Video clip by European Union sparks racism row

In Europe, it is no secret that people of color belonging to minority groups are commonly blamed for crime, violence and other things that go wrong in the continent, by a growing number of individuals who see anything "foreign" or "different" as a threat to European culture and way of life. Many migrants from emerging or less developed economies bear the brunt of racism, xenophobia and stigmatization on a daily basis. Despite all odds, the European Union (EU) and its institutions, such as the European Commission are doing a noticeable job to promote respect for human rights, freedom, equality and diversity in the continent. But a recent video released by the Directorate General (DG) for Enlargement, a department of the European Commission, has sparked a racism row and outrage.

The "EU propaganda film", as the video is called, shows a Caucasian woman "attacked" by men belonging to some minority groups in Europe. The video, which was reportedly intended to show Europe as a force for peace and to attract new countries to join the EU, has come under fire. [Source]. Viewers have slammed it as "racist, sexist and imperialist". Some have branded it "distasteful" and "supremacist".



The controversial clip can be interpreted in many ways, but either way - believe it or not - it portrays non-Europeans as violent and aggressive. The woman in the video visibly represents a calm, non-violent and peaceful Europe while her visibly non-European "attackers" represent a "threat" that European countries must unite to neutralize.

A bunch of producers in Hollywood who thrive on reinforcing stereotypes in movies could get away with such a video that depicts individuals representing people of African decent, Asians and Indians as the "bad guys", but in matters related to the way people or groups of people are portrayed, the European Commission knows better and must be held to higher standards.

Following the racism row that followed the release of the video, DG for Enlargement released a statement that it has decided to stop the campaign and withdraw the video.

Given the EU's commitment and efforts to promote human rights, equality and diversity in Europe, I agree with Stefano Sannino, Director General of DG Enlargement, that the clip was not intended to be racist. However, there is no denying that the video reinforces stereotypes and prejudice.

Shout out to Afro-Europe International Blog for bringing this story to my attention.

 *Photo: Daily Mail.

Share

Tweet

YLE News report could fuel hate against Roma in Finland

While researching Finland's asylum application procedure on 2 March 2012, I came across an unsettling news report about people of Romani descent, published by YLE, a major English language news outlet in Finland. The article, titled "Beggars Seek Asylum in Finland" picks on the Roma - a minority group that has historically been discriminated against and pushed to the fringes of society in every European country where they find themselves. [Source]. In 2010, people of Romani descent were deported from France - in violation of EU rules on freedom of movement. In Finland, according to a poll commissioned by Helsinki Sanomat, the Roma, besides Somalis and Muslims in general, are disliked the most. The news item published by YLE does nothing but fuel such negative attitudes toward the Roma by tying them to three things: begging, asylum, and social welfare benefits.

The following news report was published on the website of YLE on 28 April 2010 but is still relevant. It reads like a statement - a cautious "warning" - made at an anti-Roma rally:

"Beggars of Romani decent from Rumania have begun seeking asylum in Finland. Over 50 applications for asylum have been submitted to police at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport.

Some of those seeking asylum are actively engaged in begging on the streets.

The Rumanians cannot, however, be granted asylum as they are EU citizens. They have the right to social benefits for as long as the applications are processed.

During this period they can reside in a reception centre and are entitled to receive social benefits to the tune of 292 euros per month if they procure food themselves or to 87 euros monthly if they consume food provided by the centre.

In April, the number of asylum applications submitted by Rumanians was equal to their total number last year.

A senior official at the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki says the beggars can normally gain one month of benefits by filing an asylum application." [Source]

Mindful of the fact that not only the Roma are seeking asylum in Finland, it is unclear why this report focuses on the Roma. There is something inherently wrong with picking out one group of people from the pack.

Immigration, asylum and social welfare benefits are political hot potatoes and frequently used by a growing number of far-right extremists in Finland to fan hate against immigrants and other minority groups. YLE knows better that vulnerable groups tied to these hot potatoes could easily get burned.

Such reporting fuels negative sentiments against people of Romani descent from Romania and elsewhere by insinuating that their sole aim is to benefit from Finland's welfare system. It's of utmost importance that asylum cases be dealt with on individual basis. It would be more helpful and less prejudicial for YLE to shine the spot light on why the Roma are fleeing Romania and other parts of Europe to seek asylum in Finland and why they beg rather than find decent work. It would be interesting to know whether employers in Finland are willing to employ "the Rumanians" without discrimination, even in unskilled jobs, so that they won't have to beg on the streets to make a living.

