“Although Islamophobia is a somewhat newly recognized phenomenon, the struggle against it is strengthening,” argued Nils Muiznieks, chairman of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), a body within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). The ECRI held a two-day meeting in Ankara earlier this week, bringing together national and international experts to discuss the implementation of the ECRI's recommendations to combat discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious or other biases.
Chairman Muiznieks, from Latvia, in an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman evaluated new challenges in the fight against discrimination such as racism on the Internet, Islamophobia, the changing discourse of politics, tolerance to intolerant approaches and confusion with regard to criticizing Israel and being anti-Semitic.
When asked if he would agree that that the fight against Islamophobia is inadequate he answered this is a newly recognized form of intolerance although its history is not new and organizations like the ECRI and others are paying increasing attention to Islamophobia.
“Secondly, it entered the public agenda after many organizations like ours were created and we're trying to catch up. Another issue is the newly visible nature of Muslim communities in Europe. I would argue that before 9/11 very few people knew of the existence of the Muslim communities. It is very unfortunate that we discovered the presence of Muslim communities in connection with terrorism, which negatively colored all related discussions. Muslim communities are vulnerable because of their immigrant status,” he said, adding that Islamophobia has only very recently started to receive the attention it deserves. He said the ECRI is making up for lost time and is better informed about Muslim communities compared to 10 years ago.
When asked about the difference between anti-Semitism and being critical of the policies of Israel he said: “I don't think any country should be immune from criticism for its policies, and Israel is no exception. Certain critics of Israel are anti-Semitic, when they discuss how Jews are, when they draw comparisons between Israel and what Nazis did, that is unacceptable. There is a fine line here and the Holocaust should not be downplayed.”
Muiznieks noted discrimination on the Internet must be tackled, pointing out that the countries most successful in fighting against racism and intolerance on the Internet are the ones with the best cooperation between NGOs, Internet service providers and authorities; however, the level of cooperation is not at the desirable level everywhere and the fine line between freedom of expression and discrimination is very important:
“You need groups who are monitoring discrimination on the Internet, you need service providers who are willing to listen and engage in dialogue and you need authorities to step in and punish the bad guys. It is clear that our own tools are outdated for coping with this. It is a very rapidly developing field. Until very recently [social networks like] MySpace and Google were not willingly to talk to organizations like the ECRI. But now they are beginning to change a little bit,” he said.
He also made a point that some authoritarian countries are putting restrictions on Internet usage, infringing on freedom of speech. “The question is how to limit racism without limiting freedom of expression,” he stressed.
He noted that in the past elites were hesitant to use discriminatory discourse but the situation is different now, which is a very dangerous development that helps to make discrimination socially acceptable.
He said educated people are less likely to be intolerant, but it does not mean that they are immune from intolerance, noting educated people are the symbolic leaders from academia and the media, creating popular culture. He added that there are two types of racism: one overstates the difference between groups, while the other is related to the economy and people who are concerned about competition for jobs.
“Research suggests many people engage in racist speech because they think it is socially acceptable -- an idea they get through the media from the discourse of politicians and opinion makers. Political discourse and what politicians say is important. Politicians are in a unique position to say, ‘I represent not only myself but all those people who voted for me and I have a right to say that.’ You can be against immigration but not be racist.”
He said that acceptable public discourse has changed incredibly over the last 10 years due to the rise of extremist right-wing parties, which increasingly are becoming part of the political environment of Europe, and their discourse is poisoning general political discourse.
“If you have hate speech provisions everybody should be subject to them -- politicians in particular. They should be subject to same limitations as others. The second thing most parliamentarians in Europe have a code of ethics signed by every member of parliament, but these codes of ethics are just a piece of paper in many cases, and this should change,” he said. He added that extremist parties in some parts of Europe have started to lose votes, and it is important to examine the reasons both for the rise of these parties and their decline.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment