I am not a legal expert but I have been involved in a lot of debates here about freedom of speech versus hate speech. Panayote Dimitras of the Greek Helsinki Monitor pointed out in his comment on the previous post “Neo Nazi
there is clear international law that freedom of speech does not protect hate speech
So I did a bit of searching today and found this on Wikipedia about hate groups:
Two main elements are present in hate group literature and tactics
* Dehumanizing or demonizing the target.
* Conspiracy theories, possibly not well backed up or referenced.
One of the campaign leaflets of Dimitris Zafeiropoulos, the leader of the Patriotic Alliance (who invited the neo-nazi Udo Voigt to attend his rally at the weekend) reads
Less immigrants, less crime
Demonizing immigrants as a group? Portraying immigrants as being responsible for crime? Does that make his “party” a hate group ? In my mind, it does. These people are gaining ground with their scare tactics and propaganda. There may be readers of this blog who are not threatened by these people but there are many who are. Not just here in Greece, everywhere.
There will be some who say I am exaggerating. That they will not harm us. That they are not violent. That they are a legitimate political party.
Whipping people into a frenzy against another group of people is not politics, it’s hate.
Lying about entire groups of people is not politics, it’s hate.
Blaming one group of people for all that is wrong with the world is not politics, it’s hate.
The BNP (British National Party) did this whole change of image thing to attract more voters. They put on shirts and ties, grew their hair a bit longer, toned down some of their hate policies and they succeded in getting some of their candidates elected. Is the same thing going to happen here eventually? Dimitris Zafeiropoulos was a member of the extremist group Golden Dawn until he formed his Patriotic Alliance party. He didn’t change his opinions did he?
Is anyone else angry about the rise of hate masquerading as politics ?
The authoritative reference as a criticism to Grece as well:
“European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
Third report on Greece
Adopted on 5 December 2003
Strasbourg, 8 June 2004
(…)
Media
96. ECRI notes that some media express certain prejudices and negative stereotypes towards members of minority groups such as Roma, Jews, immigrants –especially Albanians – refugees and asylum seekers, as well as members of other minority groups. The statements in question are sometimes tolerated by the judicial authorities on the name of freedom of expression. While attaching great importance to this fundamental right, ECRI stresses that in light of the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights and Greek criminal law (see section 1-3 of law no. 927/1979), the principle of freedom of expression does not extend so far as to authorise the publication of racist statements. (…)
Recommendations:
98. ECRI recommends that the Greek authorities alerting media professionals to the dangers of racism and intolerance. In cases where racist articles have been published, it strongly encourages the Greek authorities to take every step to prosecute and punish the culprits.”
If I posted this again I apologize:
ATHENS, Sept 14, 2006 (AFP) – The Greek Jewish community and a small left-wing parliamentary party on Thursday complained over an extreme-right politician included on the ticket of the front-running candidate for Athens in next month’s mayoral elections.
The Greek Central Jewish Council (KIS) said the controversial candidate was an “anti-Semitic” newspaper publisher who wrote an article at the height of the Lebanon crisis in July, accusing Jews of “nearly breaking Hitler’s record in terms of victims” and “surpassing him in savagery.”
An earlier complaint sent at the time to the mayoral candidate, popular ex-minister Nikitas Kaklamanis, met with no response, KIS said.
The Greek section of the Helsinki Monitor (GHM) on human rights also noted that the publisher, whom it identified as a leading member of the small Greek nationalist party LAOS, will be joined on Kaklamanis’ ticket by another LAOS cadre.
A spokesperson for Kaklamanis on Thursday told AFP that the mayoral candidate “believes that one’s political leaning does not count in the fight for a better Athens.”
“Those included on Mr Kaklamanis’ list pledge to adhere to his values,” the spokesperson said, adding that the ticket also includes left-wing representatives.
KIS countered that “the presence of people of such substance cannot be explained with excuses of multi-party representation”.
A member of the ruling New Democracy conservatives, Kaklamanis is heavily tipped to win the election in Athens, which has had a New Democracy mayor for the past 20 years.
