A revelation does not want to become a scandal

Scandals have their regularity, one might think: The revelation is followed by the media and politicians charging and enriching it, it ends in a resignation, an apology or criminal proceedings, sometimes even in changes to the law. But, of course, only if the media professionals making the revelations have worked seriously. However, even nasty accusations end without scandal if nobody wants to be outraged, whatever the motives (consideration? dependency?).

Specifically: In Weltwoche, the retired journalist Urs Paul Engeler publishes a total slating of FDP President Philipp Müller, based on SVP positions. However, he also mentions: "In a witty conversation with good colleagues, he warns (always with a cowardly ban on quoting him verbatim) of an 'impending negation' of Switzerland." He also describes Müller as anti-African. As a reminder: Müller began his national political career as a propagandist of xenophobic issues and initiatives, usually without making defamatory remarks about foreigners. This was in contrast to the traditional xenophobes, such as the Swiss Democrats (SD). However, the aim of the political initiatives was no different: to make it more difficult for foreigners to enter and settle in Switzerland and to weaken their rights, whether in terms of entry, the labor market or access to political rights. This is still the case today. Just recently, the FDP party president called on the Council of States to follow the National Council's anti-naturalization stance on the new naturalization law.

There is another story: In spring 2002, Müller writes to the columnist, also the author of the chronology "Racism in Switzerland": it seems to him "very questionable that a publication deals exclusively with incidents involving foreigners". It is in the nature of racism and discrimination that it is directed against minorities, even if the victims have a Swiss passport. The columnist also cites an attack by three young Swiss men on a Swiss man of black skin as evidence. Müller dismisses this with the comment that the victim was hardly recognizable as a typical Swiss. So is he a Swiss with limited rights? Engeler's accusation is explosive; the terms "Vernegerung" and "Verjudung" come from National Socialist jargon, not to mention the fact that the term "Negro" is derogatory. But it was not until two days later that the Tages-Anzeiger published a carefully worded summary. Müller says for the first time what he will repeat in the coming days: "It is well known that Mr. Engeler has been systematically and viciously attacking FDP politicians such as Federal Councillors Johann Schneider-Ammann and Didier Burkhalter, Karin Keller-Sutter and myself for years. The latest tirade fits perfectly into this scurrilous collection of misrepresentations and distorted facts by this writer." Wherever Müller makes himself heard, he never explicitly denies the accusation, not even on his homepage. He also told Blick-Online that he would not be filing a defamation suit. The tabloid leaves it at that.

Would things have been different a few years ago? Former Blick editor-in-chief Werner de Schepper, now at Tele Bärn, writes in the Aargauer Zeitung: "No president who stands on the ground of democracy can leave this accusation standing. It is too outrageous for that." Then there is media silence. Only questions remain: Do journalists and politicians already regard Weltwoche and Urs Paul Engeler as so untrustworthy that they no longer respond to their accusations? Are the editorial offices afraid that they will become part of an SVP campaign to discipline the FDP and therefore refrain from asking further questions? Is this still critical journalism? Or do media professionals only consider racist statements to be an issue if they come from right-wing extremists or SVP men?

Hans Stutz, Lucerne.
Journalist specializing in racism and right-wing extremism, also a Green cantonal councillor.