When The Worm Finally Turns, It Isn’t Pretty

The first time I went to Hanau, I was creeped out by how ordinary it was.

Imagine being 'creeped out' by something ordinary? 

This mid-sized city of 100,000 people right in the geographical centre of Germany, looked and felt like many other places in western Germany I had been to: built around a bombed and reconstructed old town, expanded by a soulless mall with a multiplex cinema, surrounded by a vast industrial area and neighbourhoods separated along class lines. What the city prides itself on is that the Brothers Grimm grew up here in the late 18th century before they started publishing folk tales such as Cinderella and The Frog Prince. Since 2020, however, Hanau stands for something else: it’s the place where a far-right gunman killed nine people he assumed to be immigrants, and afterwards killed his mother and himself.

Ah. Not something 'ordinary' at all, then... 

Emiş Gürbüz, mother of one of the Hanau victims, spoke at this year’s official commemoration, attended by the city’s highest-ranking politicians as well as Germany’s federal president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. “This event is a stain on the history of Hanau and of Germany,” Gürbüz said, close to tears. “If everyone had carried out their duties, these nine people would still be alive.” Gürbüz’s son, Sedat, was killed during the attack at the shisha bar he had previously owned. He was 29 years old.

It's a familiar refreain, if the cast of victims is different this time.  

But what followed this year’s commemoration – which, unfortunately, coincided with the anti-immigrant and racist discourse of the final week of the federal election campaign – was frankly shocking. The coalition of mainstream parties that runs Hanau’s city government issued an extraordinary statement laying into Gürbüz, accusing her of political agitation, disrespect and of “exploiting” the atrocity. It said that no such future commemorations would be held in Hanau to mark the victims. Citing another speech that Gürbüz made at the Berlin film festival, the statement further alleged that she had publicly expressed hatred for Germany and Hanau. “Why she applied for German citizenship in such a state of mind will probably remain her secret,” the statement added.

Are they not supposed to mention the fact then? Is she supposed to be allowed to complain about anything she likes, and no one ask awkward questions, stifled by her victim status? 

But why would it be inappropriate for a grieving mother whose son was murdered by a racist and who now has to witness almost every political party campaigning on anti-immigrant manifestos, to express hatred for what Germany has become?

It's not. She's perfectly entitled to her free speech. But so is everyone else. And if they have decided they've had enough of the whining from someone given everything they didn't have in their home country, and the ingratitude shown for having been given it, then they'll exercise their own free speech to express it. It's unfortunate, but when you try to bottle it up this is what happens.  

At a time when far-right support has reached historic levels, it’s a peculiar take on the term “respect” to treat survivors of a racially motivated right wing terrorist attack in this way. Is this to be the fate now of anyone of migrant heritage who criticises public failings?

Well, nodding silently and never asking questions hasn't worked so well up to now, has it?