Bordercamp 2000

Delegiertenplenum des Grenzcamps 2000

Discussion Paper on the debate on sexism and racism

On July 30th 2000, we received an e-mail with a statement of ´several women participating at the Anti-fascist Camp in Weimar´.This e-mail informed us about a sexist incident at their camp: There were massive, unwanted attempts to harass women, two women were threatened in their tent by a man described as a refugee. The description of the situation links this man or these men to the refugee organisation The Voice. The e-mail says that these men are not members of The Voice but people who were informed about the camp by The Voice. The women who wrote the e-mail demanded a statement from The Voice, a discussion on sexism within their group and the people in their surroundings, and asked them ´to make sure that such assaults are prevented in the future, so that we can continue to fight against the racist state and the racist population together in the future.´

They desire ´a constructive criticism driven by solidarity [...] when working together with The Voice´.

We have discussed this statement and the incidents in Weimar at this border camp. People from The Voice also participated in this discussion. In the following, we want to report from these discussions and clarify our position.

The Voice stated again in the discussion, that the man concerned is not a member of their organisation. Therefore they reject the responsibility specifically ascribed to them and they feel they are being attacked unjustly.

There was a consensus in our discussion that The Voice cannot be made responsible for the behaviour of this man.

Furthermore, we think that The Voice cannot be addressed with the demands of the e-mail mentioned above, or at least not as being specifically ´responsible´. We consider the attempt of imposing a specific responsability for the behaviour of a non-member of their group as outrageous. This would imply that The Voice has to ensure the well-behaviour of migrants and is considered responsible for a discussion on sexism of migrants. Moreover, we think that making them collectively responsible as black men in this context is racist.

Behind these demands we detect a tendency to ethnicise the problem. Sexism is seen as an attribute of foreign men (or: non-german men are thought to be more sexist than germans), and therefore, non-german men are called to deal with the problem and not all of us or men altogether.

Whithin the white left in Germany, sexist assaults continue to occur; if they become public, there is usually strong criticism by feminists, as well as, among other demands, the demand for a discussion on sexism as such. Making such an incident an issue is in no way unique or racist but the way The Voice was being made responsible for this assault is racist.

Furthermore, we think it is nonsense to demand of an organisation that it ensures that such assaults are made impossible in their group and their surroundings, because, unfortunately, that is not achievable in the existing patriarchy we happen to be living in at the moment, nor within the radical left which is part of it.

We condemn sexist harrassment and assaults; The Voice has expressed this view as well. Our demand is that we and others try to act against racist and sexist practice and are willing to work on eliminating sexism and racism - but this demand is precisely not specifically addressed to The Voice in this context. Sexism - among migrants as well - is only the problem of The Voice as far as it is the problem of all of us. Equally, making an issue of sexism shouldn´t be left to women. To the contrary, we feel that men shouldn´t start to deal with sexism only after sexist assaults. Raising consciousness on this issue should begin in the preparatory stages of events like a border camp.

After an incident like the one in Weimar, we think a special sensitivity for the situation of the victims and the people close to them is necessary. If young women are attacked in a place where they felt safe - like the camp in Weimar - , in a way that they feel they have to defend themselves with a kitchen knife, the significance of such a violation of boundaries is not to be underestimated.

The authors of the e-mail from Weimar, however, are making a further co-operation with The Voice dependent on a specific discussion of the issue by The Voice. We have a problem with the following logic: We cannot fight racism together until you have excluded sexism. The Voice could just as well say: Only when you have excluded racism, we can fight sexism together. We think: that won´t do. There is no priority of one specific form of oppression. There are several different forms of oppression, and we are all called to discuss and argue together and allow ourselves to be tangled up in the contradictions within these issues.

Racism and sexism cannot be played off against each other. None of these forms of oppression can be declared the new central form of oppression and used to reject the discussion of other structures of dominance. Each one of us has to bear being defined as priviledged within a structure of dominance or being asked to examine one´s own blind spots. We believe that we would gain by dealing openly with conflicts and division lines in our work, and that image politics would be fatal.

At this border camp, an attempt is being made of joint political work by representatives from the left in germany, feminists and migrants against several different forms of oppression.

In our opinion, emancipatory politics necessitate a co-operation even across undoubtedly existing differences.

A common ground hereto can only be established if there is a willingness to acknowledge the different social situations of those concerned and that people are affected by various forms of oppression in different ways and to accept this in discussion.

This is difficult, but there is no alternative if we want a joint discussion by all the groups concerned, for example in this context. Separate organisation of women or migrants, for example, is possible, of course. But the objective should be, in our opinion, to reach a common way of dealing with the issue, which enables a co-operation even across existing differences.