Greek ultra-right party leads rally in Athens against construction of capital’s first official mosque.
May 27, 2013
Members of the ultra-right National Front have led dozens of protesters in a march against the Greek government’s plans to build the first state-funded mosque in Athens, the capital.
The government has budgeted about one million euros ($1.3m) to build the mosque at a reduced price because of the country’s economic crisis, which has delayed the process. However, construction was expected to begin next year.
The protesters, including a woman dressed in nun’s clothing, waved Greek flags at the rally on Sunday as they shouted: “We don’t want sharia, we want Greece and Orthodoxy” and “No to mosques, give money to the schools.”
Emmanouil Konstas, the National Front general secretary, said that plans to build the religious centre were unacceptable and that the government should refrain from catering to the religious needs of immigrants while the country faced an economic crisis.
"It is unacceptable in every way," Konstas said.
"The religious needs of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants shouldn’t be a matter of concern for the government; they should be deported since they came here illegally. And for the rest who are here legally, there are enough places for them to pray,” Konstas said.
"Also, during this harsh economic crisis, it is unacceptable for so much money to be spent on the building of a mosque."
Athens is the only European Union capital without an official Islamic mosque or cemetery.
Local residents who had joined the demonstration said that they were scared of Muslims coming into their working-class neighbourhood.
Some Athens citizens have blamed immigrants they say have entered the Mediterranean nation illegally for crime in their neighbourhoods.
"I am scared because many things have happened here in the area with the Muslims and secondly, why are they building it here and not in the rich neighbourhoods of Athens? Where they think we are racists and they are okay," said 45-year-old Smaragda Taladianou, who has lived at the neighbourhood all her life and attended the protest.
"They can build it but we will tear it down," said another local resident, 49-year-old Chrysoula.
The only mosque in Greece exists in the northern border town of Thrace, near Turkey, where another Muslim community of about 100,000 live.
More than 100 makeshift mosques are found in basements around the greater Athens region.
Without an official mosque for the Muslim population prayer must be held in these spaces or in sports stadiums during holidays.
Copyright © 2013 Aljazeera.
[Photo © AFP]
March 20, 2013
A ground breaking report on Islamophobia in Europe has documented the extent of the problem.
Discrimination against Muslims in Europe is widespread, the report says. According to the study covering 26 national reports, Muslims continue to experience discrimination in a range of areas, more specifically in employment, education and access to goods and services.
This is the first pan-European qualitative survey on Muslim communities in Europe, part of the Europe Network Against Racism’s 2011/12 Shadow Report on Racism in Europe and released ahead of International Day Against Racial Discrimination.
"Manifestations of Islamophobia include discrimination and violence towards Muslims, criminal damage to Islamic buildings, and protests against the building of mosques even in countries, such as Poland, where some Muslim communities have been established and integrated for centuries."
"Muslim women and girls are particularly affected, facing an extreme form of double discrimination on the basis of both their religion and their gender. In France for instance, 85% of all Islamophobic acts target women."
Afghan refugees in Athens, Greece, mourn for their relatives that drowned while trying to reach Europe. Homeira Hasanpur (2nd from left) lost her husband; Fatima Rahimi (middle) her infant son, Parwin Rahimi (2nd from right) her 4-year-old daughter.
Thoughts on MoMA’s “Inventing Abstraction”:
So, “Abstraction”, as belligerently implied by the show currently on view at MoMA was “INVENTED” ??? by Europe and the US, mostly by white heterosexual males in the early decades of the 20th century.
Whether carelessly or intently, the show’s dismissal of millenia of abstract art that thrived beyond the boundaries of Europe and the US is symptomatic of a persistent ill-informed reading of modernism as a European invention imitated decades later by the non-west but to less effect! The show evidences a clinging onto the authoritative Greenbergian views on abstraction and a male-dominated canon. Worst of all, it’s curatorial premise is an assertion of an ongoing form of cultural colonialism.
Disappointing to say the least…
As G. Roger Denson puts it: “The insistence on calling painterly abstraction in Europe an “invention,” and not the derivation it is (or, should we choose to be less kind, the pirating many non-Westerners and Westerners alike see it to be), is colonialism rearing its ugly head.”"
— Sam Bardaouil, February 18, 2013
By Undine Zimmer, Marie Heidingsfelder and Sharon Adler
September 7, 2010
"I must distance myself from this complicity with racism" - with these words, the famous philosopher and gender-theorist refused the "Civil Courage Prize" at the CSD in Berlin, June 2010.
Who doesn´t know Judith Butler, born 1956 in Cleveland, Ohio?
Since the publication of "Gender Trouble", she is internationally known for her theories, especially for her thesis of the performativity of gender. Her work contributes to feminism, queer theory and political philosophy, where she proves herself a vehement activist and denouncer of American war politics under George Bush. Especially in Germany, the reception her theories concerning gender was very controversial and caused a lively discussion in feminism. Her most recent work focuses on the struggle for equality against racism and agression, Jewish philosophy and criticisms of state violence. Because of her early departure from Berlin after the CSD, AVIVA-Berlin couldn´t talk to her face-to-face but we are very happy that she took the time to answer our emailed questions about racism and the CSD, her latest political statements, the challenge of modern feminism and the importance of her Jewish background!
CSD and Gender
AVIVA-Berlin: You refused the prize for civil courage at CSD in Berlin. Would you have accepted a prize for moral courage at the alternative CSD, that is taking place in Kreuzberg on June 26th?
Judith Butler: Yes, I suppose I would have! I am only sorry that I did not understand the political situation in Berlin earlier. I intended to take the prize when I arrived, and I was quite surprised by the number of groups and individuals throughout Europe who encouraged me not too.
AVIVA-Berlin: You criticised the hosts of Berlin CSD 2010 for losing sight of double discrimination, not distancing themselves from ´racist statements´ and making the whole event superficial. You have made these issues visible. Can you please tell us more about what exactly you are refering to?
Judith Butler: I never used the word “superficial.” I believe that this was attributed to me by someone who helped organize the CSD. The problem was not that the event was superficial, but that the CSD is linked with several groups and individuals who engage in a very strong anti-immigrant discourse, referring to people from north Africa, Turkey, and various Arab countries as less modern or more primitive. Although we can find homophobia in many places, including those of religious and racial minorities, we would be making a very serious error if we tried to fight homophobia by propagating stereotypical and debasing constructions of other minorities. My view is that the struggle against homophobia must be linked with the struggle against racism, and that subjugated minorities have to find ways of working in coalition. It was brought to my attention that the various groups that struggle against racism and homophobia are not part of the CSD list of affiliates.
AVIVA-Berlin: In their defense the hosts argued that you were on a tight schedule and might not have noticed all the activities against disrimination that took place during and before the parade. Where do you think the hosts might have officially shown more moral courage?
Judith Butler: I do not doubt that some people and some events at the CSD were designed to show an opposition to discrimination of various kinds. But many of the people in leadership roles, including Jan Feddersen and Rudolph Kampe, have been very strong in demonizing new immigrant communities, allying gay politics with anti-immigration politics, and refusing the racial and religious diversity of contemporary Europe. Some of these tactics are very problematic, including that of the group, Maneo. The CSD needs very much to refuse affiliation with groups that promote racism. It makes no sense to struggle to overcome the subjugation of one minority by increasing the subjugation of another. This is especially true when one realizes the importance of queer, trans, gay, lesbian, and bi people within minority migrant communities.
AVIVA-Berlin: Before you arrived in Berlin did you know that you would reject the prize?
Judith Butler: No, I was excited about coming, and very eager for the event. It came as a surprise to me that so many people in Berlin, in other cities in Germany, but also in Belgium, the UK, the Netherlands, France, and the US, contacted me to ask me not to accept the prize. I realized that there were political divisions in the Berlin community that need to be addressed more directly and productively by the CSD and other major gay and lesbian organizations.
AVIVA-Berlin: How could the CSD become more politcal? And what do you think about the fact that the CSD in Berlin is split up into two different events: the parade and the alternative CSD in Kreuzberg.
Judith Butler: I suppose I had assumed that some of the same people go to CSD Berlin and to CSD Kreuzberg. But what I had not considered was how many people refuse to go to CSD Berlin precisely because it has not taken a strong stand against racism and the targetting of new migrant communities. Perhaps the problem is not that CSD should become “more political” but rather which politics the CSD should pursue. If the mainstream gay movement continues to ally itself with European cultural norms of purity or if it does not openly affirm the equal rights of minorities, then it will remain in conflict with various activists who either emerge from minority communities or who are committed to anti-racism as part of their politics.
AVIVA-Berlin: What does Christopher Street Day mean to you personally?
