Once again I tried negotiating with my brain if and when it should go back to sleep. As is so often the case, it had more staying power and I gave up. Soon after I opened up my smartphone and started scrolling, not doom scrolling, but definitely scrolling.
A few minutes later, I received a message from an acquaintance; it read as follows: „pride parade in berlin was cancelled someone hit the crowd with their car“
My first reaction was nothing, I felt nothing maybe because it was in the middle of the night maybe because my brain switched immeaditely to „another case of stochastic terrorism, sadly surprise, nothing to see here please move on.“ Cynical and lacking in empathy, I know, which is why I’d better make it clear: just because a crime falls into the category of ‘stochastic terrorism’ doesn’t mean it isn’t a tragedy. It is, and nobody should have died or been injured that evening. At the same time, at a time when anti-queer sentiment is becoming more visible and socially acceptable once again, it was only a matter of time before such an incident occurred. It should also be noted that it was purely down to luck that the perpetrator carried out the attack at 10 pm and not during the actual parade. Over the course of the following morning and day, more and more information trickled out into the public domain. And the more information became public, the more the rights of queer people were exploited by all manner of politicians for their own ends. This is by no means new; it was simply the speed at which it happened that was astonishing.
My personal life carried on without further incident; I was busy keeping a child occupied at the playground. Nevertheless, sooner or later, the interpersonal and media fallout caught up with my everyday life too. On the one hand, a friend of mine wrote me an angry plea about homophobia in society and why, for that very reason, she would never hold hands with women in public. On the other hand, I found it troubling how a German media outlet interacted with the perpetrator’s family and featured them in one of its reports. Furthermore, I could only shake my head at our federal government’s desire to tighten security policy in our country even further. Which means nothing other than more spending and powers for the secret services, the armed forces and the police.
No one paused to consider the real problem. The actual reason why this attack took place was that a young Muslim man sympathised with the terrorist organisation Islamic State and its ideology, and wanted to put it into practice. In other words, he became radicalised and everyone stood by and watched. Or rather, the young man had apparently been radicalised for some time, was known to the police, and they allowed him to walk around freely and unmonitored. Because, as we know, the only job our police seem to do is either not to do their job or even to help the attackers. Instead of asking why the young man had become radicalised, the media merrily continued to sensationalise the crime.Which is why I’m asking this question here: why did the young man become radicalised? What did this misanthropic ideology offer him that his family, social circle or professional environment did not?
Perhaps he had none of these? No prospects and no political interest group to represent his rights and potential demands as a young immigrant man of colour in politics. As is so often the case with marginalised groups or minorities. I do not sympathise with the perpetrator, as he committed a serious crime. However, I found it disconcerting that, when the news broke that the police had shot him in an allotment area, many people in the comments were praising the police, cheering them on or generally celebrating: “Because the bloke really deserved it.”
Did he deserve it? No. Nobody deserves to die, even if that person has committed a serious crime; otherwise, the death penalty would still be in force in Germany, and I’m glad it was abolished in 1949 and 1987. What the young man should have been given instead was a fair trial in accordance with Art. 20 Abs. 3 based on ourconstitution:
„Die Gesetzgebung ist an die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung, die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung sind an Gesetz und Recht gebunden.“
However, this paragraph alone does not confer a right to a trial. For this reason, Art. 1 Abs. 1 („Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt“) is usually also cited in the same sentence, along with a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to a fair criminal trial is addressed in much greater detail there, which lends it even greater weight. We will never know to what extent racism or Islamophobia might have led to an excessive sentence, or whether the latter was even possible, because the perpetrator is dead and will never have to explain himself. Why he is said to have attacked several SEK officers with a bladed weapon also remains unclear. Of course, bladed weapons are dangerous. At the same time, I wonder what must have happened beforehand for a man to ‘charge’ at several armed and armoured officers with a bladed weapon (we do not even know what type it was).
Apart from that, it also remains unclear why he became radicalised. The fundamental problem of a lack of social support for young men of colour remains unspoken, unresolved and continues to persist. Yes, this man was a religious extremist, a murderer and allegedly attacked the police with a knife. We will never know why he did it or what events happened before the knife attack. Ultimately, he was a criminal, and another man of colour was shot by the police. It is highly likely that a white man would have survived.
It is estimated that he is now one of nine people to have died at the hands of the police this year. These are estimates, as the German police do not keep statistics on how many people die during their operations. At this point, scientists rely on various groups in civil society, such as the Humboldt University-based project „Bürgerrechte und Polizei“, which only documents victims of gunshot wounds. People who suffocate, are set on fire in a prison cell or are denied life-saving medication during police custody are not included.
So, instead of solving the problem, our government wants to enforce the police for our own good, which will likely result in more deaths because people of colour, homeless people, addicts and people with severe mental illnesses are the most vulnerable when faced by the police. This group also includes queer people. So thank you, dear conservative people. You are killing your own citizens. No further questions asked.