The guest commentary by André Langerfeld, former direct candidate for the Free Voters in Meißen, on the situation in Riesa during the AfD party conference raises questions about journalistic responsibility and the role of opinion pieces. With rhetoric that criminalizes protesters across the board and distorts reality, the text contributes more to division than to a well-founded debate. A critical classification is urgently needed.
1. Political position and intention behind the commentary
André Langerfeld's political position as a former candidate for the Free Voters already suggests a possible party-political agenda. The guest commentary does not take a neutral stance, but seems to aim to portray protest movements in the worst possible light. This strategy seems less like an attempt to inform and more like a deliberate staging to discredit progressive movements.
The choice to publish such a commentary without clear categorization should be critically questioned. What editorial standards were applied here, and how is the responsibility to contribute to the democratic debate perceived instead of spreading polarizing opinions without comment?
2. The construction of a "combat zone"
Langerfeld's description of Riesa as a "combat zone" is a clear distortion of reality. The guest commentary uses emotionally charged terms that are deliberately intended to create an image of chaos and violence. In fact, the protest was characterized by a clear, non-violent orientation. A wide variety of groups agreed on the consensus that the demonstrators would not escalate the situation. This consensus was supported by preparatory training sessions in which they practised withstanding violence - for example police interventions - in order to remain peaceful themselves.
The forms of protest, especially sit-in blockades, were explicitly geared towards de-escalation. Even potentially harmless objects such as scissors from sani kits were removed to avoid any misunderstanding. The portrayal of Riesa as a "combat zone" therefore lacks any factual basis and obviously serves to delegitimize legitimate protest.
3. The state and the question of tolerance
One central aspect that is completely ignored in the commentary is the role of the state in this context. The protesters were directed against a party that is classified as far-right by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and whose ideology is in direct contradiction to the fundamental values of democracy. Instead of seeing the peaceful protests as an expression of democracy in action, the state reacted with disproportionate police action.
The escalation on the part of the authorities shows how little progress has been made so far in the political and social confrontation with anti-democratic forces. Instead of perceiving the protest as a warning signal against the increasing normalization of right-wing extremist positions, it was treated as a disturbance to be suppressed.
The inability to resolve peaceful sit-in blockades without violence is all the more serious. If a democratic state is unable to withstand non-violent protest, the question arises as to whether it is still sufficiently living the values it is supposed to protect. This is where the so-called tolerance paradox comes into play: a society that tolerates intolerance risks undermining its own basis for existence.
4. Absurd equations and the defamation of protesters
The commentary reaches its peak of absurdity by placing groups such as "OMAS against the right" and trade unions in the vicinity of extremism. This equation not only fails to recognize the peaceful intentions of the movement, but also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of civil society engagement. Such statements do not contribute to objectifying the debate, but rather deliberately serve the narratives of right-wing actors who are trying to discredit any form of resistance.
Conclusion: Responsibility of journalism
The guest commentary by André Langerfeld is a lesson in how journalistic platforms can contribute to the spread of distorted and polarizing representations by uncritically publishing opinion pieces. The media have a special responsibility to carefully scrutinize and classify articles - especially when they concern political movements and fundamental democratic rights.
The protests in Riesa were not "combat operations", but an expression of civil society's responsibility to take a peaceful stand against an extreme right-wing party. Anyone who stages this engagement as a threat is not questioning the protesters, but democracy.
That's my opinion and yours?
