Until yesterday, only a few Berlin’s cultural senator Joe Chialo knew in the Republic. This has changed since the “Focus” has been publicly launching that Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) is said to have described the CDU politician as “court jelly” in his absence at a party in front of other guests. In concrete terms, he said, the sheet quotes: “Every party has its court fools” and “he, the black one, is nothing more than a fig leaf”.
The “Focus” senses racism, the CDU is outraged-although party leader Friedrich Merz does not take the allegation of racism in his reaction (“this is the Federal Chancellor who always claims respect, but obviously only for himself”).
The accusation becomes loud from the SPD headquarters that it is obviously a campaign. Scholz takes a media lawyer and announces that the claim that he had expressed himself racistically was “constructed”. The Chancellor cannot be elicited a request to apologize, but he calls Chialo on the phone.
Olaf Scholz seems duped
Of course, there are much more pressing topics in this riot election campaign, in which the parties make the impression that they no longer have to coalition or cooperate after the election day. But Olaf Scholz has now received his Laschet moment. We remember: The CDU candidate at the time laughed at a wrong moment when it came to the victims of the flood disaster, the cameras caught it, after which the voters no longer trusted him to be able to Chancellor.
It is certainly not unusual to make a sharp joke at a party or a sarcastic remark that shoots beyond the target. Scholz also made it clear that he meant the “court jarror” saying that Chiallo was one of the few liberal voices in a restrictive party.
When evaluating the not entirely unproblematic name, the context naturally depends. The public only knows this, so that a pre -conviction can only be carried out in the area of a structural racism, for which even its producers are practically blind (but, according to the theory, not relieved). Usually such a remark also gets stuck among journalists in the notebook if it is noted at all. But here is the allegation of racism.
What should an apology look like?
The SPD and Chancellor Scholz now have the problem that they can hardly show the medial flash of lightning in the cause. The certainly correct determination of his party that Scholz is absolutely not a racist and the term “court jarror” is hardly racist, hardly catches because the abuse is in the world and he cannot be ironed away with 100 different evidence of chialos claimed liberal attitudes. The problem for Scholz is the ambiguity of the Feigenblatt commitment he did not intend.
Some may be outraged by the fact that a chancellor comments on a political opponent so sharp. The others may notice that the Chancellor has only learned to knock on the table in this election campaign, but contrary to his obviously reserved character, has been shot several times (something that FDP boss Christian Lindner at the traffic lights -PK felt).
It is Olaf Scholz to believe that he is “personally affected” about the effect of his own words. In the fight for the new move into the Chancellery, he has now played trust. He cannot do just as much as Laschet at the time, which was also fatal for a moment of lack of self -control.
Chialo has now commented on the occurrences. He doesn’t think Olaf Scholz is a racist. “However, this does not change that his words were degrading and hurtful,” he added. What Scholz trusts and the political opponents can now take morally to themselves is not the unfounded allegation of racism, but the injury that he has generated in his words.