Humanitarian Visa for Migrants

The German captain of a charity rescue ship appeared before a court in Sicily (Italy) on Monday after she was arrested for forcing her way into the Italian port of Lampedusa carrying migrants she had rescued off the Libyan coast.

The ship had been in international waters for more than two weeks, waiting for an invitation from Italy or another European Union (EU) state to accept her ship, which was carrying 41 African migrants.

„We need support to end the death of people at sea and it’s outrageous that civilians … filling a gap left by the authorities are criminalised for saving lives,“ said Giorgia Lunardi, a spokeswoman for the charity.

Deputy Prime Minister of Italy Matteo Salvini, who is leader of the League party, has taken a hard stance on immigration, closing off ports and accusing fellow European nations of leaving Italy alone to deal with a migrant influx from Libya.

„I expect justice to deliver tough penalties to those who risked the life of Italian military personnel and who repeatedly rejected our laws,“ Salvini said in a statement on Monday.

„From other European countries, starting with France and Germany, I expect silence and respect,“ he added

Germany called on Monday for her release, but Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte told German Chancellor Angela Merkel at an EU meeting that it was an independent judicial matter of Italy. Conte refused to tolerate any interference in the independent courts of Italy.

At the same EU meeting, EU leaders suspended their summit on Monday after they failed to agree who should fill the bloc’s top jobs, with divisions over the marquee role of European Commission president as entrenched as ever after some 20 hours of talks.

The reason behind the division of the members of European Union is their opposing and irreconcilable Migration policy. Member states in the South as Italy, Malta and Spain are challenged by illegal migration from Africa via the Mediterranean Sea. Most member states in the North do sufficiently support the Southern EU states to overcome the challenges.

The Eastern EU members as Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic refuse the idea of hosting illegal migrants at all.

The EU is in crisis and has no leader because of the migration policy deeply divides the member states of the EU.

The solution is a European consensus of migration policy. This important matter must be resolved jointly and in solidarity.

Only an arms export ban helps to minimize the push factor war which is causing migration. An efficient development aid by EU countries helps to fight migration push factors as unemployment, lack of opportunities and inadequate conditions.

Right now, a lot of resources are tied for EU borders protection, search and rescue operations at sea and the internment, care and deportation of illegal migrations by EU countries.

The issuing of humanitarian visa for a legal EU entry and residence would save the lives of African migrants reaching the Maghreb states as Morocco and Libya. They would not have to come to Europe via boats anymore. The boat passage threatens lives and benefits criminal human traffickers.

The issuing of humanitarian visa to EU countries is the easiest way to save lives, to protect borders and to control migration.

Are Germany and Ethiopia appropriate mediators in Sudan?

by Martin Lejeune, Berlin

On 21st June 2019, the German Foreign Ministry invited to a Sudan conference in the Foreign Office in Berlin to shape the future of Africa’s second largest country after the overthrow of Omar Al-Bahir. Such a meeting took place for the first time.

As far as known, no German-speaking media has reported on this gathering until today, not even the German Press Agency (DPA), which documented only in two reports the „demonstration of Sudanese activists in front of the Foreign Ministry“, without going into the background of the activists. Nor did the DPA mention that the protest was being held in front of the Foreign Ministry on the occasion of its Sudan Conference. Lorenz Maroldt, editor-in-chief of Berlin’s most influential outlet „Der Tagesspiegel“ reported on 21st June 2019 about Sudanese demonstrators in Berlin without mentioning the summit.

Participants of the informal Coordinating Meeting were special envoys, Ambassadors and representatives of important partners and actors from USA, Great Britain, Norway, Germany, France, Egypt, Ethiopia as chair of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the African Union (AU), European Union (EU) and United Nations (UN).

The Foreign Office of Germany says, the meeting takes place in order to advocate a transition process to be carried out under a civilian-led Transitional government that is in accordance with the will of the Sudanese people.

Maas invited to the Berlin Conference neither a representative from Khartoum nor the Berlin Ambassador of the Republik of Sudan to Berlin. Sudan’s attempts to join the gathering were even blocked by the Foreign Office.

