This is a statement issued in collaboration with Carmen e.V., the nationwide reporting and information centre antigypsyism (MIA) and Romaniforum Duisburg e.V.
What happened? Enxhi Seli-Zacharias, an AfD member of the federal state parliament, along with other AfD members, arrived in the neighbourhood as a group equipped with brooms and dustpans and loudly demanded that residents perceived to be migrants sweep in front of their houses and on the street. In doing so, the group exerted considerable pressure and acted in an intimidating manner, with the result that some individuals complied with the demand. Videos were subsequently circulated online as propaganda for the AfD, which is attempting to portray itself as a caring party. The local vicar, Markus Pottbäcker, sees the action as a breach of taboo and was the first to respond, with a video of his own. It took the Gelsenkirchen branches of the SPD and CDU weeks to react.
Forcing people to clean up in public through intimidation is not merely a form of humiliation and degradation. As part of the Lower Saxony Memorials Foundation, we would like to draw attention to the historical parallels: the Nazis also forced Sinti* and Roma*, as well as Jewish people, to sweep public spaces. They were subsequently deported. There is therefore a long tradition of holding certain vulnerable groups responsible for the state of public spaces, making them scapegoats, rather than, for example, questioning municipal responsibility or the role of landlords and property owners. The AfD is moving beyond inhumane rhetoric to action here, attempting to dominate public spaces and create a climate of fear. People who have only arrived in Germany in recent years often find themselves in a very precarious situation – facing discrimination in an already tight housing market, labour exploitation and much more. They frequently live in poorer neighbourhoods where conditions are difficult in many respects. Politicians have a duty here to bring about change in these living conditions. Instead, the AfD is reversing the roles of perpetrator and victim by blaming immigrants for the local conditions and singling them out.
It is to be welcomed that WDR has now devoted a separate report to these incidents. However, it would have been helpful to conduct more thorough research in some areas and to phrase things more carefully. For example, the report consistently refers to ‘Sinti and Roma’, which is simply incorrect in this context. Even if the individuals in question are members of this community – which is often merely an external label – the correct term for people who come from other EU countries and do not speak German would be ‘Roma*’. The article gives the impression that ‘Sinti and Roma’ generally do not speak German, even though Sinti* have lived in Germany for 600 years. Overall, when discussing a language barrier, it would be more accurate to specify the country of origin. Membership of the Roma community is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and the fact that it is repeatedly implied can only be explained against the backdrop of antigypsyist stereotypes. Critical research into antigypsyism has extensively demonstrated the extent to which the association of Roma* with rubbish is an established antigypsyist trope. This involves the ‘ethnicisation’ of a social phenomenon and a discursive linking of rubbish with a specific community or with migration. As an editorial team, one could be aware of all this, comment on it and put it into context. Instead, a white local resident is given a platform, who explains that she taught the immigrants how to sort their rubbish and effectively casts herself as the neighbourhood’s deputy sheriff. From a journalistic perspective, such an appearance could certainly be commented on; overall, it is striking that white ‘residents’ are repeatedly allowed to appear on public service broadcasting almost as if they were experts, without their statements being questioned or contextualised. This framing creates the impression that rubbish and noise in the neighbourhood are solely attributable to migrants; this in itself is an adoption of the AfD’s narrative. And when it is claimed that some people from the neighbourhood do not wish to speak out ‘out of fear of migrants’, this is yet another case of reversing the roles of perpetrator and victim – as is well known, in Germany the fear of making racist remarks is quite low – and an adoption of the AfD’s narrative, which portrays migrants as a threat, even though it is the AfD itself that is intimidating people in Gelsenkirchen-Ückendorf and creating a climate of fear.
All in all, therefore, both the events themselves and the media coverage of it represent a shocking continuation and manifestation of a centuries-old antigypsyist narrative, which is expressed here with alarming and frightening candour and through the AfD’s open misanthropy. The democratic parties, which have so far either remained silent on the incident or responded very belatedly, have let down those affected by the action and all those affected by antigypsyist violence, at a time when even the AfD has reached a new level.
Contact persons at the Competence Centre:
Bernd Grafe-Ulke (Project Manager)
Josefine Biallas (Press and Public Relations)