Municipal elections will be held across Greece on October 15 and 22.
cb-jph/rh/ss
Remember that “anti-racist activist” Yvette Jarvis happily aligned herself with them in Kaklamanis’ list
DD please ente the link to the post on her statement
The link to the article on Yvette Jarvis is: http://www.athensnews.gr/athwe.....&aa=1
I meant your post here on it with assorted comments
Dear Devious Diva,
I am a Dominican blogger who a few months ago came accross your blog via Technoratti.
We do face a hate speech situation with ultranationalist groups and hostile government authorities in the Dominican Republic, targeting Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin.
Albeit I am not labeled as Haitian, I have perceived first-hand how they dehumanize them -even children- calling them ‘a plague’, ‘thieves’, ‘parasites’, ‘vandals’ and so much more.
Sadly, persecutors- cause that’s what they are- blame them -and mostly only ‘them’, for weaknesses of the Dominican border, deforestation of the Dominican Republic, overpopulation, voodoo witchery and drug traficking in our territory.
I turned to blogging to say what I needed to say about this topic, but sometimes lack the feeling of networking with other human rights defenders working with the same. (furthemore, I am currently in exile)
That said, albeit our geographical interests vary, I am glad I can read your blog every now and then.
P.S. Answering your question… most certainly, I am tired, sometimes feel helpless and even angry about it.
Diva, in nearly every Western nation there is strong statistical evidence showing with more immigrants, crime levels have risen, and the immigrants are over represented as the perpertrators of crime.
Are they responsible for increase crime or they victims themselves and the context has made them criminals? Now we get into all sorts of philosophical questions about free will and determinism.
Nevertheless, I do not believe we should not be afraid of saying the truth so as not to hurt people as this creates even more problems that go to the core of our civilisation. Less immigrants is likely to result in less crime. This is not hate speech. It is fact.
Should we demonise immigrants because of the rise in crime? No, this is unfair because not all immigrants are perpertrators of crime and in some cases you could argue the perpertrators were not responsible. This is very difficult to argue in court as a sane adult is usually understood to be responsible for their actions.
Are they perpertrators of crime because they are different from us? Probably not, because crime levels are usually quite low in their home countries.
Sorry Panayote, I misunderstood. Here is the link to my post with comments: http://deviousdiva.com/?p=164
Hephaestos,
Respectfully, I would like to see if those statistics also reflect human traficking, labour exploitation and proxenetism as part of their increasing crime scenario.
Rene, in most Western countries it is commonly known that the worst labour exploitation occurs amongst immigrant communities. For example, in Australia, the illegal textile industry, where Vietnamese women are paid way below the minimum wage allowed by law, are usually exploited by their fellow Vietnamese. Similarly, when the Greeks migrated to Australia, very often it was their fellow Greek capitalists that exploited cheap and disorganised Greek labour. My parents suffered from this. It is hard to come by these statistics because they are politically very explosive. I will try to hunt them down.
We should not be afraid to admit these uncomfortable truths because only then can we rectify the problem.
Hephaestos,
I am ready to accept it if migration is indeed linked to criminality, but I would like to include the point that not only the subjects matter of the migration process (migrants) may contribute to increase criminal activities but also those others who perpetuate their social vulnerability/exclusion at the point(s) of transit and destination, for whatever their reasons, including profit of courrse.
Hephaestos,
Even if already settled immigrants contribute to exploitation of the new flock of immigrants, I cannot help it but notice that if immigrants are the ones solely blamed for the failures of the reception system, others will remain aside from changing society and indeed take it for granted that they -the so called others- are the ones who got into their particular situation and should hence just suck it up.
Rene, I am not sure whether we can definitively say that migration is linked to higher rates of criminality but the statistics certaintly point to this conclusion. This may make people uncomfortable but that is the truth. This does not necassarily mean this admission of fact should lead to demonisation. That is barbaric. However, I would ask this question: is it migration itself that is the problem or social exclusion? For example crime rates amongst native people are nearly always higher than the mainstream population i.e. crime rates amongst Australian aborigines versus the white Caucasian population. In the case of Greece, the native people are the mainstream so we do not really get this effect. Another interesting case is Fiji. There the native population gradually came to feel unempowered in their own land by the Indian immigrant population which resulted in several coups by the native Fijians resulting in the enshrinment of institutional racism in the Constitution. Black Polynesian racism against Indians!!
Why do people possibly feel socially excluded which leads to higher criminality? Why should there be social exclusion in the first place? Why should the conditions arise where social exclusion occurs? And then dissasatisfaction leads to Far Right groups gaining traction amongst the people.