*Photo of Roma woman begging in Helsinki: Kukka Ranta.

Share

Tweet

Danish company supplies drug for death penalty in the U.S.

The European Union frowns on the death penalty and almost all European countries have banned state- sponsored killing. In Denmark, the last time the death punishment was meted out was in 1892 and the Scandinavian country completely abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 1978. Despite the ban on the death penalty in Denmark, a Danish pharmaceutical company, Lundbeck, supplies a drug used for the death penalty in the U.S.

H. Lundbeck A/S, commonly known as Lundbeck was founded in 1915 and became pharmaceutical in 1924. The research-based company produces a drug called pentobarbital which is used for executions in the U.S.

According to The New York Times, Lundbeck has sold pentobarbital to four major U.S. executioners: Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas. The Lundbeck-produced drug has replaced sodium thiopental which was once the drug of choice for the U.S. killing machine.

Italy, Austria, Germany and Britain have stifled the supply of sodium thiopental which was widely used for executions in the U.S. Due to the limited supply of sodium thiopental, U.S. executioners have switched to Lundbeck-produced pentobarbital.

Amnesty International has called on the European Commission to stop the trade in torture and death penalty equipment. You're encouraged to sign the petition urging the President of the European Commission, José  Manuel Borroso, to effectively ban the trade in "tools of torture" by European companies. This would go a long way to prohibit the use of pentobarbital produced by Lundbeck for executions in the U.S.

Lundbeck claims the death penalty is against what the company stands for. If this is the case, the company should take concrete steps to ensure that its drug is only used to safe life as it was intended, not claim life.

A legal action charity known as Reprieve notes that Lundbeck is the only supplier of pentobarbital in the U.S. The organization has repeatedly slammed Lundbeck for not doing enough to keep its drug out of death chambers. The execution of Jeffrey Moths on 6 May 2011 in South Carolina brought the number of persons killed in the U.S. with the drug supplied by Lundbeck to seven. The Danish company has apparently chosen big business over respect for human life.

Share

Tweet

Denmark: Man found guilty of racism against Muslim men

At a time when xenophobia is on the rise in Europe, a 68-year-old Danish man has been found guilty of racism by a court in Denmark. Lars Hedegaard, a proclaimed "free speech advocate", was found guilty for making offensive and denigrating comments against Muslim men.

In December 2009, Lars Hedegaard granted a 35 minutes interview that was published on a Danish blog. Here's what he said during the interview, amongst other things:

"Girls in Muslim families are raped by their uncles, their cousins, or their fathers," and "when a Muslim man rapes a woman, it is in his right to do so." [Source].

Lars was dragged to court for comments depicting Muslim men as rapists  and "warriors" who believe that "women have no value, they are not human beings. Their function is to be wombs - they bear the warrior's offspring and create new warriors..." [Source].

The free speech advocate was acquitted in January 2011 by a lower District Court on grounds that he didn't know his offensive comments would be published.

The decision to acquit Lars was appealed by the state prosecutor and on 3 May 2011, the Eastern High Court found Lars Hedegaard guilty of racism. He was fined 5000 Danish Kroner (about 985 U.S. Dollars as of today) for his derogatory comments against Muslim men.

Lars Hedegaard is said to be a free speech advocate and President of the Danish Free Press Society. In this capacity, he's expected to know that the right to free speech has limitations prescribed by law and should not be used to insult, defame or instigate hate against a group of people.

Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for the right to freedom of expression and many proponents of "hate speech" in the name of free speech often invoke Article 19(2) of the ICCPR, but fail to put into perspective Article 19(3) of the same Covenant that provides "certain restrictions" to free speech "provided by law."

At the level of the European Union, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees free speech. Article 10(2) on its part lays down duties and responsibilities in the exercise of free expression.

Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code provides certain limitations to free speech in Denmark. It states:

Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.”

I concur with the decision of the Eastern High Court to fine Lars Hedegaard under Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code. There's a fine line between free speech and hate speech and it's important to ensure that the exercise of the right to free expression does not threaten, insult, denigrate or instigate hate against a group of people.