Judith Butler: You know, Christopher Street is the place in New York where the famous Stonewall resistance happened a few decades ago. It is, for me, the name of a place where resistance to police violence and harassment takes place. I think it is important to enter the streets, to lay claim to public space, to overcome fear, to assert pride, and to exercise the right to take pleasure in ways that harm no one. All of these are key ideals. I like the pageantry and the joy. But if we ask about how to oppose violence during these times, we have to consider the way that new immigrant communities are subject to right-wing street violence, how they are subject to racial profiling and harassment by police, and we have to object to harassment and violence against all minorities. Indeed, the opposition to illegitimate state violence and various forms of cultural pathologization are crucial to the queer movement more generally. So if we fight for the rights of gay people to walk the street freely, we have to realize first that some significant number of those people are also in jeopardy because of anti-immigrant violence - this is what we call “double jeopardy” in English. Secondly, we have to consider that if we object to the illegitimate and subjugating use of violence against one community, we cannot condone it in relation to another! In this way, the queer movement has to be committed to social equality, and to pursuing freedom under conditions of social equality. This is very different from the new libertarianism that cares only for personal liberty, is dedicated to defending individualism, and often allies with police and state power, including new forms of nationalism, European purity, and militarism.
AVIVA-Berlin: Your philosophy is often classified as part of pop-culture. Actually, especially in Germany many people refer to your book “Gender Trouble” and link your name to the idea of freely “choosing” and “creating” gender although your theory is not euphoric and includes melancholy and political engagement against any form of discrimination. How do you feel being considered as a pop-icon?
Judith Butler: I am not sure I am a pop-icon. I don´t read those kinds of commentaries. But if the arguments of Gender Trouble have made their way into popular culture, then I am pleased. It seems to me that academic work only becomes part of a larger social movement by assuming a popular form. The misreadings are interesting to me, and perhaps say more about the social needs of one´s readers than the text itself. In any case, my effort has been to show that even though we are in some ways formed by social norms, we are not determined by them. We can struggle with them, through them, and against them. I presume that some people are drawn to the work because it tries to understand agency in the midst of social power.
AVIVA-Berlin: In a documentary for ARTE -TV you said that becoming aware of being a lesbian made you feel unsettled, you were afraid of the pathologisation, the image of lesbians and social exclusion. Do you think today, 40 years later, that coming out and living openly in a non hetero-normative way is easier?
Judith Butler: Yes, it is easier, and I am always pleased and surprised by that discovery. But for those of us who had no social movement when we came out as adolescents, we doubtless still carry scars from that period of life. I am still haunted, even though I could not be more “out.”
AVIVA-Berlin: According to your philosophy identity, not only concerning gender, is always vulnerable and never stable. For many people, this idea isn´t comprehensible, awkward or frightening - how do you react to this point of view?
Judith Butler: Maybe there are various viewpoints that are at issue here. It is true that many people want the stability of “identity” categories, they want to know what gender they are or what sexual orientation they have. And they want that to be a stable and enduring part of their lives. I can certainly understand this. But others want to know that they can have certain relations, and even change over time, and they are not always able to say with certainty that they belong to one category or another. Whereas for some stability and belonging is a precondition of living well, for others that very stability and belonging feels like a trap, a prison, or even the end of a sense of being alive. So perhaps this is a complex terrain. Moreover, the categories that are available to us are also changing, they are historical, and so we may think that we identify with one gender only to find that we are not generally recognized as belonging to that gender. Or we may find that we have to enter a social struggle for recognition. At other times, living without explicit recognition can be a form of freedom. So perhaps we need to develop a capacious way of understanding the complexity of gendered and sexual life.
As for vulnerability: it seems clear to me that in being named “a boy” or “a girl” we are vulnerable to the language that others use to describe us. We are brought into the world by being named by others, and that primary vulnerability is there, before we have any power to name ourselves. Do we ever escape the social interpellations of others? Do we ever escape the social imprint? Or do we struggle with and against that legacy we never chose?
AVIVA-Berlin: In opposition to other feminists, you don´t only talk about the vulnerability of women as victims, but emphasise the possibility to act. What does that mean for modern feminism?
