just another stage of your life, rather than the “beginning of the rest of your life”. In order to break with the status of capitalism that forces us to have a partner to be able to emancipate ourselves, we need policies on our side that facilitate access to housing, whether you are single or in a relationship, as well as policies that prevent the precariousness of feminised labour sectors.

My life projects do not include having a partner, for me, it’s not a goal to achieve. I would like to keep studying and training in my profession, be able to speak the languages I am passionate about, continue my learning in my political interests, master oil painting techniques, or write a book; these are some of my goals. If I meet someone and we want to have a relationship sharing our life for as long as it takes, welcome, it’s not an idea I resist. But since it’s not a goal in my life, why do I know that I will not be able to afford my own home being single and precarious? My life, as I have already said, is not going to start if I get married: I am already living my life. And as such, I want the right to my own space.

Nerea Fernández Cordero is the speaker of IU Exterior. This article was first published in Spanish in Nueva Revolución. Reproduced with permission.

 

AUKUS: Australia snubs France and embraces a deadly future

The pact between Australia, the US and the UK sets up a new global boogeyman


28/10/2021

The recently agreed AUKUS pact concluded between Australia, the USA and the UK generated an entertaining if distracting diplomatic soap opera. The Australian government, frustrated with delays and setbacks with the French Naval Group’s commitment to provide Australia with a new fleet of diesel powered submarines, secretly negotiated an agreement with the United States to provide Australia with nuclear powered submarines instead. The French were completely blindsided as up until the announcement, no indication had been made that Australia wanted to shelve the entire project. What followed was the much publicised soap opera.

The agreement and what it represents is significant and perhaps that is precisely why the soap opera aspects are played up in mass media while the salient analysis is done by international relations experts and disseminated to niche audiences. For the anti-war movements across the world, for the political left, AUKUS should serve as a call to organise pre-emptively against a war with China and in favour of democratic resolutions to tensions within Asia Pacific.

The AUKUS pact is a significant economic blow to France, with estimates ranging from 10 billion Euros to 90 billion AUD. More significant, is the diplomatic rupture between NATO allies. The former Liberal/National PM, Malcolm Turbull, stated this plainly in a speech. The execution of this swindle has frayed Australia’s relation with the EU and China (its biggest trading partner). Furthermore, Turnbull reveals important details of the new submarines that suggest Australia might become a military auxiliary of the US in a war with China.

The new submarines will have unlimited range, limited only by the provisions available to its crew. They will be fuelled with weapons grade enriched Uranium and therefore, this pact provides an opportunity for nuclear tech transfer between Australia and the US. If statements by Australia’s Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, are to be taken at face value, this does not pose a threat to nuclear non-proliferation since Australia does not have a civilian nuclear industry, nor does it possess the centrifuge technology needed to independently enrich Uranium-235 up from the 0.7% in natural ore to 95% or so used in these submarines. While it is true that the submarines, once fuelled, do not need to be refuelled, it is not impossible to imagine that the batteries of these submarines can be taken out and repurposed. Such nuclear tech transfer is something the US had discouraged France from doing, forgoing the profits that accompany such sales. Which is why this pact is significant: it sets the scene for nuclear non-proliferation to be eroded within the next two decades.

It should come as no surprise that China is setting its sights on Taiwan more firmly. Though the Chinese did not immediately resort to a trade war with Australia in retaliation, a rational decision by an actor with limited room to manoeuvre, tensions with Taiwan are escalating. With the conservative and increasingly militaristic LDP in Japan, the likely election of a conservative president in South Korea, the left needs to start seeing a war with China as a real possibility and not an abstraction. If Australia can brazenly snub France and ally so strongly with the US and the UK (nations China has deep colonialist fears of), despite being economically integrated with the Chinese economy, the organised political left must recognise that by 2050 the sequences of capitalist and ecological crises can indeed foment a hot war.

The former Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, began a process of militarisation during his tenure, and fate intervened to prevent him holding a referendum on revising Article 9 of the Japanese constitution due to his ill health. The pandemic further scuppered such plans and has brought into power Fumio Kishida, a realpolitik politician with extensive foreign policy experience. This dove-ish position may not hold indefinitely as tensions over Taiwan mount and Japan is bounced into militarisation by the US. Taiwan’s cooperation with the US on military exercises exacerbates the situation. Yet there is room for anti-war movements to manoeuvre.

News of AUKUS made New Zealand uneasy, and countries within ASEAN appear to be split. Despite the legacy of colonialism and barbaric treatment by the West towards them, contemporary disputes and economic relationships seem to be guiding the diplomatic response. The forgetting of history is a slow process and by 2050, it may be advanced enough that the scars of colonial domination are forgotten, opening the door to another catastrophe within the region. Leftists must strengthen international cooperation and contribute materially towards keeping this history alive. We in the West enjoy a relative abundance of wealth and technological access. We must find ways of using these privileges to support local efforts in Asia Pacific, so that this erosion of historical memory is arrested.

Within Europe, the pact presents an opportunity. France’s furious response suggests that all is not well within NATO. The de facto unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan has made it clear to European nations that they serve as auxiliaries to a decaying US empire. Germany’s energy insecurity is forcing the state to adopt a more pragmatic approach with Russia, the old NATO bogeyman. Parties like Die Linke and social movements ought to be encouraged by these developments. Though Olaf Scholz would insist any legitimate party must embrace NATO, within a decade this position may not be accepted wisdom if the left is willing to hold firm. The left must reiterate that NATO makes the world less safe. The only beneficiary of NATO is the global military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned against. In one succinct line, he provided the elegant argument that the left must continue to promulgate:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

The energy crisis, the impending food crisis, the plight of refugees, future conflicts over water, the impacts of the pandemic; these issues are not going away and the glaring injustice of feeding the military beast while people suffer en masse makes it imperative that the left resolutely holds elite obsessions with NATO to account.

From an intersectional perspective, the pandemic, the belligerent rhetoric of Donald Trump and now Biden, the general strengthening of the far-right across the Global North, has spawned a new yellow peril. The postwar era was defined by anti-communism, the 90s onwards Islam and the Muslim world, and today we see China as the justification for continued militarism. The pivot to Islamophobia did not lead to Russophobia and general suspicion of Easten Europe dissipating away, and indeed the post USSR East has fervently adopted Islamophobia. Similarly, Sinophobia will not displace this bigoted framework of global politics, but rather act in synergy with old bigotries. Before the multiple fronts of racism the US empire has spawned overwhelm its economic, social, political, and military capacity, it will take many innocent lives with it. For the left, the terrain of climate crises is the appropriate arena in which to defend these lives. Hunger, war, and pestilence are material-ecological consequences and must be advocated against as such.

The environmental movement, particularly the German Greens, is woefully blind to the climate implications of ever expanding military expenditures. For a party like Die Linke, such a unified political critique may be electorally fruitful. The path forward requires developing a coherent framework that links, for example, hunger, housing, and thirst to the growing belly of the military beast. Educational efforts at home, coupled with international cooperation and learning from movements in the Global South can reinvigorate the organisation. The climate crisis will only escalate in severity and this presents left parties across the world the chance to advocate demilitarisation. Political strategic work for this eventuality needs to be laid today for maximum effectiveness and importantly must collaborate with movements in the Global South.

Democratic United Front: A call for solidarity!

Statement by the Sudanese Workers Alliance for the Restoration of Trade Unions on the military takeover


27/10/2021

There is no alternative but to continue the struggle, bring the downfall of the coup, mobilize our masses and achieve the complete demands and aspirations of the December revolution.

“The coup of parasitic capitalism was instigated by the warlord, Hemeti, and Burhan, the Al-Bashir Security apparatus, and the rest of the warlords who traffic in the suffering of their people, and the political brokers who come in every colour and shape.”

We ask the working class worldwide to stand in solidarity with the people of Sudan.

Today, October 25, 2021, the great Sudanese people are waging their bright, hard and blood-stained struggle against a military coup. There is no alternative but to overthrow and uproot all the forces that oppose democratic transformation, and who serving the interests of parasitic capitalism and its international and regional masters, must be held accountable for all their crimes, for their corruption, and their deep-rooted hostility to our people’s yearning for freedom, justice and peace.

We, the Sudanese Workers Alliance for the Restoration of Trade Unions call upon our members, female and male workers, craftswomen/men, wage workers, producers and toilers in the countryside and cities to engage in a protracted struggle against this very evident, undeniable coup, we call upon them to engage in civil disobedience and a general strike until the downfall of the counterrevolution. We must do so with the vigilance and caution that is necessary to resist all bargains or deals that run contrary to the demands of the revolution.

We must unreservedly avoid compromises, like the agreement signed on August 17, 2019, which forced the December 2018 revolution into an impasse, and prevented all of its glorious goals from coming into fruition. We urge the people to build an independent democratic union bloc that derives its legitimacy from work and which will be committed to the adherence of its own espoused principles. We are also making it clear that the Sudanese Workers Alliance for the Restoration of Trade Unions is fully committed to doing its utmost best to coordinate, network and deliver all required information that needs to be disseminated for this democratic bloc on our social media pages.

