The “shoot first, ask questions later” philosophy has a prominent new champion: Wolfram Weimer, Germany’s minister for culture. Or, as his critics say, minister for culture wars.
On March 19, Weimer – a close friend of chancellor Friedrich Merz – was meant to present the Buchhandlungspreis (Booksellers’ Prize) at the Leipzig Book Fair. Days before the ceremony, however, that was cancelled. According to Weimer’s office, it had become “almost impossible to pay the winners the tribute they deserve” in the current context: meaning a hostile environment. The hostility has largely been created by Weimer himself.
Since 2015, the Bundesrepublik has honoured small, independent bookshops with grants ranging from €7,000 to €25,000. A pleasant gesture in the Land der Dichter und Denker (the land of poets and thinkers, as Germany likes to style itself).
Measured against current economic pressures (the bookshop on my street has just shut down), the annual €1m budget is hardly a rescue package. But it is still taxpayers’ money, which shouldn’t fall into the wrong hands.
So Weimer’s staff looked into the 118 bookstores recommended by the Buchhandlungspreis jury. And removed three of them from the list – after Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Bundesverfassungsschutz, reported “findings relevant to the protection of the constitution”.
When this decision leaked, critics immediately denounced an “attack on the independent cultural scene”, creating “a climate of pre-censorship”. Comparisons with the US quickly followed, as though Weimer – author of The Conservative Manifesto – had begun banning queer books from libraries.
Instead, he had applied a long-standing procedure allowing federal ministries to consult the Bundesverfassungsschutz before awarding public funds. In this case, Germany’s MI5 raised concerns about bookshops in Bremen and Göttingen, as well as a Berlin store called Zur schwankenden Weltkugel (The Wobbling Globe).
What I found there was a small, neatly organised shop with sections such as Antifascism, Antisemitism, Antiziganism, Left ’68, The Left of the 1970s, Global Autonomous Left Movements of the 1980s and Situationists – whatever they may be.
Opposite sat a modest section labelled Alcohol, Tobacco, Intoxication. Next to it: Weeds and Flowers. The booklet Hemp seemed undecided and was in between.
I also spotted books by Holocaust survivor Margot Friedländer, as well as recent titles by Gisèle Pelicot and Peter Neumann, professor at King’s College London. A newspaper rack carried assorted Antifa publications. On the wall, a poster offered protest tips: “Attention: Bullen (derogatory for cops) aren’t always recognisable as such.”
You’ve guessed correctly: the shop sits firmly on the left. As do the other two.
Suggested Reading
The Telegraph’s new German owner is going to interfere
That alone, the ministry insists, wouldn’t disqualify them from the prize. But if the Verfassungsschutz is suspicious… The trouble is that the precise grounds for these suspicions are known only to the spooks.
Weimer could have asked further questions. Instead, he took the booksellers off the list – only for them to read in the news that they were, apparently, enemies of the state.
I asked the co-owner of the Berlin store whether she had any idea as to why. “We haven’t changed,” she replied simply, “but the political climate has.”
Browsing her store, I failed to see manuals on building Molotov cocktails or invitations to workshops on How to Overthrow the Republic. Then again, the Verfassungsschutz may have relevant intel. If only we knew.
When I phoned the shop’s lawyer, she questioned the legal basis for consulting the intelligence service and lambasted the “opaque” procedures.
All three bookshops are now preparing legal action – understandably. It’s equally understandable, however, that there should be no public financing for institutions “that contain elements hostile to the constitution”, as Weimer told the parliamentary committee.
The concern is not entirely far-fetched. There have been isolated cases of public funds channelled through front organisations for Islamist terrorism. Awards to far left institutions, meanwhile, are repeatedly seized upon by the far right as proof of alleged state bias.
All of which is reason enough to shield public award schemes from such risks. The trick is to do so transparently and on a sound legal footing.
