Page 147 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 147
b. vezjak ■ radical hate speech: the fascination with hitler and fascism ...
are not issues relatable to refugees, but only a radical rejection of every
possibility of the former. Being dehumanised, the abstract perception of
refugees is that of a threat that needs to be eliminated.
With the outbreak of the refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 and 2016
and the appearance of distinct hate speech in Slovenia in the public dis-
cussions on the attitude towards the refugees, two camps were again
formed in the heated discussions: numerous figures from the fields of so-
ciology and other humanities, as well as the lay and critical public detect-
ed unfathomable cases of, expecting law enforcement authorities to sanc-
tion it. Conversely, there were opposing opinions by mostly political and
ideological reactions, which had difficulties concealing their mere toler-
ance of the phenomenon of hatred and hate speech in the spirit of more or
less latent xenophobia, mostly under the pretext of safeguarding the free-
dom of speech, as the result of their ideological or political agenda, or sim-
ply out of some economic or other justification of the fear of refugees. In
this stalemate, it was the law enforcement institutions that were called
upon to be the arbiter, even with regard to sociologically charged inter-
pretations and public diagnosis of the society; for example, the state pros-
ecutors were expected to take action. Public discussions did not bring any
significant progress, mostly because of the law enforcement institutions’’
lack of involvement in the discussions. The first more intensively exam-
ined case of a highly publicised tweet of Sebastjan Erlah, a publicist, was
reported to the state prosecutor’s, but the charges were dismissed. Similar
charges were later brought to bear on account of different posts on social
networks; however, the results of those proceedings are not in the public
domain. When Erlah, acting as a publicist, posted a tweet on his Twitter
account, saying that Middle Eastern refugees must be ambushed at the
border and shot (“I have a more radical idea: allow them up to 500m of
the border. Anything closer than that and shot them all, God will know
his own.”), this was followed by numerous other examples, and keeping up
with the tone (Vezjak, 2017).
The Slovenian public was also able to follow a website called Zlovenia
for a few months, whose anonymous author was attempting to identify
the authors of similar hate posts. Below is a small sample of the statements
by social network users, mainly Facebook, posted at the site: “Shoot, and
once ten are down, they are guaranteed not dragging themselves to Europe
anymore,” “Good enough for killing only,” “If I see one nigger in Prevalje,
I’ll slaughter him,” “It’s ‘bout time that the people get a licence to kill eco-
nomic migrants,” “Let’s slaughter us some ragheads, “Any Muslim is a ter-
rorist by default,” “Shoot every one in three as a warning,” “Put all the mi-
grants under a sort of dome, then just gas ‘em, or let loose a hail of bullets,”
145
are not issues relatable to refugees, but only a radical rejection of every
possibility of the former. Being dehumanised, the abstract perception of
refugees is that of a threat that needs to be eliminated.
With the outbreak of the refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 and 2016
and the appearance of distinct hate speech in Slovenia in the public dis-
cussions on the attitude towards the refugees, two camps were again
formed in the heated discussions: numerous figures from the fields of so-
ciology and other humanities, as well as the lay and critical public detect-
ed unfathomable cases of, expecting law enforcement authorities to sanc-
tion it. Conversely, there were opposing opinions by mostly political and
ideological reactions, which had difficulties concealing their mere toler-
ance of the phenomenon of hatred and hate speech in the spirit of more or
less latent xenophobia, mostly under the pretext of safeguarding the free-
dom of speech, as the result of their ideological or political agenda, or sim-
ply out of some economic or other justification of the fear of refugees. In
this stalemate, it was the law enforcement institutions that were called
upon to be the arbiter, even with regard to sociologically charged inter-
pretations and public diagnosis of the society; for example, the state pros-
ecutors were expected to take action. Public discussions did not bring any
significant progress, mostly because of the law enforcement institutions’’
lack of involvement in the discussions. The first more intensively exam-
ined case of a highly publicised tweet of Sebastjan Erlah, a publicist, was
reported to the state prosecutor’s, but the charges were dismissed. Similar
charges were later brought to bear on account of different posts on social
networks; however, the results of those proceedings are not in the public
domain. When Erlah, acting as a publicist, posted a tweet on his Twitter
account, saying that Middle Eastern refugees must be ambushed at the
border and shot (“I have a more radical idea: allow them up to 500m of
the border. Anything closer than that and shot them all, God will know
his own.”), this was followed by numerous other examples, and keeping up
with the tone (Vezjak, 2017).
The Slovenian public was also able to follow a website called Zlovenia
for a few months, whose anonymous author was attempting to identify
the authors of similar hate posts. Below is a small sample of the statements
by social network users, mainly Facebook, posted at the site: “Shoot, and
once ten are down, they are guaranteed not dragging themselves to Europe
anymore,” “Good enough for killing only,” “If I see one nigger in Prevalje,
I’ll slaughter him,” “It’s ‘bout time that the people get a licence to kill eco-
nomic migrants,” “Let’s slaughter us some ragheads, “Any Muslim is a ter-
rorist by default,” “Shoot every one in three as a warning,” “Put all the mi-
grants under a sort of dome, then just gas ‘em, or let loose a hail of bullets,”
145
