NO: 49 PERSPECTIVE DECEMBER 2018 Banning Symbols of Extremism in Austria: Targeting Extremism or Civil Society? FARID HAFEZ • What is the Symbols Act pretending to fight? • Which forms of “extremism” are ignored? • Who is the act targeting? • What are the act’s possible long-time impacts? INTRODUCTION is framed as a measure to protect Muslim girls from The Republic of Austria is currently governed by a co- premature sexualization. As the responses of the oppo- alition formed by the Christian democratic-conserva- sition show, this strategy works. One strategy is to pre- tive Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the radical right tend to fight “political Islam,” thus not acting against Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ). Both ministries that Islam and Muslims, but against the “politicized ver- are home to the three secret services (one belonging to sion of Islam.” In this vein, is the Symbols Act serving the Ministry of Interior and two to the Defense Min- what it pretends to deliver? Is really every form of “ex- istry) are in the hands of the radical right FPÖ. Cur- tremism” challenged? Who is the act really targeting rently, the minister of interior is facing huge criticism and what are its possible long-time impacts? after the opposition parties questioned an initiative to illegally dismiss the head of the Federal Office for the WHAT IS THE SYMBOLS Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism ACT PRETENDING TO FIGHT? (BVT) and for infiltrating the latter with staff with a After World War II, Austria outlawed symbols of neo-Nazi background.1 National Socialism by issuing the Prohibition Act of Given the stark Islamophobic election campaigns 1947. Following the rise of DAESH, 70 years later, this by both parties, the coalition is now delivering what ban was extended to other groups by issuing a new act. it promised to its electorate. But the government – The coalition formed by the conservative ÖVP and the Social Democrats outlawed the use of the symbols of especially under the leadership of Sebastian Kurz’s Al-Qaida and DAESH in 2014. The new legislation, New ÖVP – tries to frame its discriminatory politics which will be passed in parliament in mid-December towards Muslims in an acceptable way in order to this year, extended the ban to the following groups gain maximum public support and to minimize resis- legitimizing it as an offense on extremist groups: the tance in the opposition parties. Hence, the Hijab ban Marxist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK; HAMAS, the 1 Die Presse: BVT-Affäre: Vorwürfe der NS-Wiederbetätigung, November military part of Hizbullah; the Muslim Brotherhood; 4, 2018, https://diepresse.com/home/innenpolitik/5524032/BVTAffaere_ Vorwuerfe-der-NSWiederbetaetigung the Turkish nationalist “Grey Wolves”; the Croatian Farid Hafez Farid Hafez is a senior research scholar at the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University and a senior research fellow at Salzburg University. PERSPECTIVE fascist Ustashe: and organizations which are declared ex-Nazis and that tries hard to reposition itself as as terrorist by EU legal acts. The interior minister pro-Jewish, anti-anti-Semitic and purely Islam- claims, “The symbols and gestures of the organizations ophobic.3 Also, people using the banned symbols mentioned in the amended law are against the consti- can be fined up to 4,000 euros and 10,000 in case tution and contradict our basic democratic values.”2 of repetition, while using banned traditional Nazi There are at least three interesting aspects in the symbols carries a maximum fine of 4,000 euros. expansion of the names now included in the act. A very important detail of this legislation states 1. Organizations that are defined as terrorist – be that the minister of interior can at any time ex- it on a national or on a European level like the pand this list to other groups by mere decree. Ac- PKK – are included alongside organizations that cording to Article 1.10, all groups, who are part are not declared as terrorist ones, like the Muslim or successor organizations of the aforementioned Brotherhood, which is not even deemed extremist can also be banned. This enables the minister to in Austria either on a national or on a European potentially crack down every “foreign” civil soci- level. This way, different organizations are lumped ety organization, which protests the government together which are not terrorist organizations like and is considered a threat to the government. DAESH or Al-Qaida. Hence, symbols of terror- Currently, the minister is from the radical right ism and symbols of political and/or religious ex- FPÖ, which makes it even more worrisom that tremism are banned under the same pretenses there will be an extension of threatening groups in order to focus on foreign nationalism and ex- 2. Interestingly, the affected organizations all share tremism and to distract … from homebred white only one central trait: they have their roots out- nationalism and extremism. side of Austria. A more honest initiative would have been to call the legislation