It is common for a group of partners from a bloc of states to meet informally with one another to pursue common goals. Such a character, comparable to a G7 summit, did not exist in the case of the Berlin Sudan conference. It was not a meeting of a homogeneous bloc of states, but its participants came from different regions of the world except Sudan. Not even a representative of the armed forces whose Transitional Military Council (TMC) governs the country has been invited.

The Sudanese army may be the only force in the country that represents not only the elite, but the entire people of the country. This assessment is also reflected on the ground in the streets. It was the military that overthrew Omar Al-Bashir after months of protests over economic hardship in April 2019. Army personnel were among the demonstrators, a commonality with the protests against Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. At this time, any transitional civilian government in Sudan could only be recruited from one of the tribes, with the effect that only its own clientele would be served and everyone else oppressed.

Maas’s policy of marginalizing Sudan harms German-Sudanese relations and disregards proven diplomatic practices and respect for a sovereign UN member state. Heiko Maas follows well-trodden paths: Already at the Berlin Congo Conference 1884/85 on the division of Africa, the Africans were not at the table.

Sudan is important for Germany and the EU because it is the second largest country in Africa bordering on seven countries. Through Sudan, flows of migrants through Libya heading via the Mediterranean Sea towards the EU countries from the crisis areas of South Sudan and Somalia (failed states), Ethiopia (coup attempt), Eritrea (poverty) and Yemen, where since 2015 war, epidemics and famine drove three millions to flee the country.

In international comparison, Sudan occupies the fourth place in refugee accommodation (1.1 million). And yet, the transit country Sudan is a bulwark against illegal migration via Libya to the EU. So far, these 1.1 million refugees are still prevented by the Sudanese border security on the onward journey to EU countries.

Only a stable and united Sudan can function as a bulwark against illegal migration. A policy of destabilizing Sudan jeopardizes national unity and leads to Sudan’s open borders. In addition to the refugees from South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen, in case of another failed state Sudan, countless Sudanese refugees from Sudan would also be moving through Libya to the EU. Therefore, another failed state in the region cannot be in the interest of Europeans.

Sudan is also important for its minerals, uranium, oil, rare earths and precious metals such as gold, whose exploitation benefits mainly China which has a strong presence in Sudan, which is a thorn in the side of the US.

The United States have imposed unilateral sanctions on Sudan and putting Sudan on its list of alleged supporters of terrorism. As a result, Sudan has been cut off from conventional financing options such as loans from the World Bank Group (WBG), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and government bonds at the capital markets.

Today, there aren’t terrorists in Sudan. And Sudan isn’t a sponsor of terrorism. Unlike other countries in the region, such as Egypt, Yemen, and Somalia, Sudan has no problems with Islamist terrorism, does not face attacks by the Islamic State (ISIS), al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Sudan is one of the few countries in the region where these terrorist groups do not have a safe haven because there is a state that fights the terrorists and cooperates successfully with Western intelligence agencies for the purpose of countering terrorism.

Maas and his Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) seem to want to force a social-democratic regime change in Sudan against the will of the Sudanese people. Social Democrats play no role in Sudanese society and politics. Maas and his „important partners“ use the left-wing self-proclaimed revolutionary leader Mohammed Youssef Al-Mustafa. He is the former Minister of Labor, who is now over 70 years old and serves transatlantic interests as the face of change. Al-Mustafa is the one in Khartoum who shouts „democracy“ the loudest, but has only a minority of the people behind him.

It is due to the political pressure of the United States on Germany, why Sudan was excluded from the Berlin Conference. Once again, this showed the tremendous US influence on German foreign policy.

Since 1976, the SPD-affiliated Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) has become the only political foundation from Germany with a branch in Sudan and interferes in the internal affairs of the country, a violation of the sovereignty principle. Observations on the ground prove that FES employees support the revolutionaries. Philipp C. Jahn, head of the FES office in Khartoum, has already left the country and is now pulling the strings from the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. The interventions of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Sudan are financed by the German taxpayer, who thus lacks this money at home, for example for education, infrastructure or for the use of other charitable purposes.

Is Ethiopia an appropriate mediator in Sudan? A country that fails to protect its Chief of General Staff of the National Defence forces as well as high regional officials, should not neglect to remain national security and unity in its own country.

