Η Ελλάδα που φοβάται τους Έλληνες

 

 

 

Γιώργος Δημακόπουλος

Μέχρι πότε οι Έλληνες θα φοβούνται τους Έλληνες;

Υπάρχει μια μεγάλη ελλάδα που ζει στα 131.957 km2 της και καλύπτει όλους όσους πολίτες της θέλουν να ζουν και να δημιουργούν εντός και εκτός της. Χωρίς να ελέγχει το χρώμα σου, την ιθαγένεια, την υπηκοότητα, το φύλο σου, την φυλή, την τσέπη, τις επιλογές σου, τις αρρώστιες σου. Που για να σε πολιτογραφήσει Έλληνα πολίτη δεν χρειάζεται να γίνεις αστέρας του ΝΒΑ, για αυτήν την Ελλάδα ήσουν και είσαι Έλληνας από τότε που έπλενες παρμπρίζ στα φανάρια. Που δεν στέλνει tweet μόνο όταν είναι να μπεις στην 5αδα του all star game, αλλά που διεκδικεί μαζί σου να σου αποδοθούν τα δικαιώματα σου στο σχολείο, στην δουλειά, στην καθημερινότητα. Που στέλνει tweet ώστε κανένας πολιτικός να μην σε κόβει από το δικαίωμα του Έλληνα πολίτη.

Και υπάρχει μια άλλη μικρή ελλαδάρα που φοβάται τους έλληνες πολίτες. Που βλέπει εχθρούς, εφιάλτες, προδότες, μειοδότες. Που βαπτίζει κάποιους ως εχθρούς, εφιάλτες, προδότες, μειοδότες για να πάρει μερικά ψηφαλάκια από τα εθνίκια στις εκλογές. Αυτή η μικρή ελλάδαρα ποζάρει με φουστανέλες και κοστούμια ανάλογα την περίσταση. Από κυβέρνηση σε αντιπολίτευση, ανάλογα με την καρέκλα ανάλογο και το ένδυμα.

Στον Έβρο οι Πομάκοι, οι μουσουλμάνοι, οι αποκαλούμενοι «τούρκοι» ζούσαν για χρόνια με μπάρες και «διαβατήρια» γιατί κάποιοι τους φοβούνταν να μην γίνουν τούρκοι. Σηκώσαμε τις μπάρες μόνο όταν καταλάβαμε ότι έτσι θα γίνουν «τούρκοι». Όχι γιατί είναι έλληνες πολίτες με δικαιώματα ίδια με εμάς, αλλά γιατί φοβηθήκαμε μην γίνουν όντως «τούρκοι». Στην Φλώρινα ζουν περίπου 6-8χιλ μειονοτικοί «μακεδόνες» ομιλούντες την «μακεδονική» και το ελληνικό κράτος φοβάται να τους αναγνωρίσει τα δικαιώματα τους. Και ας τρώμε καταδίκες στο Ευρωπαικό Δικαστήριο για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα (ΕΔΔΑ). Δεν υπάρχει λέμε μακεδονική μειονότητα επειδή δεν είναι αναγνωρισμένη μειονότητα από τις συνθήκες. Γιατί υπάρχεις μόνο όταν σε αναγνωρίζουν οι συνθήκες! Και αυτοί οι 6-8 χιλ συμπολίτες μας εκεί πάνω τι είναι; Προτιμάμε να τους λέμε γυφτοσκοπιανούς παρά έλληνες πολίτες μακεδόνες. Τους φοβόμαστε χωρίς λόγο. Τους θέλουμε να γίνουν ελληναράδες που θα φοβούνται τις άλλες μειονότητες. Δεν τους θέλουμε Έλληνες να σέβονται τους άλλους Έλληνες. Με την Αλβανία είμαστε επίσημα σε εμπόλεμο από το 1940 γιατί και εμείς και αυτοί βάζουμε εμπόδια, είτε για την ΑΟΖ, είτε για το «ανύπαρκτο τσάμικο» (ένα υπαρκτό πρόβλημα από το 1924), είτε για την ελληνική μειονότητα. Κρύβουμε τα προβλήματα κάτω από το χαλί της ακινησίας, και αφήνουμε το χρόνο να περνάει εις βάρος όλων. Δεν κερδίζει κανένας. Όλοι χάνουν. Πρώτοι χάνουν οι έλληνες μειονοτικοί. Αν εκλέγεσαι στην Β΄ Αθήνας και στα studio των παπαδακηδοαυτιάδων χέστηκες για τον Έλληνα της Χιμάρας, χέστηκες για τον Έλληνα της Φλώρινας και τον Πομάκο της Ροδόπης. Ό,τι είναι ξένο από εσένα, δεν υπάρχει.

