display

No, it is not a case of “Cancel Culture” when you realize: The author, publicist and YouTuber Gunnar Kaiser spoke out in a post on Facebook on January 28, 2021 as a participant in the debate about sense and nonsense, opportunities and damage of Corona measures completely disqualified.

One has to quote Kaiser's speech in full to appreciate its enormity.

“Do older people,” he asks, “who accept without complaint that 'in their name' and 'for their protection' children and young people are frightened, they develop disorders and neuroses, suffer so much from isolation and loneliness, that among them the suicide rate is increasing significantly, that for almost a year they have only had a cheap copy of education, can no longer play carefree and pursue their hobbies, they are neglected at home, and even small children had to wear masks for eight hours a day in summer and a whole younger generation will have to vouch for future debts and social and economic consequential damage ... "- Kaiser adds a paragraph here -" ... have older people who accept this and happily accept it for a few more years of their own, these years of life then earned? "

It does not matter whether one understands this long question as a rhetorical one, the answer of which has already been determined, or as an actual question to which an answer is still being sought.

And it doesn't matter how one assesses the claims that Kaiser makes on this question about the consequences of the Corona measures: whether they represent alarmist exaggerations or accurate descriptions, whether they are completely out of thin air or have a core of truth does not matter here.

You can discuss all of this.

But not with Kaiser

display

Of course, you can discuss everything that Kaiser lists in terms of the disastrous consequences of lockdown, contact restrictions, mask requirements and school closings.

You can substantiate it with numbers, evaluate it, assess it, estimate it, find it right or wrong.

One can specify or reject individual cases, affirm or doubt their exemplariness.

But all of this is already being discussed, controversial and emotional, unforgiving or constructive, factual and less factual.

And of course all of this should be discussed in a free society.

But not with Gunnar Kaiser.

Because with the question of whether a person in this country has “earned a few years of life” or not, a red line has been crossed that overshadows everything that could be right or wrong in this question to a degree states that a discussion in the context of this question is no longer possible.

That human dignity is inviolable, that the right to life and physical integrity exists for every individual in this country is enshrined in our constitution.

Even if these principles, as the President of the Bundestag Wolfgang Schäuble indicated last year in connection with the corona pandemic, can come into conflict with one another, they remain principles that cannot be shaken.

display

And from these principles it follows that any speculation about who has earned a living or not is forbidden.

That is the basis of our coexistence.

Kaiser also had his say in this newspaper

Gunnar Kaiser became known to a larger audience last autumn as a co-initiator of an “appeal for open debate rooms”.

This appeal complains that a deliberate narrowing of what can be said and discussed in this country can be observed.

It is pointed out that such a “cancel culture” poses a threat to our democratic coexistence.

One can respond in different ways to this “appeal”, which intellectuals, artists and publicists have signed and which took a similar initiative in the USA from the summer as a model.

He was publicized and of public interest.

In this newspaper, too, Kaiser and his co-initiator were given the opportunity to explain the goals of their intervention in an interview.

display

When Gunnar Kaiser, after moderating an event organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in December 2020, was publicly accused by the foundation of “working with right-wing populist and conspiracy-theoretical ideas”, DIE WELT criticized the way Kaiser was dealt with.

In accordance with the principles of a good culture of debate, both the Foundation's chairman, Karl-Heinz Paqué, and Kaiser himself were given the opportunity to comment on the matter.

Unprecedented brutalization of the debate

Gunnar Kaiser's recent comments on Facebook must also be seen in the context of an unprecedented escalation dynamic that can be observed in the discussion about the corona pandemic and the measures to combat it, especially on social media, but also on the streets of this country.

It goes hand in hand with a terrifying brutalisation of the discourse.

Recently, a fake "declaration of consent" made the rounds on Facebook, Twitter and Co., with which those who denied the existence of the pandemic or the danger that Covid-19 poses to life and limb, in the event of illness, to one could do without medical care.

Prof. Dr.

Wolfram Henn, human geneticist at Saarland University and member of the Federal Government's Ethics Council, came across a similar horn when he addressed the anti-vaccination counterparts in Germany in December: "If you want to refuse vaccination at all, you should, please, too always carry a document with you that says: 'I don't want to be vaccinated!

I want to leave protection against the disease to others!

If I get sick, I want to leave my intensive care bed and ventilator to someone else. '”It was obvious that this was more than a request to regulate what should happen in an emergency in terms of a living will.

But although it is legitimate for someone to declare that they do not want certain forms of treatment in the event of illness, it must not be legitimate to suggest this to them.

On Sunday three weeks ago there was finally a woman among those who had gathered in front of the private house of Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer who had written the following words on a cardboard sign: "Whoever engages in genocide has forfeited his or her right to life".

This has reached an escalation level that is second to none.

This also made it clear how vocal, vulgar and perfidious the enemies of the basic consensus that must prevail in this country so that it does not fall apart have become.

Here you can listen to our WELT podcasts

We use the player from the provider Podigee for our WELT podcasts.

We need your consent so that you can see the podcast player and to interact with or display content from Podigee and other social networks.

Activate social networks

I consent to content from social networks being displayed to me.

This allows personal data to be transmitted to third party providers.

This may require the storage of cookies on your device.

More information can be found here.

It has to be repeated: in this country we have given ourselves certain rules and agreed on certain values.

One of these rules is that the unconditional right to life and human dignity must not be shaken.

Whoever breaks these rules is breaking with society, which has given itself these rules with good reason.

It is no coincidence that the formulation of these rules dates from a time that followed the darkest years of Germany.

During these years, the principle of the unconditional right to life was suspended with unprecedented consistency.

When, on the evening of January 28th, one day after the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, Gunnar Kaiser makes considerations that could result in certain members of this society not “deserving” to live because they “ Accept without complaint ”or“ happily accept ”, this is how Kaiser removed himself from the circle of those who have given themselves these rules and who share these values.

This statement does not call into question Gunnar Kaiser's freedom of expression.

No, it is not a case of “cancel culture”.

Whether his statements are within the scope of the legally guaranteed freedom of expression or not cannot be decided here.

That can only be a matter for a court.

It is not a case of “Cancel Culture” when one realizes that Gunnar Kaiser, who relativizes the unconditional right to life, which is a cornerstone of our society, is no longer an option until further notice.