Berliner Sudankonferenz ohne Sudan

Am 21.06.2019 tagt in Berlin die Sudankonferenz. Sudan wurde von dieser Konferenz ausgeschlossen. Das ist eine falsche Entscheidung, die von Kanzlerin Angela Merkel und Außenminister Heiko Maas noch korrigiert werden sollte.

Wenn es auf einer Konferenz um Sudan geht, dann sollte an dieser Konferenz Sudan auch auf Augenhöhe mit am Konferenztisch sitzen.

Bereits am 17.05.2019 gab es die Konferenz des stellvertretenden US-Außenministers Tibor Nagy zum Sudan. Ein Foto aus dem Konferenzsaal zeigt, daß fast alle Teilnehmer dieser Konferenz Weiße waren.

In dieser Hinsicht hat sich für Afrika seit der Berliner Kongokonferenz 1884/85 nicht viel geändert. Afrika stand schon immer auf dem Speiseplan des (Neo-)Kolonialismus.

Nichts Aktuelles zu Christchurch, viel Aktuelles zu Notre-Dame


Am 15. April um 19:13 Uhr meldet die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur dpa ein Feuer in Notre-Dame. Die RBB Abendschau berichtet darüber um 19:58 Uhr. Die RBB Abendschau ist eine aktuelle Nachrichtensendung, die von 19:30 Uhr bis 20:00 Uhr sendet.

Quelle: RBB Abendschau vom 15.04.2019

Genau einen Monat zuvor: Am 15. März um 02:50 Uhr meldet dpa erstmals die Ereignisse, die als Terroranschläge von Christchurch in die Geschichte eingingen. Weltweit, auch in Berlin, trauern die Menschen um 50 Todesopfer.

Die Journalisten der Abendschau hatten seit der dpa-Meldung 17 Stunden und 10 Minuten Zeit, um in ihrer Nachrichtensendung am 15. März die vielfältigen Berliner und Brandenburger Reaktionen auf die Terroranschläge in Christchurch zu berichten. Doch die RBB Abendschau unterläßt die Berichterstattung über den Terror gegen Muslime.

Bei Notre-Dame gelang es der Abendschau innerhalb von 30 Minuten nach der der ersten dpa-Meldung zu berichten. Bei Christchurch schaffte es die Abendschau acht Tage lang nicht. Die Abendschau berichtet zum ersten und einzigen Mal am 22. März über Christchurch. Nachdem ich mich mit einer Programmbeschwerde an die Intendantin des RBB und an die Chefredaktion der Abendschau gewandt habe.

Die erste Antwort des RBB, es habe am 15. März keinen Berlin-Bezug zu Christchurch gegeben, kann ich durch meine eigene Recherche wie folgt widerlegen:

11:39 Uhr: Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin Michael Müller erklärt: „Ich bin mit den Berlinerinnen und Berlinern schockiert … Wir wissen aus unseren eigenen Berliner Erfahrungen, wie sehr solche Ereignisse langfristige traumatisierende Folgen … haben.“

14:00 Uhr: In Berliner Moscheen gedenken Zehntausende Muslime beim Freitagsgebet  der Opfer. Berliner Imame äußern ihr Mitgefühl und halten Schweigeminuten ab.

17:00 Uhr: Vor der Gedächtniskirche in Berlin versammeln sich Berliner Bürger auf einer „Kundgebung zur Solidarität mit den Opfern“, halten Schilder und eine Schweigeminute.

17:00 Uhr: Vor dem Brandenburger Tor in Berlin versammeln sich viele Berliner Bürger „zu einer Gedenkveranstaltung mit Gebet in Gedenken an die Opfer von Christchurch“.

18:30 Uhr: Hunderte Berliner verrichten ihr Abendgebet bei Wind und Regen auf dem Pariser Platz in Berlin für die Opfer des Terroranschlags. Was für beeindruckende Bilder!

Die Abendschau hatte mindestens fünf Möglichkeiten, am 15. März mit Berlin-Bezug über Christchurch zu berichten. Am 16. und 17. März gab es ebenfalls, zum Teil große Trauerkundgebungen in Berlin, zum Beispiel auf dem Tempelhofer Feld, wo Juden, Christen, Muslime und Atheisten gemeinsam sangen, trauerten, schwiegen, redeten.

