|
English Language Page Òàble 1.1. Hate Speech Types
Note: The total number of hate speech types and targets can exceed the total number of filed entries (260) because one entry frequently contains several categories. This table shows numbers higher than 10 in boldface type. Of course, this is only a tentative indicator, merely used to highlight the more “popular” hate speech types. The general category of “creating a nefarious image” was encountered most frequently. We regard this type as a special, broad category, since any hate speech manifestation can easily be thrown into this category. The same material can then also be placed into a more specific category. Those coming very close to the “creating a nefarious image” category have been other highlighted types related to references about moral deficiency, creative inability and derogatory descriptions. Creating a criminal image for a given ethnic community or religious group appears to be the obvious leader among the more specific hate speech types. A comparable figure is provided by xenophobia-related types that could be interpreted as reflective of a defensive kind of hate speech. This composite figure could be viewed as an indicator of a belief that a certain group or community has a disproportionately large presence relative to the majority in a given area giving rise to a perception that this group has the capability to negatively impact the identity of the majority. Also, it could be indicative of certain calls for a given ethnic community or religious group to be prevented from settling in specific region or the country in general. It is not for nothing that the term “xenophobia” implies both hatred and fear. To add, the ongoing talk about criminality of an ethnic community is largely reflective of persisting fear. As interpreted by the domestic nationalistic and patriotic columnists, this is indicative of the defensive character of Russian nationalism. Admittedly, we have already seen quite a large number of calls for violence and discriminatory practices in this country. Table 1.2. Targets
Note: for the sake of brevity, categories containing entries of zero will be omitted from this and subsequent tables. In this table “new and small religious groups” are omitted, a specified target that was not encountered by the monitoring effort. The more focused tables below will, obviously, have more omissions. This table also shows numbers higher than 10 in boldface type. There were no surprises as to which categories were most frequently encountered. The list is as follows: “Non-Russians” (which might otherwise be called “Others”), followed by Caucasus and Central Asian ethnic communities, Chechens, Jews and Muslims. Notably, the Muslims category has definitely increased following the September 11 attacks. This circumstance likewise explains the high results for Americans and Asian ethnic communities (meaning non-CIS Asians). Meskhetian Turks, as one will see further below, have been mentioned only in the print material from the Krasnodar territory, where they are concentrated. Notably, “new Muslim teachings” (generally known as “Wahhabites”) have been targets close to zero times, and “new religious groups” (commonly known as “totalitarian sects”) zero times. Other “religious” indicators likewise appear to be rather negligible. Aside from attitudes towards Muslims, religious xenophobia over the monitoring period was not that popular. Estonians, Tartars, Kurds and Pakistanis should not have been included in the list in the first place. Apparently, they had been included because of old surveys. But now, especially after the events of September 11, they need to be removed as separate targets for the given monitoring effort. Table 1.3. Character Types
In our monitoring effort, the “characters” are not necessarily the authors of the given materials. They are the persons from whom the hate speech emanates. However, it is no small wonder that reporters are most frequently encountered in the monitoring effort’s findings, since articles by reporters are the most prominent in the output of any publication. It is simply a question of probability. Importantly, pronouncements by government officials and public figures have not been encountered often (their attitudes towards hate speech phenomenon being appropriately moderate). But experts, public figures and cultural workers have all come out in support of hate speech. This finding is very significant: one should not forget that hate speech is primarily generated by the society rather than by the state. What is more, one can assume that this phenomenon emerged not so much in the political (in the narrow sense of the term) arena as in that of public life (comparisons of the results in bold face and italics are rather revealing in this regard). “Layman” primarily refers to the writer of “readers’ letters to the editor,” which are always selected for publication with a specific purpose in mind. Back |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|