A lot has been written about the trial of Lars Hedegaard and comments on all the blogs and websites I've read reveal that many people are of the opinion that the conviction of Lars is an attack against freedom of expression. Some have labeled the trial a witch-hunt against truth-tellers. There's therefore a need to educate the public about the duties and responsibilities that go with freedom of expression.

*Photo of Lars Hedegaard.[Source].

Share

Tweet

Wear human rights t-shirts

The Council of Europe, a political organization that promotes human rights, democracy and the rule of law throughout Europe, has launched a campaign called "Wear Your Rights." Through this campaign, the organization encourages people to wear human rights t-shirts inscribed with articles of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

The Council has produced a number of t-shirts that quote articles of the ECHR such as:

• "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law."
• "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude."
• "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
• "Everyone is entitled to a fair trial."
• "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."
• "Everyone has the right to say and write what he or she thinks and to receive and impart information. This right includes freedom of press."

Personally, I'll wear two of the human rights t-shirts produced by the Council of Europe. One will read: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" and the other t-shirt will scream: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

For more information about the human rights t-shirts, visit www.wearyourrights.org.

It is worth mentioning that this is a non-profit campaign and I'm not affiliated to the campaign. However, I encourage you to wear human rights t-shirts and be "an ambassador for a great cause: the defence of human rights."

Share

Tweet

Legal action against France over mass Roma expulsion

The European Commission has decided to take legal action against France over the controversial mass expulsion of Roma migrants. Talking to France 24 this morning, the EU Justice Commissioner - Viviane Reding said France breached European Union rules on freedom of movement by deporting the Roma. EU rules on freedom of movement give ALL European Union citizens the right to freely move and reside (for 3 months) in any member state. France is a member of the EU and the Roma are EU citizens but since July, thousands of Roma have been deported from France.

The mass deportation of the Roma clearly outraged Viviane Reding earlier this month, and the commissioner made no secret of her disappointment over France's action. She had some tough words for France, as highlighted in the video below. WATCH...



The commission notes that France has failed to incorporate the 2004 European directives of free movement into national law.

In today's interview (which I watched) on France 24, Viviane Reding said that "if France changes its laws quickly..." the legal action will be dropped.

Legal action by the European Union against France over the mass Roma expulsion is good news, but I'm disappointed by the Commission's decision not to take legal action against France for a discriminatory expulsion of the Roma, despite the fact that a leaked government memo revealed that the ethnic minority group was targeted. French authorities linked the Roma to a surge in crime and said the dismantling of Roma camps was a "priority."

It is no secret that the Roma have historically faced discrimination in Europe. The European Commission can do better to protect this vulnerable group of people against further discrimination in Europe.

Share

Tweet

Swedish-Eritrean Prisoner of Conscience in Eritrea

On May 3 every year, activists, media and rights groups worldwide celebrate World Press Freedom Day and remind governments of their obligation to respect freedom of expression - a fundamental human right. This right is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, many states have failed in their duty to respect the right of freedom of expression. This explains why, today, there are millions of people imprisoned worldwide simply because their political or religious views are considered to be flawed. Many are prisoners of conscience and most of them have never been charged with any crime. This is the story of Dawit Isaac, an Eritrean-Swedish prisoner of conscience. On Monday 3 May, 2010 (World Press Freedom Day), rights and media groups in Sweden called on the European Union (EU) to take action to secure his release.

According to Amnesty International, prisoners of conscience are:

"men, women and children imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their beliefs or because of their race, gender or other personal characteristics."

Dawit Isaac is imprisoned in Eritrea for the "peaceful expression" of his beliefs. He is an Eritrean-Swedish author, playwright and journalist who has been in jail since September 2001 in Eritrea. As if this is not enough, he has never been charged. Isaac owned the now-banned weekly newspaper - Setit and was arrested on 23 September 2001, together with eight other journalists, during a massive state-sponsored crackdown on private press. He has long "disappeared" in custody!

On Monday, rights groups in Sweden called on the EU to "gradually halt" aid to Eritrea, until the Eraeiro prison - a "death camp" where Isaac is said to be held, is shut down, inmates released and given medical attention and an open trial.

