In Berlin this summer, the Volksbühne transformed the street in front of its building into a public swimming pool. It was named Volksbad: twenty-five metres of water, free of charge, with no identification required, for a duration of eight weeks. Within this programme, which included days reserved for various groups, one six-hour afternoon was allocated to an association, EOTO, to allow a group of Black children and young people to enjoy an afternoon of their holidays 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 programme were reserved for a children's activity organised by a group that works with the Afro-descendant population. This is consistent with standard practice when scheduling specific times for the elderly, persons with disabilities, or women. The institution and the organisation 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 of events. The co-chair of the German far-right party spoke of 'apartheid'; the party disseminated claims that 'open racial segregation' was being funded by taxpayers. From that point, emails containing racist threats and threats of violence ensued. I have not viewed the messages and I assert only what has been verified: a report of threats was filed, supported by both affected parties and documented by reputable press outlets. This sufficed to ensure that neither the theatre nor the organisation could guarantee the safety of the children, even with private security and police presence. Consequently, they cancelled.
Cancellation was the correct course of action. When the physical safety of children cannot be guaranteed, one protects the children, and that is final. Those who made that decision acted as they were obliged to do. The issue lies in what has transpired to render that the only possible 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.
It is here that responsibility shifts to those who truly bear 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: projects must not be cancelled due to intimidation. However, stating this is insufficient. If the State does not guarantee that a legal and protected activity can proceed in the face of those who threaten it, it is effectively delegating the decision regarding what occurs in the public sphere. It is granting a power of veto that does not belong to them and which no one has conferred, simply to avoid the cost of confronting them.
In this instance, there was considerable discussion regarding whether an afternoon reserved for Black children constituted discrimination. This is a debate that may be held, although the answer—that a temporary measure for those experiencing disadvantage is not a privilege—appears clear to me. Yet, focusing solely on that is to overlook the gravity of the situation: the entity that decided those six hours should not exist was not the theatre, nor the organisation, nor the City Council, nor any legitimate authority. It was those who issued the threats. And as long as threatening remains an effective method, they will continue to decide.
On the 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.