The power of the coup is the power of parasitic capitalism. It is inherently hostile to the common interests of male and female workers and all of the classes of wage earners; it is necessarily hostile to our people and their right to a dignified life. Parasitic capitalism contradicts the just demand of the Sudanese people for sovereignty over our country’s wealth and resources. There is no alternative but the protracted struggle for the downfall of the coup, the liquidation of its compromised institutions and agencies and the repealing of all of its regional and international alliances.

Our message to the honourable non-commissioned officers, the rank-and-file of the armed forces, the officers in the armed forces, the police, and the armed movements, is that they abide by their duty to protect their people and align themselves with the cause of the democratic transition. They should not point their guns at the bare chests of the daughters and sons of Sudan, who stand proud with determination and the yearning for freedom, justice and peace.

We must be clear. This disastrous coup will only serve the same social classes, and the regional and international interests that the Bashir regime always sought to protect, and who in turn stayed quite in the face of their corruption, actions and crimes throughout dictatorial rule.

We will succeed.

Our people are stronger than murderers and saboteurs, we have accumulated legacies of resistance responsible for bringing down many dictatorships who thought they had succeeded in breaking the Sudanese people’s resolve. The victory of our revolution is certain, regardless of the brutality of the counter-revolutionaries and the thirst for blood among vampiric putschists.

Glory to the people of Sudan and to the martyrs of the Sudanese revolution of all eras. Long live the struggle of the Sudanese Working class, of all Sudanese workers.

Glory to the bloc of the hungry.

The Sudanese Workers Alliance for the Restoration of Trade Unions. October 25, 2021

“One of the UK’s worst ever public health failures”

The British parliamentary report on Covid is a damning indictment of Boris Johnson’s Tory government


26/10/2021

The response of the Westminster government to the management of the coronavirus pandemic in England has been characterised by inertia, lack of trust in the public, outrageous cronyism and an unwillingness to learn lessons. Even now, none of this has changed. The consequences include 139,000 deaths (8.6 million cases); massively increased waiting lists for National Health Service (NHS) treatment; general practice (primary medical care) in crisis; huge numbers of staff vacancies and a burnt out workforce. Numbers of COVID infections (particularly among the young) are now rocketing, with escalating hospital admissions and deaths. Yet there is still a reluctance to implement basic mitigating interventions such as mask wearing and improved ventilation in schools and workplaces. The initial rapid roll out of vaccine has now stalled, yet vaccination is still being promoted as the only intervention that is effective. The only plan there appears to be is waiting for ‘herd immunity’ through a combination of vaccination and natural infection.

Damning report from parliamentary committees

The management of the pandemic was explored by parliamentary representatives in a report published on 12th October from the House of Commons Health and Social Care, and Science and Technology Committees. The outstanding take home message from this report is summed up in the statement that this was “one of the UK’s worst ever public health failures”. At first sight this appears extraordinary given that the chair of one of the committees was Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health from 2012-2018. But the discussion is framed in a way that avoids attributing blame to politicians for the effects of their policies or the state of the NHS at the start. In this sense the report must be considered a whitewash.

Scathing criticisms were made, however: the initial response was delayed, care homes were abandoned, the ‘world beating’ test and trace system had marginal impact. The report describes how comparisons with flu and a fatalistic view of the inevitable spread of infection impeded reaction to the pandemic. While clearly condemnatory of the delay in the first lockdown (for reasons including lack of testing capacity and doubts about public compliance) ‘groupthink’ and ‘British exceptionalism’ are given the blame. The fact that delay in lockdown led to a higher death toll is accepted, together with the often made criticism that lack of financial support was a huge barrier to people isolating. Little negative attention is focused in the report on the delay in triggering the second lockdown. But senior scientists now feel this was an even more serious error, leading to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Rather than incriminating “groupthink” the main problems were seeing the public as a problem; failing to value public health at a local level; and seeing the private sector as the best way to run a test-and-trace system. A post-report example of ongoing problems recently surfaced with revelations that a private laboratory had issued over 43,000 false negative Covid test results allowing many people to unwittingly spread infection.

Bereaved families excluded

The report is also notable for the absence of the voices of those who lost loved ones to Covid. A representative of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group commented:

The report … is laughable and more interested in political arguments about whether you can bring laptops to Cobra meetings than it is in the experiences of those who tragically lost parents, partners or children to Covid-19. This is an attempt to ignore and gaslight bereaved families, who will see it as a slap in the face”.

