intolerance monitor report poroèilo skupine za spremljanje nestrpnosti 02 naslovna stran / cover Muslimani v Sloveniji brez mošeje. Praznovanje bajrama v Hali Tivoli / Moslems in Slovenia without a mosque. Celebration of bairam in Hala Tivoli fotografija / photography: Tomi Lombar, Delo contents vsebina introduction On how one uvodnik Kako ni mogoèe razsojati should not make judg- >6 ment>6 studies TONÈI A. študije Povzetek>12 KUZMANIÆ Xenophobia in TONÈI A. KUZMANIÆ Ksenofobija v nekdanji SFR Jugoslaviji in v postso- former Yugoslavia and post-socialist cialistièni Sloveniji>14 Slovenia>15 SREÈO SREÈO DRAGOŠ Islam in suicidalno podalpsko pleme DRAGOŠ Islam and a sui- >34 cidal tribe under the BRANKICA PETKOVIÆ Romi v Sloveniji – tujci za vedno?>54 Alps>35 BRANKICA ROMAN KUHAR »Fuj, prašièi nemarni buzerantski!«>76 PETKOVIÆ Roma in Slovenia – foreigners GORAZD KOVAÈIÈ Zagovorniki Nata in ekstremna govorica skupnosti, iz- for ever>55 ROMAN kljuèevanja in protiliberalizma>108 KUHAR »Ugh, filthy fag- SIMONA ZAVRATNIK ZIMIC Þongliranje z »vojno« gots!«>77 GORAZD >128 KOVAÈIÈ Extremism, ex- MOJCA PAJNIK »Natakar, Ukrajinko prosim!«>144 clusion and anti-lib- MAJA OLUP Vzlet in padec Sokola eralism of NATO sup- >160 porters>109 SIMONA pravo BLAÞ KOVAÈIÈ Vladavina prava ali prava vladavina>190 ZAVRATNIK ZIMIC War jug- slovar Etniènost Humor in etniènost Jezik, rasa in gling>129 MOJCA PAJ- >204 >206 NIK “Waiter, one Ukrai- etniènost>208 nian, please” >145 dokumenti JOÞE KOPOREC (SND) Nacionalizem v slovenskem MAJA OLUP A Sidebar>161 law BLAÞ KOVAÈIÈ The Rule prostoru>210 of Law or the Law of the Strongest>191 skupina za spremljanje nestrpnosti / poroèilo št. 02 / report No. 02 izdajatelj / published by ISSN 1580-7371 intolerance monitor mirovni inštitut urednika / editors metelkova 6, si–1000 ljubljana 02 vodja skupine / group leader roman kuhar, tomaþ trplan e: [email protected] tonèi a. kuzmaniæ <http://www.mirovni-institut.si> lektor / proof reader koordinatorja skupine / jaka þuraj zbirka / edition 9 77158 737006 group coordinators mediawatch tomaþ trplan, roman kuhar prevod / translation <http://mediawatch.ljudmila.org> olga vukoviè izid knjige je omogoèil / design the publishing of this book was id studio made possible by open society institute tisk / print peklaj stane s.p. © 2003 mirovni inštitut 6 Introduction uvodnik KAKO NI MOGOÈE RAZSOJATI ON HOW ONE SHOULD NOT MAKE JUDGMENT This is the second issue of the Intolerance Moni- GORAZD KOVAÈIÈ tor Report by the Intolerance Monitoring Group. The concept of our research project was described in the first issue, which appeared one year ago. Po letu dni je luè sveta zagledala nova številka Poroèi- Now it seems that the time has come to make a la skupine za spremljanje nestrpnosti. Programska izhodišèa short review of responses to our first report. Since našega raziskovalnega angaþiranja smo podali þe v prvi šte- comprehensive media analysis is ruled out owing to the constraints of space, we will only touch upon vilki, zdaj pa je nemara èas za revizijo odzivov na naš na- certain critical points, which is also in harmony with stop. Na tem mestu ni mogoèe izdelati popolnega medij- the subject-based approach of our project. skega pregleda, zato se bom - spet v skladu s topiènim pri- We will focus on responses from the two print media analyzed in the first issue – Mag and jemom - dotaknil le nekaterih kritiènih toèk. Slovenske novice. In structuring their argumentation Gre za negativni odziv dveh v prvi številki analiziranih aimed at refuting our conclusions and even discred- iting our analysts, both newspapers took as their tiskanih medijev, Maga in Slovenskih novic. Argumentacija, points of departure precisely those assumptions s katero sta se èasopisa skušala oprati ugotovitev analize that were challenged by our analysis. Their edito- ali celo diskvalificirati analitike, je strukturirana s taistimi rial policies have not changed a bit since the publi- cation of our report. Moreover, they integrated our predpostavkami, ki smo jih þe enkrat razgalili. Uredniška po- report, or rather the entire Peace Institute, with their litika omenjenih èasopisov se po našem prvem Poroèilu ni system of a long-established practice of stereotype production and persistent drawing of the demar- prav niè spremenila, še veè: v svojo þe uteèeno logiko pro- cation line between good/correct/ours and bad/in- dukcije stereotipov in nenehnega vzpostavljanja reza med correct/theirs. In so doing they only confirmed that dobrim/pravšnjim/našim in slabim/nepravšnjim/tujim so we were in the right, that we selected the right sub- ject for our research study, and that we should not umestili tudi samo Poroèilo oz. Mirovni inštitut. To pa potr- quit. But they also took the load off me – the sub- juje, da smo imeli prav, da je bil predmet preuèevanja pra- ject of Mag’s bitter criticism following publication vilno izbran in da še ne smemo odnehati. Hkrati je razbre- of the report – because apparently I have no other choice but to recount and supplement the analysis menjujoèe tudi zame kot tarèo ostrih napadov Maga po izi- 1 of one year ago. du Poroèila in obenem avtorja tega uvodnika. Osebno se laþe On January 11th, 2002, Slovenske novice featured an interview with the director of the Peace Insti- izvzamem zato, ker mi ne kaþe drugega kot obnoviti in do- tute2, Vlasta Jalušiè, and accompanied it with the polniti analizo izpred leta dni.1 3 editor’s comment . The questions in this interview Slovenske novice so 11. 