Self-awareness is a good start. He got “lost” and made “many mistakes”, explains Xavier Naidoo in a video message. During a phase of contemplation, he realized that he had “irritated and provoked many with disturbing statements” and therefore he asks for forgiveness. So far, so respectable. But it’s not that simple after all.
Although Naidoo is purified. But anyone who thinks that mental arson can be corrected or even erased from memory with a three-minute speech on a couch is wrong. His popularity and highly controversial past testimonies require more than vague descriptions in the context of a digital apology.
Naidoo has gotten too deep into the world of conspiracy myths, too offensively he has joined forces with extremists of all stripes. Too often he has spread crude theses through his broad network. For example, since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the bard has presented himself as a radical opponent of vaccination and a corona skeptic or attracted attention with anti-Jewish gaffes.
So when he says, “Everyone who knows me knows what I stand for,” it’s not without bitter irony. Especially during the pandemic, Naidoo advanced through his statements, appearances and posts to the figurehead of those who describe themselves as “lateral thinkers” – knowingly also from proven extremists. The Federal Constitutional Court decided just four months ago that Naidoo can definitely be described as an anti-Semite.
If Naidoo is serious about his message, he must clearly state what he is apologizing for. Which statements does he specifically regret? What conspiracy stories “blinded” him? And which groups does he distance himself from? So far, his confession of repentance includes many general formulations. The statement that he only “partially” allowed himself to be exploited still offers too much room for interpretation.
Currently popular with Tagesspiegel Plus:
Looking at the discord he has sowed over the past two years, Naidoo’s confession of remorse can only be a start. Because even before that he was currying favor with so-called Reich citizens and spreading anti-Semitic theses. Although skepticism about the sincerity of the statements may initially be appropriate, Naidoo also has a right to rehabilitation. It would be unfair to impute calculation to him.
He deserves credit for his first insight, and such a step requires size. The broad masses of society should therefore reach out to him. This is important and only in this way can reconciliation actually succeed.
Naidoo has taken the first difficult step. For maximum credibility – and a possible role model function – more, but above all concrete things must follow.