Doch die RBB Abendschau vom 15., 16. und 17. März unterläßt auch am dritten Tage in Folge eine Berichterstattung zu den Anschlägen in Christchurch (trotz fortwährender aktueller Kundgebungen). In den Sendungen der RBB Abendschau vom 15, 16. und 17. April wird an drei Tagen in Folge über den Brand von Notre-Dame berichtet:

Quelle: RBB Abendschau vom 16.04.2019 (Rechtschreibfehler übernommen)

Daß die Abendschau über Notre-Dame in den ersten drei Tage nach dem Ereignis aktuell berichtet und über Christchurch erst am achten Tage nach dem Ereignis erstmals berichtet, zeigt, wie die Redaktion aktuelle Themen unterschiedlich gewichtet, je nachdem ob Christen oder Muslime unmittelbar betroffen sind.

Quelle: Martin Lejeune

Verbreitet Constanin Schreiber Fake News und bedient Islamfeindliche Vorurteile?

„Wir haben keinen Einfluss mehr auf den Kontext“, schrieb Internet-Pionier Jaron Lanier in seinem Bestseller „Zehn Gründe, warum du deine Social-Media-Accounts sofort löschen musst“. „Social Media schreddert Bedeutung. Was immer du sagst, gewinnt seine Bedeutung durch die Art und Weise, wie Algorithmen, Gruppen von Menschen und Gruppen von Fake-People – die ebenfalls Algorithmen sind – sie kontextualisieren und mit dem vermengen, was andere Leute sagen.“

Am 15.04.2019 twittert Tagesschau-Moderator Constantin Schreiber, dessen „Moscheereport“ nach Ansicht von Muslimen islamfeindliche Vorurteile bediene: „Arabische Reaktionen zu #notredame : ‚traurig‘ sagen die einen, ‚allahu akbar‘ die anderen.“ Schreiber hat in seinem Tweet vom 15.04.2109 das Zitat von asaad587 aus der arabischen in die lateinische Schrift übertragen:

Quelle: https://twitter.com/ConstSchreiber/status/1117859535480213504

Schreiber verbreitet mit seinem Tweet ein Foto, das die Antwort von asaad587 auf einen Tweet von Al Jazeera über das Feuer in Notre Dame zeigt. asaad587 antwortete Al Jazeera: „allahu akbar“:

Quelle: https://twitter.com/asaad587/status/1117853302987870210


Die von Schreiber zitierte Antwort von asaad587 an Al Jazeera ist ein Zeichen des Entsetzens, ähnlich dem deutschen „Oh mein Gott“. asaad587 reagiert demnach mit Entsetzen auf die Nachricht über den Brand in Notre Dame.

Schreiber zitiert asaad587 zwar korrekt, aber durch das Erschaffen eines neuen Kontexts in Bezug auf das Zitat von asaad587 bedient Schreiber islamfeindliche Vorurteile. Schreiber stellt in seinem Tweet vom 15.04.2019 den Ausruf des Entsetzens „Oh mein Gott“ dem „traurig“ der anderen entgegen. Als ob asaad587 mit Freunde anstatt mit Entsetzen reagiert habe auf die Nachricht über das Feuer in Notre Dame. Zumindest transportiert Schreiber diese Botschaft unterschwellig. Für seinen Tweet vom 15.04.2019 wird Schreiber von mir und anderen Journalisten kritisiert.

asaad587 sagt, daß er bei der von Schreiber zitierten Äußerung keinen bösen Gedanken hatte. Er sage „Oh mein Gott“ zu allen möglichen Anlässen. Das hätte Schreiber auch direkt erfahren können von asaad587, der innerhalb von Stunden auf Nachrichten antwortet.

Am 16.04.2019 twittert Schreiber: „Es kommt bei allahu akbar natürlich auf den Kontext an. Der zitierte User schrieb weiter: مع الزمن سوف تنهار امريكا“.