Not only were they not invited to give evidence to the committees, when they were finally seen by the prime minister 398 days after he first agreed to meet them, the date of the promised judicial inquiry into pandemic management had still not been specified. The select committees report lends weight and urgency to the call for a full judicial inquiry. The excuse that this would divert attention and resources from fighting the pandemic has worn very thin. Especially given both the evident need to learn and apply lessons to manage the current surge in infection, and that there has been no problem in finding time for both a major reorganisation of public health structures and the NHS as a whole.

Former Secretary of State for Health evades scrutiny

Hunt upset Covid bereaved relatives in a radio interview by describing the account given in the report as portraying ‘a game of two halves’, using a jarring football metaphor to indicate that whatever sins had been committed giving rise to around 150,000 (including excess) deaths, these were absolved by the vaccine rollout programme. Astonishingly, he also claimed to know nothing of Exercise Alice, a pandemic modelling exercise, that was only recently made public. This was commissioned in 2016 where the pathogen in the spotlight was not influenza but the coronavirus causing Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV). Senior health officials war-gamed the impact of this coronavirus hitting the UK. They warned four years before Covid-19 of the need for stockpiles of Personal Protective Equipment, a computerised contact tracing system and screening for foreign travellers.

As Health Secretary, Hunt presided over worsening winter crises; cuts in bed numbers; significantly increased waiting lists and missed targets for Accident and Emergency (A&E) and cancer care; relative falls in budget; increasing privatisation of services; weakening of public health services; a bitter industrial dispute with doctors in training; and a staffing crisis leaving 100,000 vacant hospital posts and a shortage of 7000 General Practitioners. Needless to say, this contributed considerably to the weakened state in which the NHS found itself when faced with Covid-19. The one pandemic exercise he does admit to knowing about (Exercise Cygnus), gave recommendations that were were not implemented.

Health and social care crisis in the UK

Although the title of the Commons report was ‘Coronavirus: lessons learned to date’, very few lessons appear to have been learned. At the time of writing (October 25th), one in 55 people in England have Covid (the highest level since January 2021) and weekly death tolls are approaching 1000. Infection rates in the UK are more than 18 times those in Spain and more than nine those in France. The government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies has warned of the need for a possible winter lockdown, if measures are not taken now to tackle rising infections. The Chief Scientific Adviser to the government advised to “go hard and go early” with coronavirus restrictions if cases surge (as they are doing). But the government continues to paint an optimistic picture and wishes to give the impression that there is no cause for concern. In contrast, local public health chiefs in England are beginning to break away from government guidance and at least a dozen have called on their population to go back to mask wearing and working from home.

The NHS and Care services are at breaking point

Meanwhile, in the real world, the NHS is under severe pressure and expecting worse to come as winter, influenza and Respiratory Syncytial Virus return. Necessary infection control measures during the pandemic saw another 9,000 beds taken out of commission, making it even more difficult for the health service to catch up with the backlog of work. In the 30 years before the pandemic, numbers of NHS hospital beds more than halved ensuring the UK has one of the lowest numbers of beds for its population in Europe. Half the acute hospitals in England are averaging 95% bed occupancy (85% is regarded as the acceptable maximum), with 5.6% taken by Covid patients (more than 5,000 patients at any one time). The proportion of patients attending A&E departments who are seen within four hours has fallen to 64% (the  national target is 95%). Together with lack of beds, this means ambulances sit waiting outside A&E, because crews cannot transfer their patient – or respond to other calls. As a result recently every ambulance service in the country was on the highest state of alert. In addition, care homes refuse to take patients from hospital to free up beds because of their own staffing shortages. These have been needlessly exacerbated by the government’s policy of ‘no jab – no job’.

Crisis – what crisis?

Figures show further increases in numbers of patients waiting for treatment (now at nearly six million) while NHS staffing shortages lead to cancelled operations. General practitioners (primary care physicians) have dealt with 196.8 million appointments so far this year – up 12% on 2019 – but are vilified as lazy in some of the national press. This campaign has generated verbal and physical abuse of staff and is supported by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health no less. GPs are now considering industrial action while other health trade unions are balloting members over strike action in relation to a below inflation pay offer.

The Care Quality Commission has warned of a “tsunami” of people without the care they need this winter unless staff shortages are tackled. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation (a membership body for organisations that commission and provide NHS services) appealed to the government saying:

You have got to recognise that we need a national mobilisation. You’ve got to recognise there is a health and care crisis coming over the next three or four months and accept it, acknowledge it and encourage the public to do everything they can to help”.