Rene, I have asked several questions and no one appears to be interesting in providing answers. Muzzling people with hate speech laws is only going to create more problems. Has anyone heard of a backlash? Anyway, I am glad someone on this website is interested in a dialogue.
What I have tried to point out is that immigrants should not be targeted as the source of all evil in a society. Yes, they may contribute, indeed, and evidence may exist.
If it indeed exists, why should it be banned? If available, absolute denial of evidence wihout pondering its merits or lack thereof would be another expression of extremism.
However, even if I am not an expert in statistics, monitoring or evidence I would just like to take any evidence with a healthy grain of salt and not as something sacred.
About backlashes. Here I can understand what you mean. Intolerance has called for more intolerance just as violence has called for more violence. One should be careful, it is true.
However, fear of a backlash should not bar people from preventing or punishing genocide. For then again, if you wait too much to prevent genocide, it is likely that you will neither prevent it nor punish it.
P.S. Again, my comments go out to you all, and in this case to you, Hephaestos, with outmost respect.
Rene,
Like I said I will try and find the evidence. But you are absolutely right. Immigrants are not the source of ALL evil. Maybe they are not the source of a lot of evil. Personally, I believe the source of evil lies in our belief that we can engineer societies to suit an ideological position. Empirical evidence suggests this has not worked but we keep trying. When are we going to learn?
The establishment of hate speech laws are unlikely to stop genocide (remember we Greeks were also victims of genocide – one of the worst in history). I would advocate better paideia. This is a much more positive approach. This does not mean the whitewashing of history like they do in Greece and much of Europe today which results in deceiving the public but simply teaching people that although your neighbour may have done you harm a long time ago it does not mean you have to murder him but it also does not mean you have to dance with him.
While you people have been engaged in a philosophical study of the EU constitution (a pointless exercise, really, since the EU laws are not worth the toilet rolls they’re written on), the neo-Nazi movement has built a monumental temple, capped by a swastika in Minnesota, USA.
The threat is real! Fight the power, people!
Mr Obvious, keeping spitting silly adolescent slogans – Fascism and Nazism were people power movements.
ZARDOZ SAYS :
all right HEPHASTOS
THAT THEY WERE PEOPLE POWER MOVEMENTS IS VERY TRUE
BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH .
THAT THEY WERE DEFEATED IN A FIELD OF BATTLE IS ALSO TRUE
THAT THEIR BOSSES THE KRUPS AND OTHER LARGE WORLD MONOPOLIES AND RICH INDUSTRIES USED THEM AS THEY ARE
USING OTHERS TODAY
IN OTHER POLITICAL FORMS IS ALSO TRUE .
THAT THEY STILL WANT TO RULE THE WORLD AND DO
IN MANY WAYS THAN ONE
IS ALSO TRUE
THAT THEY DONT HAVE A POLITICAL OR POPULAR BASE
IS ALSO TRUE ,, ……………………………….
SINCE THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR THESE VIEWS ,,
KINDLY SHOVE OFF ………………………
NO PASSARAN ,,, .
IF YOU REALLY THINK THEY WERE POWER PEOPLE MOVEMENTS
WERE DID ERNEST TELLMAN ,, GO RIGHT AFTER THE THE 1933
ELECTIONS ….? IN GERMANY..?
WERE BOTH THE LEFT GOT 9,000,000 VOTES
AND THE FASCISTS GOT 9,000,000 VOTES ,
AND NEXT DAY ADOLPH SELF-APOINTED HIMSELF
CHANCELOR ,,
TELLING THE KAISER TO GO FUCK HIMSELF .
SINCE HISTORY IS THERE , TO READ,
THINGS ARE SIMPLE .
DO UNTO THEM , AS THEY WOULD DO UNTO YOU ,,,
I WILL DEMOCRATICALLY AWAIT YOU WITH MY BASEBALL BAT
AT THE AIRPORT . IF YOU WISH
IF ANYONE DOESNT KNOW WHO ERNEST TELLMAN IS GOOGLE HIM
FIND OUT THE TRUE STORY BEFORE THE NAZIS CAME TO POWER
AND HOW THEIR STILL TRYING ,, AND HOW THEIR
HATE REASONING DOESNT SOUND SO HATE FULL TODAY .
