ANTI-RACIST LEGISLATION OR COMMUNICATION LEGISLATION DRAFT?

ANTI-RACIST LEGISLATION OR COMMUNICATION LEGISLATION DRAFT?

Since I am not a civilian public functionary nor a party executive, my positions are purely personal and are based on the Constitution of Greece and the existing legislation!

To be simple, as Greek citizens, we already have our rights, freedom of religion and livelihood registered! The Constitution of Greece covers fundamental human rights (freedom of movement, circulation, religion, etc.)

Who and why (not) want the anti-racist proposed legislation draft?

There is a divide in Greek society over the last few days about the so-called “anti-racist legislation draft”. In the opinions and suggestions which are made, I did not see any particular logic, merely a partisan point of view, ideologies and obsessions with what is in force in the Constitution. The Constitution protects human rights and has clearly described legislation.

I cannot judge the law draft of DIM.AR and PASOK on its legislative side, because I did not study it; indeed, the legislation draft that was deposited in the Parliament has many positive points, but the problem is not some proposed legislation draft that caress the ears, at the time that racism has become a part of everyday life of many of us, foreigners and Greeks in all fields (appearance, level of life, occupation, colour, ethnic origin, even the place of residence).

Racism has taken many forms of expression and action. A new piece of legislation will, however, not add much to the existing anti-racist law, the 927/1979, and to the newer provisions in many related laws, which shield the Republic.

The much-discussed proposed legislation draft has to be voted on, because it complements gaps in existing legislation. It punishes the racist speech, which calls for acts of violence or offends publicly and directly the honour of members of minorities. The relative limitation of freedom of expression is constitutionally tolerable and socially necessary, is a semiologically needed act because it will show that the reason of hatred affects equal dignity and prevents the smooth integration of these weak people into the political community.

The most important issue, however, of any similar legislation, new or older, is its implementation in practice.

Both the older anti-racism law 927/1979 as well as the newer 3304/2005 (which punishes discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion and other beliefs or sexual orientation) remain in the drawers unused.

Here, while racism has taken on a large dimension in our society, the communicatively useful semantics of democratic arc forces and the state, and the parties that believe in democracy, should be made. But a clear distinction must be made: ideas, even repulsive, are treated with ideas, not prosecutions or police measures. Our Constitution does not adopt the model of so-called “struggling” democracy (La démoc­ra­tie mil­i­tante) and does not allow the ban on the operation of any party. After all, history shows that such measures are totally counterproductive when the party to be banned has social foundations: the Islamic party in Egypt, despite its ban, gained power in a few years. The Golden Dawn, therefore, when it functions as a party, must be dealt politically and ideologically only when it chooses to act as a gang with the criminal code. Besides, its rise is not due to the gaps in the law.

The generalized crisis of credibility of the political system and the growing poverty of the Greek people, as a result of the mnemonic policies, are combined with a complete lack of immigration policy and create the ideal hatchery for the snake’s egg.

These are the reasons to be dealt with in order to cure the neo-Nazism monster.

The hatred speech can only be criminalized if there is a direct and imminent danger of evil occurring. This is not only the case when it prompts acts of violence but also when it is used as a phrasal weapon to offend the honour of members of our society as a means of causing immediate harm.

Such behaviours are, however, punished anyway, regardless of whether the medium (used) is intolerant or not.

Others are right to say that we have a strong law, where I focus on the necessity of having this piece of legislation, after being discussed and studied and possibly improved.

I am not afraid of the action of the comparable groups, but the fact that there are people desperate for the crisis we are in. People who have the hope that with this organization will solve the problems of our place. The answer to all of this is to start with us, the current legislations in Greece are among the best in Europe, apply to all indiscriminately, regardless of their origin.

In France, the Le Pen party also had immigrants (Muslims) as members, but it reached high rates. The danger in society has no religion, colour or origin. Let’s act before it’s too l

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.