Opinion
Yellowhair case: #Metoo allegations are a weapon
The harassment allegations against the Green politician are partly fabricated. Anyone who asks “Cui bono?”, i.e. “Who benefits from it?”, should do some research – or just keep their mouth shut.
In the #Metoo context, even the accusation is a weapon. Because the suspicion becomes an accusation, becomes a judgment – and the punishment usually follows immediately. The Stefan Gelbhaar case is a prime example of this mechanism. He has set in motion a drama with many dimensions – political, media and most likely various personal.
Before Christmas, several women had made serious allegations against the Green Party member of the Bundestag in Berlin, involving border crossings, touching, unwanted kisses and, in one particularly serious case, even potential rape – possibly with the use of knockout drops. because Anna K.” couldn’t remember everything.
Obliged to remain silent
The allegations were reported anonymously to an internal Green party ombudsman, and everyone involved was obliged to remain publicly silent. Yellowhair was therefore unable to defend herself against it. A little later, the allegations were brought to the Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (RBB) – and published. The allegations from “Anna K.”
Only now they have apparently turned out to be wrong. According to the latest research by “Tagesspiegel” and RBB, there is no “Anna K.”, just a green district politician who probably invented her story. They concern the hard core of the allegations.
Now the Greens have a problem. And the RBB. Because anyone who spreads such accusations into the world must be careful not to inevitably become a combatant themselves – in a possibly just war, but perhaps also in a personal vendetta or a political battle.
Possibility becomes fact, accusation becomes judgment
It’s a dilemma. The media must therefore only report on such cases with particular caution. There is usually talk of “presumably”, “should” and “could” and “it is said” – but that is often not enough to prevent the subjunctive from becoming the indicative in the readers’ minds. From possibility to fact. From the accusation the verdict. With all the real consequences for those affected.
Gelbhaar’s personal reputation is extremely damaged and his political career is abruptly ended for the time being. He gave up second place on the Berlin state list for the federal election. He will probably no longer defend the direct mandate that he won in the Pankow constituency, because last week the Greens repeated the vote on the constituency candidacy and elected a replacement candidate. For purely political reasons, of course, because the unexplained suspicion is putting such a strain on the party’s election campaign. No offence.
What should you do? The suspicion, the sheer number of cases, the wealth of details. And last but not least, the “affidavits”, including those from “Anna K.”. It just doesn’t protect you from lies. Because such statements made to journalists only have the legal value of a – pardon my French – “Indian word of honor”. After all, according to Section 156 of the Criminal Code, only those who make a declaration “on oath” to an authority are liable to prosecution. Some of the company’s employees may experience it differently, but the RBB is not one of those.
What’s even worse is that such a declaration can only be formally made by someone who clearly identifies themselves. Which in this case is logically excluded, because “Anna K.” Apparently only exists in the head of a Green district politician with a different name – and therefore has neither an identity card nor a passport with which she could have clearly identified herself to the RBB reporters.
However, Gelbhaar’s political career is over for the time being. The Pankow district association is examining what can be done now. Not all allegations have been resolved; various open questions remain.
If you have questions, you need to do some research
How susceptible to abuse are the Green Party’s internal procedures, in which victim protection has priority and absolute silence otherwise applies?
What does this mean for the credibility of the other allegations that have been made against the Green politician?
What does RBB learn from the mistakes in its reporting, which the station has now taken completely offline?
But above all it is a question that is often asked: Cui bono? Who benefits from it? is the whisper on social (and some anti-social) media.
Second place on the Green state list for the federal election did not go to Stefan Gelbhaar, but to Andreas Audretsch – and he is, after all, Habeck’s confidante. And last week, the Pankow Greens chose a young woman, Julia Schneider, as their replacement constituency candidate.
Of course, “Cui bono?” a rhetorical question, the continuation of suspicious reporting in its politically perfidious form. It is the “nightingale-ick-hear-you-traps” of a supposed political journalism that pretends to know more – but in reality can do no more than whisper.
Who “Cui bono?” asks, should research, should ask questions to those responsible, those affected, those who know and those who know, should check facts and find errors and research until he or she knows a few answers. Until then you could just keep your mouth shut. Otherwise this unworthy spectacle of suspicion will go into the next round.
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
