In Berlin, the Volksbühne transformed the street in front of its premises into a public swimming pool this summer. It was named Volksbad: twenty-five metres of water, free of charge, with no identification required, for a duration of eight weeks, as an intervention in a city where public space is increasingly privatised and subject to control. Within this programme, which included days reserved for various groups, a six-hour afternoon session was allocated to an association, EOTO, to allow a group of Black children and young people to spend an afternoon of their holiday in the water. That afternoon did not take place. It was cancelled due to threats.

A public swimming pool was not closed to white people; rather, six hours out of an eight-week schedule were reserved for a children's activity organised by a collective working with the Afro-descendant population, as a measure for a group experiencing structural disadvantage: the same practice employed, without controversy, when scheduling specific times for the elderly, individuals with disabilities, or women. The institution and the collective presented it as such. What circulated subsequently was a different narrative: a version claiming that the majority were being excluded based on the colour of their skin. There is a chasm between these two descriptions, and that chasm did not emerge in isolation.

A campaign was constructed upon this distorted version. The co-chair of the German far-right invoked the term 'apartheid'; the party disseminated claims that 'open racial segregation' was being funded by taxpayers. Following this, as reported by the collective and the theatre itself, and corroborated by German public media, emails containing racist threats and threats of violence were received. I have not viewed the messages and assert only what has been verified: a report of threats was filed, supported by both affected parties and documented by reputable press. This sufficed to ensure that neither the theatre nor the collective could guarantee the safety of the children, even with private security and police presence. Consequently, they cancelled.

Cancellation, under those circumstances, was the appropriate course of action. When the physical safety of children cannot be guaranteed, the protection of those children is paramount; no cause, however righteous, justifies placing a minor at risk. Those who made that decision acted as duty required. The issue does not lie there. The issue lies in what has transpired to render that the only viable decision, and what society learns from the fact that it was.

For what has been demonstrated is that intimidation is effective. A group of individuals determined that a swimming session for Black children should not take place, orchestrated a campaign based on a falsehood, introduced threats, and the session did not occur. They achieved precisely their objective. They did not persuade anyone, they did not prevail in any debate, they did not present any argument that could withstand scrutiny: they merely increased the cost until continuation became impossible. And they succeeded.

That is the true cost of the veto, and it is not borne solely by those deprived of their swimming session. It is borne by the next in line. For each instance in which a threat succeeds in causing a cancellation, it is recorded as a proven method, and the method is repeated, for there is no incentive to alter what functions. The subsequent institution planning a similar activity will deliberate twice, not out of conviction but out of calculation: to avoid exposure. The threat does not require repetition in every instance; it suffices for it to have functioned once for the next party to self-censor, before anyone is required to dispatch a single communication. The most effective veto is that which no longer requires exercise because all parties have learned to anticipate it.

And it is here that responsibility shifts to those who truly possess it, which is not the theatre that protected the children. It lies with those who issued the threats, evidently, but also with a public structure that permitted the threat to prevail. The Berlin Senator for Culture stated it accurately: it is unacceptable for projects to be cancelled due to intimidation. Yet stating this is insufficient. If the State does not guarantee that a legal and protected activity may proceed in the face of those who threaten it, it is, in effect, delegating to the aggressor the authority to determine what occurs in the public sphere. It is granting them a power of veto that does not belong to them and which no one has conferred, merely to avoid assuming the cost of confronting them.

There was considerable discussion, in this instance, regarding whether an afternoon reserved for Black children constituted discrimination. It is a debate that may be held, although the conclusion—that a temporary measure for those experiencing disadvantage is not a privilege—appears clear to me. However, to focus solely on that is to lose sight of the gravity of the situation, which is that the entity that decided those six hours should not exist was not the theatre, nor the collective, nor the City Council, nor any legitimate authority. It was the one who issued the threats. And as long as intimidation remains a functional method, that entity will continue to decide.

On open conversation

This text originates from a specific case in Berlin, yet it does not concern Germany, nor do I intend to arbitrate the local debate: I am interested in the mechanism, the cost of a threat successfully cancelling an activity, and the signal that this transmits to the next instance. I accept as established that which is maintained by the affected parties and reported by the German public press, and I distinguish the reporting of threats from what a judicial authority would be required to prove. Should anyone wish to intervene from the perspectives of cultural management, the security of public spaces, law, or the experience of organising activities exposed to this type of pressure, this discourse remains open.

Sources

Volksbühne Berlin. Statements regarding the VOLKSBAD at Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz (7 August – 1 October 2026) and regarding the cancellation of the activity with EOTO e.V. (statements by Matthias Lilienthal).

EOTO e.V. (Each One Teach One). Statement regarding the invitation of 14 August 2026 and its cancellation due to threats.

Tagesschau / rbb and ZDF: coverage of the cancellation and the reported threats; statements from Cansel Kiziltepe (Senator for Integration) and Stefan Evers (Senator for Culture) of Berlin.

Deutsche Welle and Berliner Zeitung: political reactions (AfD, FDP) and characterisation of the public debate.