Αν σε ψηφίζουν οι πατρίς θρησκεία οικογένεια χέστηκες για τα δικαιώματα των ΛΟΑΤΚΙ+, των μεταναστών 2ης γενιάς, τους ασθενείς με HIV τους τοξικοεξαρτημένους, τους Ρομά, τους άθεους, τους Εβραίους. Τους φοβάσαι, γιατί τους «φοβάται» μια δράκα ψηφοφόρων σου. Θα υπερασπιστείς το δικαίωμα κάποιων νοικοκυραίων να σαπίσουν στο ξύλο κάποιον γιατί μπήκε στο μαγαζί τους και δεν τους άρεσε η φάτσα τους, θα υπερασπιστείς το «δικαίωμα» κάποιου να πυροβολεί τους αλβανούς μπάτσους και θα καταθέτεις στεφάνια στον ήρωα του παροξυσμού σου (το θύμα της πατριδοκάπηλης προπαγάνδας σου). Δεν θα υπερασπιστείς κανένα κοινωνικό νομοσχέδιο που αναγνωρίζει τα στοιχειώδη δικαιώματα τους γιατί αυτοί δεν είναι σαν και εσένα, γιατί η «κοινωνία δεν είναι έτοιμη», γιατί εσύ θες η κοινωνία να μην είναι «έτοιμη».

Τα προβλήματα δεν λύνονται αν δεν τα αντιμετωπίζεις. Ο φόβος δεν επιλύει. Ο φόβος πολλαπλασιάζει τον φόβο, κτίζει οχυρώματα, ανοίγει αποστάσεις. Μέχρι πότε οι Έλληνες θα φοβούνται τους Έλληνες; Δεν υπάρχουν έλληνες προδότες και μειοδότες, δεν υπάρχουν πολίτες άλλοι με υψηλό εθνικό φρόνημα και άλλοι πεμπτοφαλαγγίτες, κανένας δεν μπορεί να φοβάται να αναγνωρίσει κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα σε κοινωνικές μειονότητες, κανένας δεν μπορεί να φοβάται να αναγνωρίσει το δικαίωμα του θρησκευτικού γλωσσικού εθνοτικού αυτοπροσδιορισμού σε άλλους γιατί τους φοβάται. Ο ρεαλισμός, η λογική, η εμπιστοσύνη και ο αλληλοσεβασμός θα κλείσουν όσα αγκάθια μένουν ανοικτά. Δεν υπάρχουν δικαιώματα αλά καρτ μόνο για τους δικούς σου. Τα δικαιώματα δεν μπαίνουν στο τραπέζι των διαπραγματεύσεων. Τα οφείλεις. Δεν τα φοβάσαι. Το μέλλον θέλει τόλμη.

* Ο Γιώργος Δημακόπουλος είναι μέλος της ΜΕΣΥΑ

ΠηγήAthensVoice

Advertisements

Persecuted for his beliefs: the experience of an atheist refugee

ehf

Posted on the 18/12/18

Karrar Hamza Al Asfoor is a 31 years old Iraqi activist who was the first person to be granted asylum in Greece because he is an atheist. Back home, he was actively engaged in promoting atheism. This prompted Ismalist groups to threaten him. He fled to Europe in order to find safety and be able to continue his activist work. Karrar is also a representative of Netherlands based Nasawiya feminist organization.

We had the honor to meet him in Brussels and we asked him to tell us a little bit more about himself, his work and how he feels now that he is in Europe.


When you grow up in our society, there is no chance for asking questions or having doubts. Religion surrounds you. It’s everywhere. Losing one’s faith is difficult and scary.


EHF: How did you become an atheist?

When I was four years old, my mother told me about the night journey of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed who traveled through the whole universe on a flying horse. My reaction was that I laughed: already at that young age, I had to conclude that that was a myth. What struck me is how afraid my mother got, as she feared God’s punishment for this lack of respect. I got very scared and started to cry.

Already at that age, I experienced the fact that religion was taboo and there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed even though many questions went unanswered. For instance, how come everyone around me was so sure that the right way to heaven is the one prescribed by Islam, while, in the meantime, there are so many other religions? Were those people wrong? Weren’t they thinking the same about us?

I grew up in a religious family but I was not practicing Islam as such. For me, it was more a spiritual feeling. In 2015 however, I was looking for views about the meaning of life on the internet when I came across a page on Facebook. This page was criticizing religion. As I kept reading, many of the questions from my childhood came back to me. I started critically examining Islam, got agnostic for a few months until I ultimately relinquished my faith completely.

Did this have an impact on your social life?

Iraq has a very patriarchal, religious and tribal society. Living in such a society is exhausting for anyone but in the case of a non-believer, it’s a total nightmare.

I lost my social life. I could not fit into the society and I therefore spent most of my time in my room, alone, in front of the laptop. I built up my own world on social media. I laughed, I cried and I made friends on social media. Most of them had fake identities because being openly atheist in a Muslim society could lead to their murder. I, however, could not stay in the shadow. I decided to be active with my real identity.