Judith Butler: Perhaps contemporary feminism is divided on the question of whether political actions can and should take place outside the context of the state or whether they require state and legal institutions to compel social change. I think my early work focused on the cultural acts and practices that institute and change gender, but I also worried then, as I worry now, about allying with forms of state power that might end up defining women in ways that might turn out to be very restrictive. This is, of course, one problem with victim discourse. On the one hand, we need to be able to describe very clearly how and when people are victimized, but if someone then becomes defined as a victim, how can that person act? The definition of the person as victim, once institutionalized by law, can keep us from being able to understand forms of resistance, struggle, and agency. Feminism has to describe and oppose modes of gender violence, but it also has to show how women resist, fight, and transform their worlds. We have to do both, and ask whether the strategies we pursue enhance our agency or not.
AVIVA-Berlin: You grew up in a practising Jewish family and had a private tutorial with your Rabbi when you were 14. Did you have your Bat Mitzvah and what does Jewish identity mean to you today?
Judith Butler: At the time, my synagogue did not give girls the chance to have a Bat Mitzvah. I suppose I would have pursued it if I could. As it was, I attended courses at one of the local synagogues, discussed Jewish ethics, the history of the Nazi genocide against the Jews and other minorities, read Jewish philosophy, and found myself very interested in the traditions of existential theology.
AVIVA-Berlin: How does being Jewish influence your everyday life, your work at the university, your use of language and your life as a feminist, as a queer activist, a lesbian and political philosopher? Or does it play a role at all?
Judith Butler: I am sure it plays a major role, but I may not be able to know all the ways that it affects me. It certainly affects my sense of humour and my sense of irony! But also, it seems to me that certain practices of close reading emerge from traditions of biblical commentary within Judaism, and that I am very sceptical of efforts to define or portray any notion of the divine. I am probably an agnostic on religious matters, but I do sometimes still attend the synagogue, and the music and singing is profound and moving to me.
Recently I have been trying to understand those resources within Jewish philosophy, understood generally, for thinking about the critique of state violence, the ideals of co-habitation, the ethical relation to the non-Jew, and the problem of memory and restitution. I am also interested in debates about Zionism that were very much a part of Jewish life both before and after World War II. Hannah Arendt has proven to be especially important to me, especially her efforts to establish a federal authority for Palestine and her objections to all forms of nationalism, including Jewish nationalism.
AVIVA-Berlin: How do you feel about the accusation that you have perhaps taken an anti-Semitic position concerning your statement about the Hamas and the Hezbollah as progressive social movements? (On: http://radicalarchives.org/2010/03/28/jbutler-on-hamas-hezbollah-israel-lobby/) Does that bother you more as a philosopher or on a personal level?
Judith Butler: Unfortunately, that clip was cut short and did not include all of my response. What I actually said was that although groups like Hamas and Hezbollah should be described as left movements, that like all left movements, one has to choose which ones one supports and which ones one refuses. They are “left” in the sense that they oppose colonialism and imperialism, but their tactics are not ones that I would ever condone. I have never supported either group, and my very public affiliation with a politics of non-violence would make it impossible for me to support them. The editing of my response was obviously an effort to distort my view, and I am very sorry that the distortion has been able to circulate as it has. Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify what I actually said and what I have always thought.
AVIVA-Berlin: Does Jewish ethic and tradition influence your philosophy and your comprehension of human life?
Judith Butler: Yes, life is transient, and so must be safeguarded by all means.
Questions concerning “Frames of war”:
AVIVA-Berlin: What exactly is the challenge of non-violence and what does the acceptance of one´s own vulnerability imply?
Judith Butler: Vulnerability is never mine alone. If I seek, through acting violently, to establish my own impermeability, I inevitably fail. No human can successfully overcome vulnerability, even though that might be a guiding fantasy - indeed, it is a guiding fantasy for many forms of nationalism and militarism. In my view, shared vulnerability establishes a perspective from which to criticize the impossible and destructive fantasies that structure some nationalist forms of militarism.
AVIVA-Berlin: In an interview with Jill Stauffer you said that getting to know “the other” is connected to the challenge of reacting non-violently. But to what extent is it possible to understand the other? Is it important to admit a certain “opacity”?
Judith Butler: Yes, we have to move away from the idea of “knowing” as mastery. Perhaps there is a way to think about “acknowledging” the vulnerability of the other, the equal rights of the other, and to pursue the question, “who are you?”. The question is a direct address, a way of entering into relation, but it is not the same as trying to possess the other through knowledge or relegating the “Other” to some permanent site of unknowability.
AVIVA-Berlin: How important are media in this context? How could they communicate the ability to non-violent reactions?
