Cologne, beneath the surface
The Establishment
The fact that many of the perpetrators were refugees or immigrants initially produced a false polarization: asylum rights versus women’s rights. Public reactions ranged from hysteria to outright denial. Suddenly, the German establishment—previously celebrated for welcoming over a million refugees—along with the pro-refugee movement and large sections of the Left, including feminists, found themselves paralyzed by a manufactured dilemma: should they defend women’s rights or refugee rights?
Operating with a paternalistic “big brother” mentality, German authorities—police and media alike—initially covered up the events for several days. Even after the assaults became public knowledge, the state continued to obscure the identities of the perpetrators out of fear of empowering the far right. This fear explains much of the establishment’s response. The Merkel government’s subsequent move to ease deportations for criminal offenses represents a clear concession to right-wing pressure. Germany and Sweden, both frustrated by the lack of solidarity from other EU states and under increasing domestic pressure, have used these events as justification to curb refugee admissions. Since New Year’s Eve, Germany has returned an average of 200 refugees per day to Austria.
Much of the Left identified racism as the “main danger.” This faction—often described as the pro-Islamist Left—downplayed the sexual assaults and instead promoted conspiracy theories, fueled in part by the state’s initial cover-up. They blamed imperialism or the German government itself, claiming the assaults were orchestrated to justify deportations. Some came close to suggesting that racists disguised themselves as migrants to frame refugees. Such claims border on the absurd.
Feminists initially adopted a more reasonable stance, rallying under the banner of “anti-sexism, anti-racism.” However, many ultimately reduced the root cause of the assaults to misandry euphemistically labeled “patriarchy.” Their argument—that violence against women is the universal outcome of male dominance regardless of culture or religion—fails to explain why violence against women is demonstrably more prevalent in Islam-dominated societies. Patriarchy is not genetic; it is social. It is produced by unequal social relations and reinforced by political power. While capitalism reproduces patriarchy, equality-seeking socialist movements have significantly reduced it in some countries—Sweden being a prime example. By contrast, Islamic-ruled societies institutionalize patriarchy through law, resulting in extreme violence against women. There is a fundamental difference between a woman stoned to death for adultery in Iran and a woman whose husband commits marital rape in Sweden and is criminally prosecuted.
Misogyny is embedded in Islamic doctrine and systematically enforced in Islamic states and movements. On December 27, 2015, Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani admitted at a summit of Islamic states that “84 percent of global violence, terror, and killings take place in the Islamic world.” Feminist explanations that ignore this reality are at best irrelevant and at worst deliberately deceptive.
These justifications—evasion, conspiracy, and irrelevance—reflect collective shock. The shock is genuine. Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas captured it when he said, “No one can tell me this wasn’t coordinated and prepared.”
The Collapse of Multiculturalism
This shock stems from the collapse of a foundational ideology that has shaped European policy for over two decades: multiculturalism. Governments, the pro-Islamist Left, and much of the feminist movement supported multiculturalism for different reasons, but all relied on its core practices—especially identity politics. Central to this was the assignment of a religious identity to Middle Eastern and North African populations.
What first appeared to be a false conflict of rights turned out to be an irreconcilable contradiction within multiculturalism itself. Maas’s later statement—“Cultural background justifies nothing. Men and women have equal rights”—perfectly illustrates the bankruptcy of multicultural policy. When faced with reality, even its defenders are forced to revert to universal rights rather than cultural relativism.
Assigning a religious identity to immigrants benefited both Islamists and racists. Islamist organizations used state-recognized religious identities to claim representation, demand Islamic schools, cultural centers, sharia-based accommodations, and public funding. This policy fostered segregation under the guise of protection from “radical Islam,” but in reality created isolated communities where misogyny flourished and Islamist recruitment thrived. Racists, in turn, exploited the same identity framework to scapegoat “Muslims” collectively.
In short, if multiculturalism was meant to be a centrist solution, Cologne exposed its complete failure. The January 9 demonstrations in Cologne reflected this breakdown: 1,700 PEGIDA supporters faced only 1,300 counter-demonstrators. Polls soon showed that 60 percent of Germans opposed accepting more refugees.
The Ultra-Right
For the far right, the events were a political gift. Without effort, they were handed a blank check—payable to their favorite scapegoats: refugees and immigrants. Ultra-right parties have already moved from the margins to the mainstream across Europe, securing parliamentary representation in numerous countries. Cologne will further entrench them unless the radical left re-enters the political debate. The establishment’s failure—and its suppression of leftist critique—has allowed racism to migrate into mainstream politics. This explains why governments initially covered up the assaults: they feared a shift in the balance of power that could weaken parties such as the SPD and CDU.
The Radical Left
A minority on the radical Left initially suspected Islamist orchestration of the attacks—an unproven but plausible hypothesis. Unlike the pro-Islamist Left, this current consistently criticizes both political Islam and Western accommodation of Islamists. Yet it is routinely marginalized and silenced, while mosques and Islamic schools receive state endorsement.
I consider myself part of this Left. From this perspective, the root causes are clear:
The assaults were largely committed by young, single male refugees and immigrants—a small minority of the total refugee population.
Refugees are victims of injustice and war, but “refugee” is not synonymous with equality or progressive values.
Violence against women exists everywhere, but it is maximized in societies where misogyny is institutionalized by the state.
Western multiculturalism empowers Islamist organizations that reproduce misogyny within Europe.
Assigning religious identities encourages segregation and Islamist-controlled communities, perpetuating misogyny across generations.
Most asylum seekers are forward-looking people fleeing political Islam; the long-term danger lies in second- and third-generation radicalization fostered by isolation.
Criminals—Islamist or racist—must face legal consequences. But repression alone is insufficient. Any lasting solution must be secular, rooted in universal rights, and committed to equality.
What Can Be Done?
Combating sexism and racism requires a political, practical approach involving refugees, workers, progressive organizations, and the state. In the mid and long term, refugees must organize independently around universal equality—rejecting religious representation and cultural relativism. Such organizations would undermine Islamists and resist racism simultaneously.
The immediate response must be unequivocal condemnation of misogyny and racism alike. Refugees should join workers’ movements, socialist organizations, and women’s rights groups to confront the shared interests of racists, Islamists, and the pro-Islamist establishment. Though marginalized, the secular, anti-Islamist radical Left remains the crucial link between workers, women, and refugees.
Comments
Post a Comment