BECAUSE THEIR SUPPOSEDLY
USING LOGICAL ASSESMENTS OF HOW ONE GROUP
COPES WITH ANOTHER GROUPS PROBLEMS ,,,
AND EVALUATING THAT CRIME SHOULDNT BE DEMONIZED,,
IF ITS BY A MINORITY GROUP OR THE GENERAL NATIVE POPULATION
RIGHT ,, !
HEPHASTOS COME CLEAN OR ILL SEND YOUR IP ADDRESS TO
THE FRENCH ALGERIAN KIDS IN FRANCE
(YOU KNOW THE ONES THAT DIDNT WANT TO WEAR SWASTIKAS )
OR THE BLACK “FLEUR DE LI”
OR BETTER YET
TO A COUPLE OF FRIENDS IN SOUTH NEW YORK
……………. THEIR ORGANAZATIONS NAME IS :
………………………………………………………..THE MASSADA GROUP
…………………………………………YES A JEWISH GROUP WITH A TWIST.
SO YOULL HAVE MANY NEW FRIENDS SOON .
WHICH YOU CAN TEACH THE ABOUT
………………………………………THE PEOPLE POWER MOVEMENTS.
= Z =
Hephaestos,
Seems to me that what you are basically advocating for is socially imposed segregation, passed from one generation onto another, where individuals who dare to reach out to ‘the others’ would often be labeled as traitors to their group.
Another thing is… whatever happened to the concept of personal accountability? When you talk about your neighbor it does not seem to me that you are talking about a particular person who has done something for which accountability must be established.
Did you know that leaving your enemy lifeless, as an individual, and turning it into a mere group is another way to dehumanize it and allow yourself to do what you might not otherwise do to an individual?
Yes, I believe that the enactment of anti-hate speech provisions into the legal system, even if not under one special legislation on itself, is surely one step forward towards prevention and punishment of genocide which is better than walking backwards.
You do not rely on anti-hate speech provisions to do the work like a magic pill. But you should know that states do have a duty to respect, protect and fulfill human rights for all, regardless of how many times they have failed.
In general -and I am now talking from the accepted standards of international law- a state should not take part in genocide, should protect individuals not only from actual danger of genocide but even the mere risk of it, and most certainly, should contribute to a society where genocide -and the kind of speech that gets you there- is not accepted or encouraged.
Google down and take a good look at the stages towards genocide, aside from your personal values and family history.
Rene,
No, I am not advocating what you wrote in your first sentence. I am not sure how you draw those conclusions from what I wrote but I fear that you tend to dichotomise an argument i.e. only opposite poles and no in-betweens.
I am all for personal accountability; however, whole generations should not be made to pay for the mistakes of a generation 100 years ago.
A person is an individual and part of a group(s). The group may be based on ethnicity, religion, sex or something as ordinary as a common interest in jazz. For example, I share an interest in Archie Shepp and Eric Dolphy with a friend who is Anglo-Saxon. I am Greek and he is Anglo-Saxon and do not share ethnicity but we share a similar taste in late 1960′s free jazz and are therefore part of a very small group of free jazz enthusiasts. Very often we belong to many groups at once. However, to deny or obliterate the right to belong to a group based on say ethnicity, because it may lead to problems, is self defeating.
I am all for laws punishing violence but I do not advocate anti-hate speech laws. That is very dangerous. And it is almost like fighting Fascism with Communism – two negatives do not make a right. Also, where do you draw the line. Should we ban some fringe African American music because it demonises WASPS? We should put more effort into better educating human beings; particularly our youth, to recognise instances of demonisation that may lead to genocide.
As for international law, I do not support supranational structures and their resultant laws. I believe in allowing people to be autonomous and self institute their own laws. I do not believe law is possible at an international level because of geographical, cultural, historical etc differences and the inherent logistical issues encountered in formulating this law. I suggest you read something like Politics, Power, Autonomy by Cornelius Castoriadis or maybe just Aristotle to understand this line of thought. Obviously, we have a common humanity so there are must be some fundamental agreements i.e. do not invade my country.
Zardoz,
Hepheastos says:
I AM REALLY FLATTERED
that you plan to come to the airport to greet me with a PRESENT!