Quelle: https://twitter.com/ConstSchreiber/status/1118101028883312640


„مع الزمن سوف تنهار امريكا“ twittert asaad587 am 16.04.2019 nicht als Antwort auf die Nachricht über das Feuer in Notre Dame, sondern als Antwort auf einen Tweet von dr_naseer über Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, eine US-amerikanische Politikerin:

Quelle: https://twitter.com/asaad587/status/1117939223968063488

Käme es Schreiber bei der von ihm zitierten Äußerung „allahu akbar“ tatsächlich auf den Kontext an, dann müsste sich das Zitat „مع الزمن سوف تنهار امريكا“ von asaad587, dessen Schreibe sich bedient, auf das Feuer in Notre Dame beziehen. Schreiber reißt das Zitat von asaad587 aus dem Zusammenhang, weil es eine Antwort ist auf den Tweet von dr_naseer über Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Zudem hat Schreiben asaad587 verkürzt zitiert. Das Zitat von asaad587 lautet vollständig: „مع الزمن سوف تنهار امريكا لان عدد الملونين سوف يزداد ويصبح اغلبيه“

Schreiber entkontextualisiert die Zitate von asaad587 in einer Weise, auf welche islamfeindliche Vorurteile bedient werden können. Das kann Muslimen gefährlich werden.

Jeder kann mal Fehler machen. Wichtig ist, die Fehler zu korrigieren, wenn man darauf hingewiesen wird.

Böhmermann’s complaint against Federal Republic of Germany dismissed

Today, the Berlin Administrative Court decided that TV presenter Jan Böhmermann has no right to demand an omission of the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with statements of the Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel in a telephone conversation with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu regarding the so-called „poem“ on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turks.

In April 2016, the spokesman of the Federal Government of Germany announced that the German Chancellor and the Turkish Prime Minister had agreed that this so-called „poem“ was a „deliberately infringing text“.

The plaintiff Böhmermann considered himself injured in its basic rights by the statement of the Federal Chancellor Merkel as well as the statement of the spokesman of the Federal Government of Germany at the Federal Governmental Press Conference which reported about the phone call of Davutoğlu and Merkel.

In the pre-trial Böhmermann called on the Federal Chancellor in vain for a written cease and desist. In May 2018 Böhmermann sued the Federal Republic of Germany for omission; In the alternative, he sought the court’s ruling that the public statement „deliberately infringing“ of April 2016 was unlawful. The Berlin Administrative Court dismissed the action.

Böhmermann’s injunction was inadmissible, because a repetition of the offending statement was not to be expected. Merkel had already distanced herself from her statement in April 2016.

In addition, the defendant Merkel had ruled in the court proceedings a repetition. The public statement was not unlawful. The Chancellor could rely on her competence as head of state.

The constitutional requirements for state communication were respected, the objectivity requirement was not violated. The statement does not constitute a criminal conviction, but is an acceptable value judgment based solely on the text of the so-called „poem“.

In addition, the declaration had expressly emphasized the high value which the Federal Government attaches to the freedom of the press and expression. Therefore, it was irrelevant for the assessment of the utterance, whether the so-called „poem“ in the context considered allowed satire.

The public statement upholds the principle of proportionality. It is justified by the public’s interest in German-Turkish relations and by the aim of transparent government action. By contrast, the declaration did not entail undue disadvantages for the applicant.

The Turkish community in Germany accuses Böhmermann of having used racist clichés against Turks in his so-called „poem“. „That was no clever satire, that was an insult. Despite all legitimate criticism of Erdoğan’s policy, the partly racist images in the poem are unacceptable. Böhmermann have shot over the target“, said Gökay Sofuoğlu, chairman of Almanya Türk Toplumu, an association of liberal Turks in Germany which is in opposition of AKPARTİ.

The fact hat Sofuoğlu’s and other secular Turks in Germany heavily oppose Böhmermann’s so-called „poem“ proves that this „deliberately infringing text“ caused outrage among the Turks regardless of their political or religious orientation.

Berlin überlässt Gülenisten-naher Stiftung wertvolles Grundstück für einen Euro

Das House of One in Berlin ist ein Projekt einer Gülenisten-nahen Stiftung. Gülenisten waren laut Gerichtsurteilen 2016 verantwortlich für einen blutigen Putschversuch in der Türkei. Selbst wenn das Land Berlin die Gülenisten derzeit noch nicht als Terrorgruppe einstuft, so warnt laut Medienberichten ein deutscher Geheimdienst vor Gülenisten. „Der Umstand, daß Aussteiger aus der Gülen-Bewegung bislang anonym bleiben, kann kaum als ein Indiz für Meinungs- und Entscheidungsfreiheit der Anhänger Gülens gewertet werden“, heißt es in einem deutschen Geheimdienst-Bericht.

