I have translated this post to German here.

I must admit, I took the headline from Ahmed Al-Omran, who used it to refer to his home country Saudi Arabia.

Ahmed utters a complaint that is quite common among young Saudis and other Gulf Arabs: In a move to, as they say, protect women from sexual harassment, many cafés and malls only allow families and single females into their locations. As a result, even though these societies are often very restrictive towards women, these have more opportunities to go out than their male counterparts.

Abdu Khal writes, “If you count the number of youths who have nowhere to go to because malls, parks and beaches are dedicated to families, then you would be appalled. What will the youth do when they find themselves trapped and discarded?”

It is this a problem I encounter day by day. Social restrictions force young people to hang out on the streets. Walking for my favorite café on a weekday’s eve, I will observe youth, probably a little younger than myself, hanging out at dimly-lit bus stops and abandoned playgrounds. They might not even notice because they are so used to it, but I bet they would trade their situation for mine.

Only, they can’t. My favorite café is closed for minors (under 18) after 8 pm, and so are most locations. A recent reportage on the backgrounds of three teenagers that beat up several people in Munich cites one young Swiss: “In the youth center there are only high school students and pussies. The bars we don’t get in. So we hang around here [at the train station] every day.”

A few days ago in an article on Braunschweig’s ban on flashmobs, I cited the city’s conviction that “the public space in Braunschweig serves exclusively traffic, i.e. the transfer from home a to home b, from home a to business b or from business a to business b.”

This is devastating for teenagers that might not find rest at home, nor in commercial cafés. Where are they to go if “public space serves exclusively traffic”? Ahmed gives an answer that is true for Saudi youth as much as for Swiss: “Well, they will do other things that you probably will not like.”

This could be a story about the need of teenagers for a place to hang out at. Indeed, it is. But at the same time, I would like to see this in a broader context. Why are young people forced to hang out on the streets? Essentially, because they don’t own a place of their own. At home, there are their parents, in the café there are owners that are just not their generation.

They don’t own a place because they can’t afford it, and for the same reason they can’t buy access to one (you won’t find the son of a millionaire hanging out on the streets). In this, teenagers share a problem with other groups that are socially marginalized.

The answer to this situation could be the creation of commons. If you have ever been to one of the existing commons after dusk you will know that most of them are far from inviting. Barely lit parks are much more welcoming to those who seek darkness than to good citizens.

But does it have to be like this? In ancient times, the town square was a meeting place for all citizens. A public space, open to the social activities of whoever went there. Today, we have shifted this place to Starbucks, have shifted it from a commons to private property.

Imagine commons, places that are not socially exclusive, but open (and inviting) to everyone. A good market square should be just like that. I have experienced this in Brussels: Hundreds of people sitting on the Grote Markt in the evening, chatting.

Lawrence Lessig describes the internet as a “creative commons”. This square I would call a “social commons”. And just as the internet being a commons enables creative invention, a social commons enables new social networks. It is therefore most of use for those who have not yet established themselves in society. Teenagers are just some of them.

Every time when we talk about integration, we should talk about commons. Their openness allows anybody to participate in them, weaving new networks and building a better, a more equal society. For that a state become a country (also) for young (wo)men.

I have translated this post to German here. I must admit, I took the headline from Ahmed Al-Omran, who used it to refer to his home country Saudi Arabia. Ahmed utters a complaint that is quite common among young Saudis and other Gulf Arabs: In a move to, as they say, protect women from sexual harassment, many cafés and malls only allow families and single females into their locations. As a result, even though these societies are often very restrictive towards women, these have more opportunities to go out than their male counterparts. Abdu Khal writes, "If you count the number of youths who have nowhere to go to because malls, parks and beaches are dedicated to families, then you would be appalled. What will the youth do when they find themselves trapped and discarded?" It is this a problem I encounter day by day. Social restrictions force young people to hang out on the streets. Walking for my favorite café on a weekday's eve, I will observe youth, probably a little younger than myself, hanging out at dimly-lit bus stops and abandoned playgrounds. They might not even notice because they are so used to it, but I bet they would trade their situation for mine. Only, they can't. My favorite café is closed for minors (under 18) after 8 pm, and so are most locations. A recent reportage on the backgrounds of three teenagers that beat up several people in Munich cites one young Swiss: "In the youth center there are only high school students and pussies. The bars we don't get in. So we hang around here [at the train station] every day." A few days ago in an article on Braunschweig's ban on flashmobs, I cited the city's conviction that "the public space in Braunschweig serves exclusively traffic, i.e. the transfer from home a to home b, from home a to business b or from business a to business b." This is devastating for teenagers that might not find rest at home, nor in commercial cafés. Where are they to go if "public space serves exclusively traffic"? Ahmed gives an answer that is true for Saudi youth as much as for Swiss: "Well, they will do other things that you probably will not like." This could be a story about the need of teenagers for a place to hang out at. Indeed, it is. But at the same time, I would like to see this in a broader context. Why are young people forced to hang out on the streets? Essentially, because they don't own a place of their own. At home, there are their parents, in the café there are owners that are just not their generation. They don't own a place because they can't afford it, and for the same reason they can't buy access to one (you won't find the son of a millionaire hanging out on the streets). In this, teenagers share a problem with other groups that are socially marginalized. The answer to this situation could be the creation of commons. If you have ever been to one of the existing commons after dusk you will know that most of them are far from inviting. Barely lit parks are much more welcoming to those who seek darkness than to good citizens. But does it have to be like this? In ancient times, the town square was a meeting place for all citizens. A public space, open to the social activities of whoever went there. Today, we have shifted this place to Starbucks, have shifted it from a commons to private property. Imagine commons, places that are not socially exclusive, but open (and inviting) to everyone. A good market square should be just like that. I have experienced this in Brussels: Hundreds of people sitting on the Grote Markt in the evening, chatting. Lawrence Lessig describes the internet as a "creative commons". This square I would call a "social commons". And just as the internet being a commons enables creative invention, a social commons enables new social networks. It is therefore most of use for those who have not yet established themselves in society. Teenagers are just some of them. Every time when we talk about integration, we should talk about commons. Their openness allows anybody to participate in them, weaving new networks and building a better, a more equal society. For that a state become a country (also) for young (wo)men.