I engaged in a number of debates on social media in different atheist Facebook groups. I wanted to contribute to changing society. So I joined these groups and became the admin of 4 of them. Some were public groups, others were closed ones. One of the biggest was called The world of feminism and atheism. It had almost 100 thousand members.


Many atheists are persecuted. Some of them are kicked out of their house, others are beaten or imprisoned and others are killed. Many incidents go undocumented because the honor of the family has to be protected.


That is truly impressive! How does this work in practice?

When you grow up in our society, there is no chance for asking questions or having doubts. Religion surrounds you. It’s everywhere. Losing one’s faith is difficult and scary. So we try to attract people to these groups, engage in debates with them and try to convert them into atheists. The idea is to try and open the eyes of as many people as possible so that one day we can declare a secular state.

Of course, this is not easy; often we end up with insults or being cursed. In these cases, we try shock therapy by openly disrespecting some religious symbols and showing that nothing happens. God’s revenge or punishment is not coming…

You also work on women’s rights. Can you tell us about that?

Women’s situation is horrible. They completely lack rights and protection in Iraq as well as in other countries in the MENA region.

What they think, how they behave or what they wear is not up to them. Many spend their whole life among four walls. They are subject to violence, rape, and honor killings.

Most of the time, there is no criminal or media investigation because respecting the honor of the family is the most important under tribal and religious rule. The family should not suffer public shame.

So with other activists like Dareen Hasan and Worood Zuhair, we try to help as many women as we can. Sadly however, all we manage to achieve is raising awareness because the situation is totally beyond our resources.


When I arrived last year, Kos Solidarity offered me an opportunity to deliver a public speech in front of 80 people. It was the very first time in my life that I criticized Islam in public. It was an awesome feeling. I really can’t describe it. The taste of freedom is so different from anything else. I just wanted to speak after all, and they gave me the chance to do so!


And then, the threats came…

Indeed. I started receiving death threats constantly for both activities. I did not take them very seriously at the beginning but when I joined a gym in my neighborhood and three men came to threaten to kill me if I don’t suspend my social media activism, I got scared. One of them said “we are aware of your activism on Facebook, remove all your groups and pages and keep your atheism for yourself or otherwise, we will cut you in pieces and throw you to the dogs”.

Many atheists are persecuted. Some of them are kicked out of their house, others are beaten or imprisoned and others are killed. Many incidents go undocumented because the honor of the family has to be protected..

So I got home, I was extremely scared. I did not sleep that night as I realized how unfair the situation was. Indeed, no one could help me: even the authorities were part of the system. There is no rule of law, the country is controlled by tribes and Islamic militias. So, I decided to flee.

How did you arrive to Europe and how did the asylum procedure go?

Initially, I escaped to Turkey and from there I took a boat to Greece. It was a terrible experience. I however was optimistic as I knew I was on my way towards a land of freedom where I would be able to say what I want without being in danger.

The asylum procedure was extremely complex but I received help from the EHF, the IHEU, the Greek Humanist Union, the Council of Ex-muslims of Britain, the Atheist Union of Greece and Kos Solidarity. What really helped was that I had proof of my atheism thanks to my activity on social media. For others however, this is impossible as most atheists in Iraq keep their beliefs secret. So when the asylum authorities ask for proof, they can’t provide any.


I live in a neighborhood where there are a lot of other refugees. Many of them are Muslim. So, I have to do most of my activity in secret. Therefore, I still have to censor myself in my immediate surroundings, despite having arrived to Europe.


And how is life in Greece now? Are you still engaged in activism?

It is more difficult than I expected. Integrating is difficult. Apart from one time, I have received no support and I can’t find a job.

Housing-wise, it’s very complicated. Back on Kos Island, while I was waiting for my asylum papers, I could not stay at the refugee camp because it was full of Muslims and I was afraid. So I went to a hotel. Now, I am told that since I was not at the refugee camp, I cannot register for housing. I am also in contact with the Solidarity Now organization to apply for housing and join their mini business management course. I have to look for recommendations and contacts for that, else I heard my application might fail. So, for the moment, I depend on money sent to me by my family. But they will not be able to support me forever.

Although Greece is a quite religious country, the situation is incomparable to Middle Eastern countries. When I arrived last year, Kos Solidarity offered me an opportunity to deliver a public speech in front of 80 people. It was the very first time in my life that I criticized Islam in public. It was an awesome feeling. I really can’t describe it. The taste of freedom is so different from anything else. I just wanted to speak after all, and they gave me the chance to do so!

Greek people are very welcoming. People often immediately assume that I am Muslim. I understood this when in restaurants, they inform me about the food containing pork. However, when I tell them that I am an atheist, they understand. In the end, there is no difference: Muslim, Christian or atheist, we are all humans and they are not afraid of me.

And how about the death threats? Did they stop?