The head of the British Medical Association representing doctors has said the government is being “wilfully negligent” in not reintroducing mandatory mask wearing indoors and encouraging work from home. Meanwhile, returning from a holiday break in Spain, the prime minister insists the only effective way of combating the pandemic is to press ahead with the booster vaccination programme. He insists that everything is under control and there is nothing to worry about.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Sajid Javid stated in a recent press conference on Covid (the first for five weeks):

We don’t believe that the pressures that are currently faced by the NHS are unsustainable

arguing that the NHS is in fact coping, while happily predicting daily Covid cases may rise to 100,000. To add to this surreal situation, the Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, claimed that Conservative MPs do not need to wear masks when in parliament because they know each other. Nowhere are there consistent public health messages about reducing infection to be heard other than through vaccination, and little attention is given to improving ventilation in buildings, for example with only 8% of schools having received promised carbon dioxide monitors.

Incompetence, indifference or democide?

The present pandemic management policy in Westminster is indifferent to the loss of life, the long term complications of Covid in survivors and the impact on NHS staff and other frontline workers. This raises the question as to whether this amounts to democide (“the killing of members of a country’s civilian population, as a result of its government’s policy, including by direct action, indifference, and neglect”), “social murder”, gross negligence manslaughter, or misconduct in a public office? Campaigners who have raised such possibilities have watched with interest as French police searched the homes and offices of officials including the former prime minister as part of an investigation into the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis. Current and former ministers of the French government have been targeted by at least 90 formal legal complaints from civic groups and members of the public over their response to the health emergency. In addition, a Brazilian congressional panel has recommended that President Jair Bolsonaro be charged with “crimes against humanity,” asserting that he intentionally let the coronavirus rip through the country and kill hundreds of thousands in a failed bid to achieve herd immunity and revive Latin America’s largest economy.

Fighting back

While considering such legal challenges, now is the time for a concerted effort to link concerned patients, health and care workers, trade unions and health and social care campaigners in the fight back for a fully publicly funded, provided and planned health, care and independent living service. This is needed urgently before public and staff confidence in the founding principles of the NHS have been irreversibly eroded – leaving private providers as the only winners.

Why we Decided to Postpone our Meeting on Trans Rights

This evening, 25th October 2021, Die LINKE Berlin working groups Internationals and Queer were planning to hold a public meeting on Trans rights. This is why the meeting was postponed.


Dear community,

The trans rights panel which was due to take place on 25th October, this Monday, will not be held. There were mistakes made during the organisational process and as a result concerns were raised from within the Black trans community. We believe that going ahead with the event when important parts of the community don’t stand behind us to be counterproductive, and have therefore decided to postpone, in order to work on a panel that will be more inclusive and truly intersectional.

Our wording left the impression that the panel would speak for and about Black people when there were no Black people on the panel. The wording was originally chosen before a change in the list of participants – however, a miscommunication between the organising team and the social media team meant that this wording, specifically the term BIPOC, was kept after we knew the invited Black speakers could not participate. We know that words matter. We did not want to reproduce violent and exclusionary language and we are sorry that we did. We do not want to be part of appropriation culture, and we acknowledge that the wording we chose left this impression. Thank you for calling this out to those who did.

We are sorry that this situation has led to voices that were to be part of our panel – a non-binary voice from Eastern Europe, a trans voice from Brazil and a trans voice from South Korea – will no longer be able to use this platform to speak on their issues. There are LGBTQI+ free zones in Poland, a trans soldier in South Korea recently commited suicide because she was not allowed to serve her military service as a woman, and trans women’s lives in Brazil are under constant attack. Our participants all do important work in Berlin without being provided with the necessary safety and care, which is an issue we wanted to highlight during our panel.

We had limited funds for the event but we made sure that the three invited guests were offered speaking fees. The fourth speaker is a member of the LAG and was not due to receive a fee for her appearance.

Trans identities are facing increasingly dangerous campaigns against them led by conservative and right-wing forces. We wanted to provide a platform within the realm of a political party that should be on the forefront of trans rights discussions in parliament, and is failing to be, and put together a panel that was within our knowledge, capabilities and resources. None of the organising team gets financial compensation for their work, and we acknowlegde there are gaps in our networks and knowledge.

We believe in the importance of discussion, although we would prefer a place other than the Instagram comment section. Besides the missing nuances and detail, it creates an environment in which we are not talking with but past each other.

We planned this event to highlight trans voices, as we believe there are not enough platforms offered for them to be heard. We apologize for the mistakes made and the people who were hurt, to our speakers, and we hope that we can join forces in the future once we have reflected and reassessed this event.

In solidarity,

DIE LINKE Berlin Internationals LAG

Both the LINKE Berlin Internationals and theleftberlin website would like to continue the discussion on how the Berlin International Left can best fight for Trans rights. If you would like to contribute to the discussion please contact the LINKE Internationals on lag.internationals@die-linke-berlin.de or theleftberlin on team@theleftberlin.com