HOWEVER I HAVE NO INTEREST IN BASEBALL and THE BAT WOULD NOT BE USED
MAY I SUGGEST A GOOD BOOK (IN GREEK)
OR SIMPLY A BOTTLE OF COGNAC
OR MAY EVEN FLOWERS…..i am not embarrased to receive flowers from a male friend
I MIGHT BE IN ATHENS BEFORE XMAS
TO RECOGNISE ME, I AM 185cm, MUSCULAR/ATHLETIC BUILD, BLACK WAVY HAIR AND GREEN EYES
By the way some of your Jewish friends may be interested to meet some of my Jewish business associates. Fortunately, we have cultivated a strong friendship that facilitates free and robust discussion.
Iremise filaraki……
Hephaestos,
I think I am much less of an extremist that what you seem to be, but that is only my opinion and you do not need to share it.
Yes, there are individuals and there are groups. Sometimes individuals are persecuted, sometimes members of a group are targeted by persecutors and become the subject of persecution as a whole (i.e. as a group). I do not get your point in trying to teach me that.
About international law. Said international law, when binding upon countries that have adopted it, usually calls for local laws to be enacted as part of the State’s role in promoting, protecting and fulfilling their human rights obligations.
PROMOTING: educate people about their rights and the rights of others;
PROTECTING: A) if torture, for example, is conceived as prohibited in international law, make applicable national law expressly prohibiting it -an absolute obligation to prohibit it; B) if the highest-attainable level of health is conceived as a human rights, enact national laws to pursue said task -a progressive obligation;
FULFILLING: A) if the law is broken, prosecute the individual or individuals who have broken it and hold them accountable for their actions; B) if the law requires administrative implementation, proceed with it; C) if relief needs to be provided for those suffering violations, provide it, etc.
PLUS,
Let me show you what you -HEPHAESTOS- said…
S.
“I would advocate better paideia. This is a much more positive approach. …TEACHING people that although your neighbour may have done you harm a long time ago it does not mean you have to murder him but it also does not mean you have to dance with him.”
Q.
How do you plan to teach people that they do not have to dance with their neighbor?
I take it, it is all a figure of speech where you have appealed to the extremes: kill neighbor vs. dance with neighbor…
But how far does it go? Do not blame me for trying to interpret your words when you do not speak straightfoward.
About international/supranational structures… sometimes I wonder what is your TRUE position about international law and national law. It seems that you’d be willing to agree to whatever you feel like it and disagree on the remaining part. –Say, for example, agree to what is obviously hard to advocate for and argue your way out of whatever else you can get away with.
That is precisely why claims to social justice, on their own, are never enough. Each side has their version of what constitutes social justice.
Do not take me wrong here. Yes, social justice helps provide a background for advocacy and education, but at the very end, you need to reach down to binding agreements for accountability of who owes what to who.
And again, in principle, law is meant to be binding, whether in the international system or the national system. Otherwise you stay on the realm of moral duties and obligations.
Hephaestos, you continually complain that people will not discuss things with you. The truth is I find it very hard to follow your arguments because you seem to side with whatever suits you rather than what you really think. I have stated my feeling on each subject by posting here in the way that I do. It seems to me that you just disagree with me for the sake of it. I may be wrong but that is the impression I get.
You continually complain that we do not provide facts and figures for our arguments, yet I have yet to see you provide the same information. On this blog we often talk about what we feel rather than cold hard “facts and figures” That is how I tend to operate in the world and in my life. I cannot find facts to back up why I like someone or dislike them. It’s about human beings.
I am very interested in and I advocate dialogue (it was the reason for me starting blogging) but it cannot and will not be only on your terms.
When people do not respond to your comments (or my posts) it might be that they are away or not interested or bored or too angry or 100 other reasons. Don’t take it personally. None of us here are that important.
Rene, you seem like a gentleman. Email me at dimitriskydones@hotmail.com if you want to discuss further. Also, I can introduce you to some constitutional lawyers and free minded people generally.
Some statistics from Germany:
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/recht/rechts5.htm
Hephaestos,
Thank you for your offer to further discuss the issue, but I do not think there’s much I can add to it for now. However, I will let you know if I change my mind.
About the constitutional lawyers and free minded people… If you have a public/online forum where I can learn what they are really about it would be nice.