No. I still receive death threats on social media. They do not necessarily come only from Iraq though. They come from Arabic-speaking countries or even Arabic-speaking people in Europe or other countries.

At least I am not in the country anymore. The issue however is that I live in a neighborhood where there are a lot of other refugees. Many of them are Muslim. So, I have to do most of my activity in secret. Therefore, I still have to censor myself in my immediate surroundings, despite having arrived to Europe.

Of course, I continue being active in my Facebook groups and hope that I will be able to turn many people into atheists. We are however facing a number of issues online. Islamists use Facebook’s Terms of Services to their advantage. First, most of our members understandably use fake identities and this is not in line with Facebook’s rules. So Islamists report our groups or individual accounts and Facebook closes them down.

Furthermore, they also report our posts, groups, accounts and pages as containing hate speech or nudity. Criticizing ideas, religions and ideologies is however not hate speech. We also do not propagate nudity-related content. Some of my friends have to create accounts on daily basis.

Even if sometimes – rarely though – groups are restored, this harassment is extremely exhausting. It strongly hinders our efforts to enlighten people. In the meantime, Islamists have everything from large media corporations and hundreds of satellite channels to uncountable financial resources.

We tried to reach out to Facebook several times in the past but failed because Facebook does not provide any means of direct organizational contact for such specific issues. Also, these reports are regionally processed by their office in Dubai. This can explain why Islamist argumentation works. We are an oppressed minority and until a solution is found, Facebook is part of this oppression.

Humanists remind European Parliament that human rights can only be secular

ehf

Humanists remind European Parliament that human rights can only be secular

Posted on the 12/12/18

Poster of the event organised by the European Parliament

On 4 December, the European Parliament organized an event entitled Dialogue seminar with churches and religious communities: Religion and Human Rights within the EU – A shared responsibility.

The event was organized in the framework of the European Parliament’s dialogue with churches and non-confessional organization under Article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union. It was chaired by Mairead McGuiness, Vice-president of the European Parliament in charge of this dialogue.

The event was composed of two panels: the first one focused on “Evaluating the EU’s Framework for defending human rights in the EU” while the second one was dedicated to “Human Rights challenges and solutions in the EU”.


Humanists advocate for secularism as it is the only democratic principle that provides a framework for the effective realization of human rights.

By separating the state from religious organizations and by committing it to full neutrality, secularism ensures that everyone is treated on equal footing. Secularism therefore is by definition a necessary condition for the implementation of fundamental freedoms.


Among the speakers, Michael O’Flaherty, Director of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency emphasized that when it comes to human rights, the role of churches is often seen from a negative angle although many positive contributions to the implementation of human rights by faith-based communities exist. He called on efforts to increase religious literacy in public debate in order to better grasp the role of churches and religion in this domain.

Birgit van Hout, Regional Representative for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reminded the audience, among other elements, that Human Rights cannot be subjected to religious norms.

Virginie Rozière, French MEP and co-chair of the European Parliament Platform for Secularism in Politics acknowledged the role that religious organisations play in the implementation of certain human rights. She however also mentioned many others where the role of many religious organizations is detrimental.

She reminded the audience about the issues encountered in the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, also known as the Istanbul convention. She mentioned for instance that in Slovakia, religious groups openly campaign against the convention spreading lies about its content and trying to impose a traditionalist vision of society stemming from religious dogma.

Giulio Ercolessi, President of the European Humanist Federation confirmed the analysis of MEP Rozière. He praised religious organizations for having made a long way since much darker times where most of their actions and doctrines were in full contradiction with human rights. He however also warned about continued positions and practices of many churches, including the Catholic Church, that directly undermine and threaten a number of other human rights. These particularly concern the health and safety of women and LGBTI people, end of life dignity and indoctrination at young age.

He also called on EU institutions to show the same determination in standing up for Bangladeshi humanist bloggers stabbed to death by Islamist groups or jailed for “blasphemy offence” as for rightfully helping Asia Bibi (a Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to death for ‘Blasphemy’ and threatened by Islamists) and her relatives to find asylum in Europe.

The EHF is glad that such a debate took place in an event that was initially organized only with religious organizations. Despite the many areas where certain churches are at odds with basic human rights, we rejoice at the contribution they make in putting certain other ones in practice.

We however have to assert firmly that standing for human rights is by no means only a religious virtue. We feel compelled to remind that there cannot be any hierarchy between human rights, that Freedom of Religion or Belief does not supersede any other human rights.

This is why humanists advocate for secularism as it is the only democratic principle that provides a framework for the effective realization of human rights. By separating the state from religious organizations and by committing the state to full neutrality, secularism ensures that everyone is treated on equal footing. Therefore, secularism is by definition a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the implementation of fundamental freedoms.