Some have argued that halting aid to Eritrea, in a bid to secure the release of a prisoner of conscience, is a step too far - but there is no denying that a crackdown on journalists in Eritrea represents a threat to democracy and the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

It is worth mentioning that the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights ruled on May 2007 that the arrest and imprisonment of journalists in Eritrea - including Dawit Isaac, was unlawful and called on the Eritrean government to release and compensate the detainees. However, the journalists remain jailed. This is a testament to the government's defiance of international law.

Although Eritrea recalled its ambassador to the African Union (AU) in November 2009, the government is still bound by the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. This is the case because the decision was handed down before the recall. It is interesting to note that relations between the government of Eritrea and the AU was severed after the AU called on the United Nations security Council (UNSC) to impose sanctions on Eritrea.

The UNSC Resolution 1907 imposed targeted sanctions on Eritrea - including asset freezes, travel bans and an arms embargo, for aiding rebels in Somalia. More targeted sanctions from the EU, as requested by Swedish media groups, would bring more pressure to bear on Eritrea and secure the release of the Eritrean-Swedish prisoner of conscience and his colleagues.

Take action to secure Isaac's release here.

Photo of Dawit Isaac and cartoon - courtesy of The Local and WAN-IFRA/Cambon respectively.

Share

Tweet

Itella and the Right to Privacy in Finland

The right to privacy is a fundamental human right enshrined in democratic Constitutions and in numerous international human rights standards. Many democratic states therefore are legally bound to guarantee this right for every individual within their borders, but Finland apparently disagrees! This is the case because Itella - a state-owned mail company in Finland has started opening, scanning and distributing letters electronically. Is this a violation of the right to privacy?

Section 10 of the Constitution of Finland guarantees the right to "secrecy of correspondence, telephony and other confidential communications" (unofficial translation). Although the company in question - Itella claims the staff in charge of opening letters are "bound to secrecy" and would not read the letters, the move is a significant threat to the Constitutional right to privacy in Finland.

On the international stage, Finland is party to international Covenants, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), that oblige state parties to ensure that every individual enjoys the right to privacy. Article 8 of the ECHR - ratified by Finland on 10 May, 1990, explicitly provides for the right to privacy! Article 8(2) of the Convention states that:

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

Is this scheme by Itella in accordance with the law?

You might argue that the scheme is in accordance with the law because the workers in charge of opening and scanning letters are bound to secrecy and not allowed to read the letters. This is a valid argument, but is the opening of letters necessary in a democratic society?

Considering the fact that after opening, scanning and distributing the letters electronically, the physical letters will still be placed in envelopes and delivered normally to the receiver's address, it's my [legal] opinion that the scheme is not "necessary in a democratic society", hence a violation of the fundamental right to privacy.

What's your opinion on the matter? Is there a violation of the right to privacy?

Would you like Itella - a state-owned company to open your letters?

It is worth mentioning that this unconstitutional process, according to Itella, is a trial of future mail delivery methods. It is already underway in Anttila, a village close to Finland's capital - Helsinki. The company plans to extend the process to other areas, if it proves to be successful.

Human rights advocates - including me, will be concerned if this move erodes the right to privacy in Finland.

Share

Tweet

Military Drones for Migrant Control in Europe?

You're probably aware of the fact that immigration is a sensitive and highly polarized topic nowadays - with politicians and immigrants in democratic European countries, like Finland, facing death threats for "treasonous" immigration policies. It's with little doubt therefore that the European Union (EU) is considering the use of military hardware - unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) for surveillance and track down of migrants along the union's borders, according to IPS. In June this year, FRONTEX - the EU's border management agency will meet in Spain with manufacturers of military drones, for presentations on how the hardware can be used by coast guards for migrant control in Europe.

Although the technology would be used for nonmilitary work - border surveillance, human activists and organizations, including Amnesty International have expressed concern about this controversial move. Every individual has the right to seek asylum in a country other than his country of origin and military drones for migrant control would jeopardize this right. This is the case because many migrants would be intercepted in the high seas and returned without due process, to countries where their basic human rights are not guaranteed. People seeking protection in the EU have the right, under international law to have their case heard and not to be returned to face torture, political persecution, inhumane or degrading treatment or death. This right is enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many other human rights instruments guarantee this right.

Without going into the intricacies of international law, the bottom line is - the EU knows better! Military drones for migrant control in Europe is a threat to the "dwindling right" to seek asylum.

What are your thoughts? Should military drones be used for migrant control in Europe? Do you favor Europe's "security approach" to immigration?

Share

Tweet