When incompetence leads to bad decisions
Opinion piece by ERGO Member Zuzana Havirova from Roma Advocacy and Research Center (RAVS), Slovakia.
[Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within the content are solely the author’s and might not reflect the opinions of the website or its affiliates.]
In October 2022, the National Council of the Slovak Republic adopted the IHRA’s definition of antigypsyism. The IHRA definition states: „Antigypsyism/anti-Roma discrimination is a manifestation of individual expressions and acts as well as institutional policies and practices of marginalization, exclusion, physical violence, devaluation of Roma cultures and lifestyles, and hate speech directed at Roma as well as other individuals and groups perceived, stigmatized, or persecuted during the Nazi era, and still today, as “Gypsies.” This leads to the treatment of Roma as an alleged alien group and associates them with a series of pejorative stereotypes and distorted images that represent a specific form of racism.“
The reference to lifestyle is probably related to Travellers and Gens du voyage, but in the context of Roma living in excluded localities in Slovakia, such content is dangerous and stereotypical. We often encounter statements that Roma who live in marginalized communities live this way because it is their lifestyle, and it is also said that living from day to day is their lifestyle. It is also pointed out that education is not a priority for Roma from poor localities because their lifestyle is to live on welfare. All of these statements are made by people who are prejudiced and, in essence, racist. Roma living in marginalised communities have not chosen their life and it is not their lifestyle.
On the contrary, it is also because of this marginalisation that they experience discrimination and face structural racism on a daily basis. I understand that the IHRA has tried to include several groups of Roma living in Europe in its definition, but it should have taken into account the fact that in some countries the interpretation of their definition may lead to an even greater marginalisation of Roma or even the legitimisation of discrimination against Roma in the context of the lifestyle that is mentioned in their definition. In fact, the definition does not explain what lifestyle means.
In the Concept of Combating Radicalisation and Extremism until 2024, which was approved in 2021 by the Slovak Government, there is a definition of antigypsyism, which states that: „Antigypsyism is defined as a type of racist classification of Roma, who are stigmatized as “gypsies” through it, in order to construct a false justification and legitimization for the dehumanization of Roma, their discrimination, exploitation and the possibility of perpetrating violence against them.
Anti-Gypsyism/anti-Roma racism creates non-existent, misleading and negative descriptions, qualities and characteristics (the so-called “profile”) of the “gypsy“, the basis of which:
- a supposedly “common form” of physical appearance;
- are homogenizing and generalizing social, mental and character “traits” (antisociality, criminality, high birth rate, lack of hygiene, poverty, superstition, primitiveness, tribal kinship, crookedness, nomadism, music in the blood, promiscuity, etc.);
- the essentialization of this “common form” of physical appearance and the above social, mental, and character “traits” for the entire Roma ethnic group.
Anti-gypsyism/anti-Roma racism is therefore not based on real life and negative personal experiences, is not a consequence of Roma life, but uses historical forms of discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes, and considers the “common form” of physical appearance and the above social, mental, and character “traits” as “essential” (i.e., “innate”) in every Roma. This means that even if some of the above “descriptions”, “qualities” and “characteristics” could be applied to a member of the majority (e.g. criminality + low hygiene + poverty), the social situation of that member of the majority would not be understood as an “essential” (“innate”) characteristic of him/her, as is the case for Roma in antigypsyism/anti-Roma racism.
For this reason, antigypsyism/anti-Roma racism is a type of racist categorisation claiming that Roma collectively share a ‘distinct racial essence’ that is not influenced by any form of socialisation, upbringing and education, nor by any social, societal and financial measures. Anti-gypsyism/anti-Roma racism ascribes to the Roma an irreversible “biological (racial) destiny” from which there is no escape, while at the same time asserting that the Roma are, precisely because of these “essential (innate) characteristics”, unable to integrate into society.
The definition also includes examples of expressions of antigypsyism based on the IHRA’s working definition of antigypsyism:
- distortion and denial of the persecution of the Roma or the genocide of the Roma,
- glorification of the genocide of the Roma,
- incitement, perpetration and justification of violence against Roma communities, their property and individuals,
- forced and coercive sterilization, as well as other forms of severe physical or psychological treatment of Roma,
- feeding and endorsing discriminatory stereotypes about and against Roma,
- blaming Roma, using hate speech, for real or perceived social, political, cultural, economic or health problems,
- stereotyping Roma as perpetrators of crime,
- the use of the word ‘gypsy’ as a slur,
- endorsing and promoting exclusive anti-Roma mechanisms based on racial discrimination, such as the exclusion of Roma children from mainstream schools or institutional practices and policies leading to the segregation of Roma communities,
- adopting policies without a legal basis or setting conditions that allow arbitrary or discriminatory displacement of Roma communities and individuals,
- holding individuals collectively responsible for real or perceived actions of Roma communities,
- dissemination of hate speech targeting Roma communities in any form, including on the internet and social networks.
The resolution adopted by the National Council of the Slovak Republic recommends the Government of the Slovak Republic to carry out an analysis of the legal order of the Slovak Republic and, if necessary, to prepare legislative proposals for relevant legislation so that the above definition is respected in the activities and decision-making of the public authorities of the Slovak Republic.
Unfortunately, the proponents of this proposal in the Slovak Parliament do not have sufficient knowledge on this topic and therefore they have presented a definition without prior discourse with the scientific community. If they had made a professional discussion on this proposal, they would have found that in Slovakia there is already an approved definition of antigypsyism from 2021, which, among other things, includes examples of antigypsyism from the definition developed by the IHRA. They could thus bring to the Slovak Parliament a definition of antigypsyism that is more precise, more concise and has a greater meaningful value in the conditions of the Slovak Republic.
Such actions cause confusion in professional terminology and bring unnecessary contradictions into the field of combating antigypsyism, which can lead to confusion about what antigypsyism actually means.