Council of Europe: Torture reform needed in Greece

20181207_222634

Necati Zontul

Council of Europe: Torture reform needed in Greece

The Council of Europe has re-emphasised the need for Greece to improve its law and practice on the prosecution of torture. In a decision issued on 6 December 2018, the Committee of Ministers increased the pressure on Greece to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Zontul v Greece and several other cases.

The required reforms would provide greater access to justice for the victims of torture and ill-treatment in Greece, particularly migrants and refugees. Greece is a major point of entry for those trying to reach Europe.

The decision also noted the welcome news that the Greek government will seek to apologise formally to the victims of torture and ill-treatment.

In 2001, Necati Zontul, a Turkish man, was travelling on a boat with other migrants when he was intercepted by Greek coastguards. The coastguards then detained the passengers in a disused school in Crete. A week into Necati’s detention a coastguard trapped him in a toilet and raped him with a truncheon, while another guard kept lookout.

Following a flawed domestic investigation and prosecution of the Coastguard officers responsible for his treatment, REDRESS helped Necati to bring a case against Greece at the European Court of Human Rights.

The ECHR heavily criticised the Greek authorities for their internal investigation of the incident, in which they falsified Necati’s evidence, and for the lenient penalty imposed on the perpetrator of the rape – a suspended sentence commuted to a small fine.

The ECHR found in favour of Necati in 2012, recognising that rape can be a particularly cruel form of torture, and that Greece did not adequately punish the perpetrators or afford redress to Necati. It concluded that Greece had breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case also found that Greek law was incompatible with the country’s international obligations to prevent and prosecute torture.

The Council of Europe’s decision

In October 2018 REDRESS filed a submission with the Committee of Ministers, the body responsible for supervising the implementation of European Court of Human Rights’ decisions. The submission addressed Greece’s failure to implement the 2012 judgment.

The decision issued by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2018 called upon the Greek authorities “to intensify their ongoing efforts to eradicate all forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials”.

It made detailed requests to the Greek Government that reinforced a number of the reforms needed, in particular that Greece should:

  • ensure the effectiveness of investigations into torture;
  • reform its law on torture to make it compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights; and
  • ensure that sanctions for torture and ill-treatment in Greece are sufficiently punitive.

Charlie Loudon, REDRESS’ International Legal Adviser, said:

“These reforms are necessary to ensure that no others are subjected to the same torture that Necati had to suffer, and that those responsible for the torture of Necati and others are held to account for their actions. Greece must demonstrate that it is complying with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and that it is meeting its obligations under international law.”

The Council of Europe’s decision is available here.

REDRESS’s submission to the Committee of Ministers is available here.

More information about Necati’s case can be found here.

Will European Parliament truly stand up for all people persecuted worldwide?

Euractiv

Will European Parliament truly stand up for all people persecuted worldwide?

The role of Special Envoy Jan Figel is currently under discussion by MEPs. [EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET]

On 6 December, the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee will vote an important report for people who are mistreated, discriminated or persecuted for their beliefs worldwide, writes Giulio Ercolessi. At stake here is whether the EU will step up for everyone whose human rights are violated worldwide, including non-believers.

Giulio Ercolessi is the president of the European Humanist Federation.

It all started in 2016 after strong lobbying by the Catholic Church urging the EU to take a stand against the persecution of Christian minorities in the world. The response was the creation of the position of EU Special Envoy on the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the EU.

Ján Figeľ, the first such Envoy, former Commissioner, Slovak politician and convinced Christian, was appointed by Jean-Claude Juncker at a special ceremony in the Vatican, in presence of Pope Francis. The tone was set.

Two years on, there has been no reporting or evaluation of the work of the Special Envoy. The priorities of the mandate have never been clearly defined despite several requests by MEPs. Tireless efforts of non-confessional organisations to raise awareness about the reality of humanists, atheists and freethinkers persecuted for their beliefs worldwide resulted in more attention being paid to the matter by the Special Envoy, at least in words.

However, at the political level and especially within the European People’s Party, the understanding that the EU cannot only focus on the protection of Christians but has to stand up for the protection of all people discriminated for their beliefs, whether religious or not, is still far from being secured.

This lack of recognition was confirmed during a meeting held on 5 November by Polish EPP (Christian-democrat) MEP Andrzej Grzyb, the rapporteur of a report asking for the strengthening of the Special Envoy’s mandate.

In an offensive and particularly rude speech, one member of the EPP Working Group for Interreligious Dialogue requested that the mandate be limited to the protection of Christian minorities only, insisting on the need to raise Christian values as European ones.

He even questioned the usefulness of discussing these issues with non-believers – “those people who believe in nothing”.

Across Europe and worldwide, humanist, rationalist, atheist, laïque organisations work on the field and with decision-makers to build a better society and make sure that everyone is allowed to believe or not.

They work with their Home Offices, pleading the cause of atheists, humanists and freethinkers at risk in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mauritania or Sudan. They work with migrants and asylum-seekers in Europe, ensuring they are sheltered, fed and treated with dignity.