Die Unternehmerin Frau Catherine von Fürstenberg Dussmann hat wohl die Gefährlichkeit der Gülenisten erkannt und sich als Förderin des House of One zurückgezogen.

Das Grundstück liegt in einer guten und begehrten Lage: zwischen Amazon’s zukünftigem Vorzeigeladen, Fraser’s Capri Hotel, Accor’s Novotel und dem Haus der Deutschen Wirtschaft, dem Sitz der drei Spitzenorganisationen der deutschen Industrie.

Weshalb wird es für einen Euro einer Stiftung für 99 Jahre zur Nutzung überlassen und nicht vermietet? Ist das Abgeordnetenhaus, in dem die SPD über die meisten Sitze verfügt, mit öffentlichem Eigentum verantwortungsvoll verfahren? Wurde das Gemeinwohl berücksichtigt?

Auch wenn die Gülenisten in Berlin noch nicht als Gefährder eingestuft sind, so wäre doch allein die Überlassung eines öffentlichen Grundstücks weit unter Verkehrswert brisant. Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin, Michael Müller, ist von der SPD. Einer Quelle zufolge sind viele Gülenisten in der SPD organisiert.

Wenn man bedenkt, daß der Berliner Bürgermeister Müller zeitgleich mit dem umstrittenen 1-Euro-Deal den Vorsitz des Kuratoriums der Stiftung House of One übernahm, müßte die Opposition eigentlich einen Untersuchungsausschuss anregen. Auch SPD-Staatssekretärin Sawsan Chebli gilt als Unterstützerin des House of One.

Böhmermann v. Federal Republic of Germany

On 16 April 2019, the administrative court in Berlin is negotiating an injunction of plaintiff Jan Böhmermann – an entertainer of public broadcaster ZDF – against the Federal Republic of Germany and its bodies Chancellery as well as Press and Information Office of the Federal Government of Germany. According to a court spokesman, a verdict is expected for the same day.

On 3 April 2016, in a phone conversation with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said about Böhmermann’s so-called „poem“ on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turks that it was „deliberately infringing“. Böhmermann wants to achieve that Merkel is forbidden to say that his so-called „poem“ is „deliberately infringing“. Böhmermann also wants the Federal Republic of Germany to delete the remark „deliberately hurtful“ from protocols and from the website https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en

The so-called „poem“ which was broadcasted by ZDF:

„Dumb as a bag, cowardly and uptight

that’s what Erdoğan the President is.

His privates reek awfully of doner kebab,

even a pig fart smells nicer.

He’s the man who beats up girls

while he’s wearing rubber masks.

Most of all he likes fucking goats

and oppressing minorities,

kicking Kurds, whacking Christians

while watching child porn.

And even in the evenings, instead of sleep,

it’s all about fellatio with a hundred sheep.

Yes, Erdoğan is totally

a President with a small cock.

Every Turk is heard to warble,

that stupid twat has got wrinkled balls.

From Ankara to İstanbul

everyone knows, that man is gay,

perverted, lice-ridden and zoophile,

Recep Fritzl Přiklopil*.

His head as empty as his balls,

the star at every gangbang party

until his cock burns while peeing.

That’s Recep Erdoğan, the Turkish President.“

(*Fritzl Přiklopil was a sexual offender who kidnapped a ten years young girl in 1998 and sexually abused her for eight years until 2006)

Around three million Turks live in Germany. The so-called „poem“ caused an outcry among most of them. Most Turks – including those who politically oppose Erdoğan – think that Merkel was right to call so-called „poem“ „deliberately infringing“ as they think it is insulting a Turkish leader beyond the limits of permissible criticism.

The so-called „poem“ is seen amongst most Turks in Germany as rather anti-Turkish than anti-Erdoğan. Also a large majority of Turks are Muslims and do not feel comfortable with certain phrases which they consider to be Islamophobic.