what it is - a for- WHO IS THE ACT TARGETING IMMEDIATELY? eign symbols’ ban. With the backdrop of an an- According to the Austrian government, the PKK has ti-foreign and racist FPÖ in power, this move re- around 4,000 sympathizers in Austria. Their symbols veals itself to be quite one-sided, especially given are frequently used during demonstrations, not only the prevalence of white nationalism, which leads regarding their core issues but also when PKK-sympa- us to the third observation. thetic organizations rally alongside other organizations 3. Radical right and nationalist white organizations regarding an array of issues This is also true for the mil- are fully ignored. The Office for the Protection of itary wing of Hizbullah, although the symbols of this the Constitution and Counterterrorism produces organization are far less prevalent on the streets. Another an annual report, which surveils numerous rad- symbol that is even more spread in youth culture among ical right organizations such as the Identitarian Turkish-origin youth is the sign of the grey wolves, the Movement. None of these organizations have so-called wolf greeting. Rather than being a symbol spe- been targeted in this act. This is understandable cific to the organization of the grey wolves or its Turkish given the fact that many of these radical right mother party, the MHP, it is a symbol frequently used organizations have personal links to personali- to demonstrate Turkish nationalist pride. These organi- ties of the current ruling party, the FPÖ, a par- zations’ symbols are the most widespread and hence the ty that was originally established by ex-Nazis for ones immediately affected by the legislation. 2 Ministry of Interior: ‚Schlag gegen Muslimbruderschaft und Graue Wölfe‘, 3 Farid Hafez, “Shifting Borders: Islamophobia as the Cornerstone for Artikel Nr: 16437 vom Montag, November 19, 2018, https://www.bmi. Building Pan-European Right-Wing Unity” Patterns of Prejudice 48 (5) gv.at/news.aspx?id=57567834466641794F59303D [November 26, 2018] 2014, 479-499. 2 setav.org BANNING SYMBOLS OF EXTREMISM IN AUSTRIA: TARGETING EXTREMISM OR CIVIL SOCIETY? WHO IS THE ACT TARGETING INDIRECTLY? cies,” he stated.6 In the eyes of these neocon hawkish Since the law allows the minister of interior to expand Islamophobes, Austria has become a laboratory for the the symbols to other “affiliated” organizations by implementation of institutionalized Islamophobia. mere decree, potentially every organization which a government may want to connect with the mentioned REFRAMING ISLAM organizations may be affected. The official interpreta- Again, long-lived ideas precede the latest initiative. tion of the law by the lawmakers has already revealed Already in 2017, the head of the far-right Austrian in the case of the symbols of the Muslim Brotherhood Freedom Party called for a ban of “fascistic Islam,” tak- that it is not targeting the Muslim Brotherhood itself, ing up a term that was coined by one of the leading but rather those Muslim civil society organizations hawkish neoconservative authors, Norman Podhoretz, that criticize the government for its anti-Muslim pol- who saw “Islamofascism” as the new enemy for a itics. The interpretation widely drew on a report that coming crusade in his NYT bestseller World War IV. was written by a biased scholar that is connected to Vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache used this a think tank whose many fellows systematically tar- notion intentionally to follow a current strategy to get the most vocal Muslim civil society organizations reframe Islam as a political ideology rather than a reli- across Europe with the aim to criminalize them and gion. He argued that by banning the symbols of “fas- subsequently exclude them from the public sphere.4 cistic Islam,” he was putting an end to the “creeping This reminds us of similar initiatives in the USA, Islamization,” a favorite reference point of the far-right where critical experts have repeatedly warned that the in Europe. With this initiative, Strache builds on the call to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing but legacy of the Austrian law banning symbols that rep- an attempt to crack down critical political opposition. resent Nazi ideology. Clearly, this also feeds into the For instance, the Network Against Islamophobia attempt to reframe Islam as a political ideology rather (NAI), a project of the Jewish Voice for Peace, argued than a religion. While nowadays Strache tries to make that the Trump Administration could easily “use this clear that he differentiates between a good Islam and legislation [Muslim Brotherhood Ban, FH] and an ex- a bad Islam, he spoke a different language during his ecutive order to target national and local Muslim civil days in opposition. Back then, Strache would argue that “the difference between Islam and Islamism is the liberties and other organizations that work on behalf same as the difference between terror and terrorism.” of Muslim communities.”5 This seems also to be the In other words, there is no difference, which implies case in Austria.