They work in school with pupils and children, giving them the tools to become responsible and critical-thinking adults. They campaign for non-discrimination and equality, trying to advance women’s and LGBTI’s rights. They offer humanist counselling for people in hospitals and prisons and provide humanist ceremonies for people’s major life steps.

Drafted and endorsed by the EPP group, the Grzyb report, in its original form, excluded all issues related to non-believers and completely ignored the work of non-confessional organisations. It praised the role of churches, religious communities and faith-based organisations in a wide range of areas (peace building, fighting radicalisation and humanitarian work) and invited them to collaborate further with EU institutions.

Now, after fierce discussions, compromises seem to have been found to take into account the persecution of both believers and non-believers and recognize the work performed by humanist organisations worldwide. However, issues do not stop here.

First, given prior experience, one can rightfully have doubts that intentions will be followed by deeds.

For instance, one would expect the same energy in standing up for Bangladeshi humanist bloggers stabbed to death by Islamist groups or jailed for “blasphemy offence” by their own government since 2015 as for helping Asia Bibi (a Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to death for ‘Blasphemy’ and threatened by Islamists) and her relatives to find asylum in Europe.

The latter case was – and we praise that – championed by MEPs Antonio Tajani and Peter van Dalen, the co-chair of the European Parliament Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief.

Second, the report currently discussed in the EP Foreign Affairs Committee foresees an institutionalization of the EU Special Envoy into a Special Representative for Freedom of Religion or Belief serving a multi-year mandate. A Special Representative, who in the mind of the drafters, would have solely spoken up for Christian minorities.

Even if now it seems that other beliefs or non-beliefs will also be included – the compromises still have to be confirmed by the vote on 6 December – many rightfully question why there should be a Special Representative dedicated to this specific human right and not to other ones.

Especially, the mandate of the representative, if this position is to be institutionalised, must in our opinion explicitly include discriminations based on any possible cause for individual non-conformity with religious groups’ pressure and pretensions, including sexual orientation and gender. And what will be the relation between this person and the existing EU Special Representative for Human Rights?

At the European Humanist Federation, we stand for the protection of all human rights. While it will potentially contribute to effectively help certain persecuted people, appointing a Special Representative focusing on only one human right seems to have a lot to do with the intention to voice a political affirmation on the roots of Europe.

Beyond debating the missions of a Special Representative, what is capital is that people persecuted throughout the world for their beliefs, their life stances or their differences systematically find in EU officials a reliable source of effective support, both in words and deeds, whether they are Christian or not.

With the European elections approaching, more than ever, the European Humanist Federation will keep drawing the attention on the imperative need for EU institutions to be fully neutral when it comes to their relationships with confessional and non-confessional preoccupations.

When It Comes to Race, European Justice Is Not Blind

images

When It Comes to Race, European Justice Is Not Blind

In Bulgaria, half of the people in prison in 2015 were Roma. In Estonia, foreigners are disproportionately represented among people being held in pretrial detention. In Greece foreigners who are convicted of a crime receive heavier sentences than Greeks. Roma in Hungary are three times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police, and are less likely than non-Roma to be released awaiting trial.

These alarming findings are highlighted in a new scoping study, produced by the two of us with Justicia, the EU criminal justice reform network, that looked at the treatment of minority groups and non-nationals by the police and justice systems across 12 European Union member states. The conclusion, unfortunately, is that there is a significant level of unfairness in how people are treated, depending on their ethnic background.

This is believed to be one of the first studies of its kind. Despite efforts by the European Union to ensure that EU members apply common standards in their justice system in terms of arrest rights—such as ensuring early access to a lawyer—the question of standards of ethnic or racial bias have not been on the agenda.

There are no European Union–wide regulations that have standardized data collection and monitoring of outcomes in the criminal justice systems, with particular attention to ethnic and racial minorities, and non-nationals.

In addition, in most of the countries covered by the study, there was a lack of ethnic and racial data. Even when this data was gathered, we noticed a lack of consistent methods of their collection and application of concepts of race, ethnicity, and national origin.

For instance, Romania, the Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Sweden, Slovenia, and Estonia gather criminal justice statistics that are broken down by nationality, but mostly in a selective and inconsistent manner. Only the UK has been systematically collecting data on ethnic and racial minorities for the last four decades in different areas of social life, including in criminal justice. This makes it very difficult to monitor the practices and outcomes of criminal justice institutions and poses main challenges in cross-country comparisons due to lack of correlating data.

Despite these challenges, two principal areas of concern emerged from this study.

First, institutional bias. According to the research, stereotypes deeply rooted in the society are reflected in the practice of police officers, prosecutors, judges, and even, sometimes, in the practice of legal aid lawyers.