The German city of Braunschweig has deemed flashmobs illegal. In a message to a man who had proposed a picnic on a public square, the city said that “any public flashmobs in Braunschweig are illegal and will in case of need be forbidden [...] and dissolved by the police.”

What I find especially worrying is that authorities said that “the public space in Braunschweig serves exclusively traffic, i.e. the transfer from home a to home b, from home a to business b or from business a to business b.”

I.e. authorities think there should be no public life. In the dreams of these people, citizens would either be in their homes, their cars or privately-owned businesses.

Currently reading Lawrence Lessig’s “The Future of Ideas”, I think they forget about something important. Lessig time and again cites parks as an example for commons: Public space that is meant to serve people to hang around. In times where it has become a common complaint that you have to buy a latte macchiato in order to talk to your acquaintances, I find it worrying when cities try to erase the last free facilities for public life.

In fact, Braunschweig says that you may only assemble publicly when you have something political to say. The flashmobbers could announce a demonstration, but in this case, their picnic would not be granted. A picnic is, in the words of the authorities, “a non-licensable extraordinary use”.

Officially, the city is worried that the picnic may harm public property. It’s highly probable that they fear the flashmob could get out of hand like a recent event where thousands stormed the island of Sylt and indeed caused some damages. But even if this is the case, a simple fear cannot be reason enough to crack down on public life.

I think that we actually need more public life, and we need more gatherings like said flashmob that do not serve any higher means. It is an annual event; in the years before, no more than 70 people showed up. And even if it were some more – what is so worrying about people picnicking together on a public square? The same politicians that complain at length about anti-social behavior seem to have a strange, deep-rooted fear of citizens engaging in public life.

It is a fear of the unorganized character of a flashmob. These people do not understand an event where there are no authorities, where the one who started it does not claim to have a right to command those taking up the idea, where there is no leader assuming responsability, but many citizens that are all responsable for themselves. In one word, flashmobs are just too democratic for these old authorities.

The German city of Braunschweig has deemed flashmobs illegal. In a message to a man who had proposed a picnic on a public square, the city said that "any public flashmobs in Braunschweig are illegal and will in case of need be forbidden [...] and dissolved by the police." What I find especially worrying is that authorities said that "the public space in Braunschweig serves exclusively traffic, i.e. the transfer from home a to home b, from home a to business b or from business a to business b." I.e. authorities think there should be no public life. In the dreams of these people, citizens would either be in their homes, their cars or privately-owned businesses. Currently reading Lawrence Lessig's "The Future of Ideas", I think they forget about something important. Lessig time and again cites parks as an example for commons: Public space that is meant to serve people to hang around. In times where it has become a common complaint that you have to buy a latte macchiato in order to talk to your acquaintances, I find it worrying when cities try to erase the last free facilities for public life. In fact, Braunschweig says that you may only assemble publicly when you have something political to say. The flashmobbers could announce a demonstration, but in this case, their picnic would not be granted. A picnic is, in the words of the authorities, "a non-licensable extraordinary use". Officially, the city is worried that the picnic may harm public property. It's highly probable that they fear the flashmob could get out of hand like a recent event where thousands stormed the island of Sylt and indeed caused some damages. But even if this is the case, a simple fear cannot be reason enough to crack down on public life. I think that we actually need more public life, and we need more gatherings like said flashmob that do not serve any higher means. It is an annual event; in the years before, no more than 70 people showed up. And even if it were some more - what is so worrying about people picnicking together on a public square? The same politicians that complain at length about anti-social behavior seem to have a strange, deep-rooted fear of citizens engaging in public life. It is a fear of the unorganized character of a flashmob. These people do not understand an event where there are no authorities, where the one who started it does not claim to have a right to command those taking up the idea, where there is no leader assuming responsability, but many citizens that are all responsable for themselves. In one word, flashmobs are just too democratic for these old authorities.