Judith Butler: I think that journalism and media has a very profound responsibility to represent wars in a way that help people think about why there is war, what destruction it causes, and what alternatives are available. This means that the framing has to work against nationalism, racism, and sensationalism.
AVIVA-Berlin: How can we deal with agressive feelings, without becoming violent and does that mean that we can act destructively, without hurting others?
Judith Butler: There are many songs and dances that engage aggression, and certainly many sports as well. There is vigorous debate and open conflict over political views, and even ways of participating in martial arts. There are many ways of crafting aggression, both through speech and other modes of expression, that do no harm.
AVIVA-Berlin: Do you have any suggestions about how, for example, the Hamas or fundamentalist Islamic groups as well as the politics of Israel could deal with their agressions in a queer, non-violent way? How could queer politics be added to the conflict?
Judith Butler: Well, there is now a significant set of queer groups in Israel actively involved in promoting Palestinan justice as well as “anarchists against the wall”. And there are queer groups in the West Bank (Aswat) and in Beirut, for instance, that are trying to criticize the forms of “homonationalism” I discussed above. It is unfortunate that these positions are not well enough known.
AVIVA-Berlin: Concerning your theory: In “Frames of War” you tell us, that it is a problem, that not everyone is respected as a subject. Is it, these days, where most reflections on society, politics and human life passes by system theory, still possible to base a political theory on the ontologie of a subject
Judith Butler: I agree. We cannot base a politics on any ontology of the subject. We have to think about modes of social relationality that precede the formation of the subject, and we have to ask why it is that some creatures are produced as subjects, and others are not. So I am not in favour of a subject ontology. If we claim that rights of recognition should be equally distributed, then we are talking about that mode of power that produces and sustains subjects. But we are not talking about an ontology of the subject.
AVIVA-Berlin: In your theory what did you add to Hegel´s subject and his idea of “Anerkennung”? And why is Hegel´s theory still so important for your philosophy?
Judith Butler: A fine question! I think it is important to realize that if and when recognition happens, it happens through established languages and norms, and that the claim to be recognized sometimes requires innovating new modes of language and new social conventions. This is why some persons and creatures are “recognizable” when others are not. I suppose I try to think about the unequal distribution of recognition, and in that way bring a theory of power to the concept of Hegelian recognition. But I also want to radicalize his notion that recognition is always mediated. He did not explain why some are recognizable, and others not. I know that some social theorists distinguish strongly between claims of recognition and claims of redistribution, but I want to suggest that the unequal distribution of recognisability is a politically urgent problem. Perhaps that what was finally at issue at the CSD. For me, the struggle for freedom is linked with the struggle for equality.
AVIVA-Berlin: Thank you very much for your time. It would be great to meet you next time in Berlin so that we can interview you face to face - we still have some more questions…
Read more at AVIVA-Berlin:
Copyright © 2010 AVIVA-Berlin.
[Photo: Judith Butler.]
It suits the wealthy to turn the debate about poverty into a morality tale, but the reality is that inequality is structural
January 29, 2013
"A spectre is haunting Europe." Thus began the famous opening passages of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Today, once again, Europe is haunted by a spectre. But, unlike back in 1848 when Marx and Engels wrote those passages, it is not communism, but laziness.
Gone are the days when the upper classes were terrified of the angry mob wanting to smash their skulls and confiscate their properties. Now their biggest enemy is the army of lazy bums, whose lifestyle of indolence and hedonism, financed by crippling taxes on the rich, is sucking the lifeblood out of the economy.
In Britain, the coalition government constantly slags off those welfare slobs in the working class suburbs, sleeping off their hard night’s slog with Sky Sports and online casino. It is their shameless demand for “something for nothing”, pandered to by the previous Labour government, we are told, that has created the huge deficits that the country is struggling to get rid of.
In the eurozone, many believe that its fiscal crisis can be ultimately traced back to those lazy Mediterranean types in Greece and Spain, who had lived off hard-working Germans and Dutch, spending their time sipping espresso and playing card games. Unless those people start working hard, it is said, the eurozone’s problems cannot be fixed.
The problem with this story is that it is, well, just a story.
First of all, it is important to reiterate that the fiscal deficits in the European countries, including Britain, are largely due to the fall in tax revenues following the finance-induced recession, rather than to the rise in welfare spending. So, attacking the poor and eviscerating the welfare state is not going to cure the underlying cause of the deficits.