Researchers have noticed this practice, among others, in Bulgaria, Spain, or Sweden. In Romania, for instance, an independent expert noted that courtroom officials are deeply biased against people they believe are Roma. In Spain, the existence of clear institutional bias was paralleled by the disproportionate representation of non-nationals in crime rates statistics, pretrial statistics, or prison population statistics.

Additionally, implied bias was noted among Italian and Hungarian police officers, as well those in Romania, who during interviews indicated a common belief that all Roma have criminal characteristics. In the UK, police uses ethnic stereotyping as an evident tactic. Black people, for example, are four times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people. Ethnic disparities introduced by stop-and-search, and other forms of police activity, remain significant throughout prosecution, conviction, and sentencing.

Second, the research clearly showed that non-nationals do not enjoy the same level of protection for their rights once they are arrested—principally due to a lack of access to both interpreters, and to information on their procedural rights in their own language. The situation is additionally exacerbated by the lack of effective legal aid provision in the majority of the 12 countries in the survey. While this affects detainees and suspects regardless of their ethnic identity or national status, it clearly becomes a far greater challenge when language barriers are also involved.

The limited methodology employed in this study—which is based largely on a survey of existing research and publicly available statistics supplemented by interviews with informative stakeholders—did not enable us to produce a comprehensive picture of existing disparities and their sources, but rather gave some snapshots of areas of greatest concerns. Yet it clearly demonstrates the extent of an issue that casts a shadow over the European Union’s ambitious efforts to introduce common standards of justice and rights across its member states. Having recognized the problem, it’s time to find ways to fix it.

The killing of Zak: the astonishing violence and impunity of Greek police

https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/od960_logo@2x.jpg

The killing of Zak: the astonishing violence and impunity of Greek police

Police were seen hitting him with a baton, kicking him, stepping on him, and finally handcuffing him – while he appeared motionless. He was pronounced dead on arrival.
lead

Riot Police guarding Greek parliament during demonstrations Athens Greece, 2011. Wikicommons/Ggia. Some rights reserved.

On September 21, Zak Kostopoulos, or Zackie Oh!, a queer performer and activist, was brutally killed in downtown Athens. As seen in video footage that has been made public, Zak was beaten savagely by two men, in broad daylight, in full view of onlookers.[1]

He appeared to be trapped inside a jewellery store, trying to break the glass window, in order to get out. The two men were seen to break the window front, and then kick him repeatedly onto the broken glass, as he was bleeding on the ground. He was then briefly attended to by a paramedic, who arrived at the scene, before getting up and trying to flee in panic, wielding a shard of glass from the broken window as if to keep people away, finally falling onto the tables of a coffee shop.

Police were then seen hitting him with a baton, kicking him, stepping on him, and finally handcuffing him – while he appeared motionless.[2] He was then transported by ambulance to a central Athens hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. He was then transported by ambulance to a central Athens hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Initially, most media outlets reported on the incident as a jewellery store robbery gone wrong. Though precisely what happened is still unclear, both video footage and eyewitness testimony that have since been made public have cast serious doubts on the robbery scenario. The investigation by state prosecutors is on-going, and the two men who beat Zak now face charges of “bodily harm leading to death”. The prosecutor for Arios Pagos, the Supreme Court of Greece, issued an order that the investigation should include the possibility of discriminatory motives, based on the law that prohibits racist crimes.

What is, however, more clear than the precise circumstances that led to Zak’s beating is that the conduct of police officers at the scene raises a lot of questions. To the general consternation caused by the footage showing police officers kicking and stepping on an already injured, motionless man on the ground, the most resounding answer to date has been the statement by the Chairman of the Athens Police Union, Dimosthenis Pakos, who said that “this is standard practice, whether you like it or not”.[3]

Incomplete reform

The questions raised by the apparent conduct of police officers in the case of Zak’s death are, unfortunately, far from unprecedented. Although in the decades since the restitution of democracy in 1974, the Greek Police has been reformed, we might be  justified in thinking that this process is incomplete – in the sense of a lingering lack of accountability, which has created an impenetrable culture of impunity, and even what could be called an autonomy from social control.

A vast amount of evidence that we have been gathering from several sources (including public records, media reports, personal interviews, requests for information from the police, and reports by respected NGOs) indicates that abuses of police powers in Greece occur much more frequently than is tolerable in a democratic country.

These abuses include, first and foremost, a number of unlawful killings of civilians, most of which have not been adequately addressed by either internal disciplinary proceedings or the judicial system. They also include unprovoked and excessive use of violence; ill-treatment and torture of detainees; inadequate or deficient actions at crime scenes, including the mishandling of evidence; and refusal to display police identification either when operating (for example, concealing or not wearing the identifying number on a riot-policeman’s uniform), or when so requested.

What makes the frequency and gravity of abuses even more concerning is that very few cases among the ones reported result in the police being held in some way accountable. This remains so even when the persons claiming that they have been abused have a relatively high public profile, such as journalists, or there is a great number of available witnesses (such as during a demonstration), or there is indisputable visual evidence of the incident (such as photographs or video footage).