1. 2002 objavile pogovor z di- along with the captions to the photos and the 2 editor’s apology pointed to their attempt to justify rektorico Mirovnega inštituta, na sosednji strani pa še ured- extreme discourses by resorting to freedom of nikov komentar iste teme.3 Na podlagi zastavljenih vpra- speech and pluralism, i.e. relativism of opinions. In šanj, podpisov k fotografijam in urednikove apologije je moè finding excuses for the editorial policy of their news- 1 Kovaèiè, Gorazd, The totality of anti-communism: An analysis of intolerance in Mag magazine, Intol- 1 Kovaèiè, Gorazd, Totalnost antikomunizma: Analiza nestrpnosti erance Monitor Report, No. 1, Peace Institute, v reviji Mag, Poroèilo Skupine za spremljanje nestrpnosti, št. 1, Mi- Ljubljana: 2001. rovni inštitut, Ljubljana: 2001. 2 Novinarji doloèajo celo •rtve, pogovor z dr. Vlasto Jalušiè 2 Novinarji doloèajo celo þrtve, pogovor z dr. Vlasto Jalušiè, (Journalists Even Define Victims, An interview with dr. Slovenske novice, 11. 1. 2002. Vlasta Jalušiè), Slovenske novice, January 11, 2002. 3 Budja, Bojan, Glas ljudstva, Slovenske novice, 11. 1. 2002. 7 opaziti upravièevanje ekstremne govorice v imenu svobo- paper characterized by exclusivist stereotypes, they de govora in pluralizma oz. relativizma mnenj. Uredniška fall back on liberalism – legal liberalism (anybody can say whatever he/she wants) and market liber- politika medija, ki proizvaja izkljuèevalne stereortipe, se v alism (the audience as judge). Freedom of speech is svoj zagovor sklicuje na liberalizem: pravni (vsak sme govo- here seen as the sole regulative framework of pub- riti, kar se mu zahoèe) in trþni (trg bralcev kot razsodnik). lic discourses. Within this logic, any discourse in- cluding an extremist one, is acceptable as long as it Svoboda govora naj bi bila edini regulativni okvir javnih di- allows the co-existence of other discourses. And if skurzov. Med sprejemljive diskurze naj bi spadal vsak, tudi such an extremist discourse has been given legiti- ekstremistièni diskurz, èe le dopušèa soobstoj drugih diskur- macy by the masses, then so much better. Slovenske novice also stressed that the content they carry is zov. Èe pa ima ekstremistièni diskurz še mnoþièno legitim- simply what people like and is presented in a man- nost, naj bi bilo še toliko bolje. Slovenske novice so namreè v ner they like. For the editorial board of Slovenske novice, only brk dekonstrukciji t. i. »glasu ljudstva« iz prve številke Poro- express intolerance lies outside the area of accept- èila v svoj zagovor poudarile, da govorijo le tisto in na tak able relativized discourses. However, the sexist, xe- naèin, kar je všeè ljudstvu. nophobic and similar jargons in Slovenske novice are camouflaged, while our analysis of hate-speech was Zunaj dovoljenega okvira relativiziranih diskurzov je transparent. This enabled Slovenske novice to come uredniško stališèe Slovenskih novic izkljuèilo samo manifest- up with the formula that “intolerance towards pre- sumed intolerance is obvious intolerance” and to no nestrpnost. Seksistièni, ksenofobièni in podobni þargoni place our report outside the liberal framework of Slovenskih novic so prikriti, medtem ko je na drugi strani relativized discourses. In so doing they even at- objavljena analiza sovraþnega govora transparentna. Slo- tempted to swap roles: it is not marginalized groups who are the victims; the victims are people them- venske novice zato postavljajo z iznajdbo obrazca »Nestrp- selves and those who listen to the “voice of the nost do domnevne ‘nestrpnosti’ je oèitna nestrpnost« samo people”, while the culprits are leftist moralizers on Poroèilo o nestrpnosti zunaj liberalnega okvira sprejemlji- standby along with the state which funds their projects rather than tackles “real problems.” This is vih relativiziranih diskurzov. Pri tem pa poskušajo zaigrati precisely the same victimization formula on which še zamenjavo vlog: namesto marginaliziranih skupin posta- rested the xenophobic attitude towards immigrants at the beginning of 2001.4 nejo þrtev zagovorniki »glasu ljudstva« in samo ljudstvo, By assuming the victim’s identity, this self-pro- krivci pa da so levièarski deþurni moralisti in drþava, ki jih claimed “vox populi” washes its hands of all respon- financira, namesto da bi reševala t. i. »prave« probleme. To sibility for its deeds. And, it is not by accident that the editorial apology in Slovenske novice overlooked pa je natanko isti þrtveni obrazec, v katerega so v zaèetku the other side of modern democracies: the protec- leta 2001 Slovenske novice z drugimi akterji vred zavile kse- tion of the minority against the dictate of the ma- nofobijo proti prebeþnikom.4 jority, including majority opinion.