Moreover, on the whole, poorer people typically work harder. They usually work in jobs with longer hours and tougher working conditions. Except for a tiny minority, they are poor despite the welfare state, not because of it.
The point comes into a sharper relief, if we compare nations. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, people in Greece, that famous nation of skivers, worked on average 2,032 hours in 2011 – only a shade less than the supposedly workaholic South Koreans (2,090 hours). In the same year, the Germans worked only 70% as long (1,413 hours), while the Netherlands was officially the “laziest” nation in the world, with only 1,379 hours of work per year. These numbers tell us that, whatever else is wrong with Greece, it is not the laziness of their people.
Now, if the laziness story has such flimsy bases in reality, why is it so widely believed? It is because, in the past three decades of dominance by free-market ideology, many of us have come to believe in the myth of the individual fully in charge of his/her destiny.
Starting from Disney animations we watch as young children telling us that “if you believed in yourself, you can achieve anything”, we are bombarded with the message that individuals, and they alone, are responsible for what they get in their lives. This is what I call the L’Oreal principle – if some people are paid tens of millions of pounds a year, it must be because they’re “worth it”; if others are poor, it must be because they are either not good enough or not trying hard enough.
Now, it is politically difficult to criticise the poor for their incompetence, so the attack is focused on the mythical lazy slob, who has no moral leg to stand on. But then the end result is the dismantling of a whole set of policies and institutions that help all poor people in the name of punishing the lazy.
The beauty of this worldview – for those who disproportionately benefit from the current system – is that, by reducing everything down to individuals, it draws people’s attention away from the structural causes of poverty and inequality.
It is well known that poor childhood nutrition, lack of learning stimulus at deprived homes, and sub-par schools restrict capability developments of poor children, diminishing their future prospects. When they grow up, they have to contend with all sorts of prejudices that constantly discourage and deflate them, especially if they have the wrong gender or the wrong skin colour.
With these sandbags on their legs, the poor find it difficult to win the race even in the fairest market. Markets are frequently rigged in favour of the rich, as we have seen from a series of recent scandals surrounding deliberate mis-selling of financial products, lies told to the regulators, to the rigging of the Libor rate.
More importantly, money gives the super-rich the power even to rewrite the basic rules of the game by – let’s not mince our words – buying up politicians and political offices (think of all those former banker-turned-US treasury secretaries). Many deregulations of the financial and the labour market, as well as tax cuts for the rich, in the last three decades are results of such money politics.
By turning the debate into a morality tale of laziness, the rich and powerful can divert people’s attention away from all of these structural problems that create more poverty and inequality than is necessary.
All of this is not to say that individual talents and efforts should not be rewarded. Attempts to completely suppress them can create societies that are ostensibly equal but fundamentally unfair, as in the former socialist countries.
However, it is vital to recognise that poverty and inequality also have structural causes and start a real debate on how to change those things. Ridding the debate of the pernicious and baseless myth of the lazy mob is an important first step in that direction.
Copyright © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited.
[Photograph © Justin Lane/EPA]
February 1, 2013
Europe’s top human rights watchdog on Friday urged Greek authorities to take action against the burgeoning wave of attacks against migrants in the country describing racist violence “a real threat to democracy.”
“Impunity for the rising number of racist crimes in Greece has to end,” Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muiznieks said at the end of a five-day visit to Greece.
“The police, prosecutors and courts need to become fully acquainted with and give effect to existing anti-racism legislation… by which Greece is bound,” he added.
Between October 2011 and December 2012 more than 200 racist attacks were recorded by the racist violence recording network headed by the UNHCR and the National Commission for Human Rights.
Muiznieks urged Greece’s political leaders to “firmly condemn and sideline every person and organization that promotes hate speech and engages in hate crimes,” but stopped short of seeking a ban on Golden Dawn, which he described as a “neo-Nazi” party.
Golden Dawn currently controls 18 seats in Greece’s 300-member Parliament. The Public Issue poll for January gave the party 10 percent of the vote, putting it in third place ahead of government coalition partner PASOK.
While welcoming the establishment of the 70 anti-racist police units and the appointment of a special prosecutor in Athens to deal with racist crime, the CoE official urged the Ministry of Public Order to take “all necessary measures in order to create an independent and effective police complaints mechanism that would enhance the public’s trust in police forces.”
Copyright © 2013 ekathimerini.com.