Amnesty International has documented allegations of abuse of police powers, including ill-treatment, violence and torture, such as beatings, falanga (beating or whipping the soles of the feet), rape with a truncheon, and use of an electric shock device. This documentation is included in reports that were shared with the Greek authorities and governments.[4]

Amnesty International research

We spoke with Gavriil Sakellaridis, who heads the Greek Section of the international organisation, and asked for his view of the situation. “Amnesty International in Greece,” Sakellaridis told us, “has been systematically researching the issue of arbitrary and excessive use of force or ill-treatment by law enforcement officials. We have published three reports in the recent past, the last of which was in 2014, as well as numerous statements. Reported serious incidents, particularly against refugees and migrants, continued this year, including many allegations of ill-treatment of refugees and migrants by the coastguard in the port of Patras and the continuing practice of push-backs in Evros river. These reported incidents illustrate that the culture of impunity persists.”

“Another recent incident,” Sakellaridis went on “where audio visual material shows police misuse of force is the case of LGBTI activist Zak Kostopoulos, who died after being violently attacked by a crowd of people, after being perceived as a thief of a jewellery shop. Published testimonies of eye-witnesses in the Greek media support further the audio-visual material. Amnesty International’s research shows that systemic failings leading to impunity for law enforcement officials committing human rights violations persist. These include: the failure by the police or judicial authorities to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and impartial investigations and to bring perpetrators to justice; and the failure to guarantee the right to an effective remedy. The lack of accountability is one of the major factors that lead to the on-going human rights violations by law enforcement officials”.

Licence to kill?

The impression of less than satisfactory processes to ensure police accountability is justified if one considers even the most serious offences committed by officers. To cite only some of the most widely publicised unlawful killings by the Hellenic Police – and, therefore, ones where it would be reasonable to expect public pressure to result in justice being served:

–   in November 1980 twenty-one-year-old worker Stamatina Kanelopoulou and twenty-six-year-old law student Iakovos Koumis were beaten to death by riot police, during the march commemorating the 1973 Polytechnic uprising against the junta;

–  in November 1985, fifteen-year-old student Michalis Kaltezas was shot in the back and killed by a police officer, again after the Polytechnic commemoration march;

–  in January 1991, twenty-five-year-old Turkish refugee Suleiman Akar died from what the coroner determined were severe injuries resulting from beatings, after being detained by the police for eight days on suspicion of peddling drugs;

–  in October 1998, seventeen-year-old Serbian student Marko Bulatovic, while on a school trip to Greece, was shot at close range and killed by a police officer, after he was mistakenly identified as a pick-pocket;

–  in December 2003, twenty-two-year-old amateur footballer Iraklis Marangakis was shot in the head and killed by a police officer, after he failed to stop at a police check-point while driving;

–  in December 2008, fifteen-year-old student Alexandros Grigoropoulos was shot and killed by a police officer, while on an evening out with his friends.

The officers who beat Kanellopoulou and Koumis to death were never identified. Athanasios Melistas, the officer who killed Kaltezas, was tried and sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment; the sentence was suspended, then the conviction was overturned on appeal. The officers responsible for Akar’s death were cleared of wrongdoing in an internal hearing and were not prosecuted. Kyriakos Vandoulis, the officer who killed Bulatovic, was tried and sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment; the sentence was suspended. Yiorgos Dimitrakakis, the officer who killed Marangakis, was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment, but on appeal his sentence was commuted to five and a half years.

The only case to date in which an officer charged with the murder of a civilian was punished to the full extent of the law has been that of Epaminondas Korkoneas, murderer of Grigoropoulos, who was sentenced to life imprisonment. The case, however, is currently being heard by the Court of Appeals, and it would perhaps be important to remember that the murder of the fifteen-year-old student was followed by massive social unrest and riots, in which Athens burned for weeks.

No evidence discovered

If convictions are infrequent and sentences lenient where there are grave charges, such as murder, then for lesser – though still very serious – cases of alleged violence, the possibility of the police being held accountable is even more doubtful.

In June 2011, journalist Manolis Kypreos was reporting on a demonstration against austerity measures introduced by the government. According to his own account, when he observed riot police launching tear-gas and attacking with batons against peaceful protesters, he protested to the commander of a riot-police platoon. The officer dismissed him. Moments later, a flash-bang grenade landed at his feet. He suffered permanent loss of his hearing, and has since been suffering from vertigo and related disabilities affecting his sense of orientation and balance.

In April 2012, Marios Lolos, a photojournalist and chairman of the Greek Union of Photojournalists at the time, suffered a skull fracture from, according to his and several bystanders’ accounts, a police baton. He was hospitalised and underwent emergency surgery. Those present also alleged that the officer who struck Lolos had turned his baton upside down, so as to strike with the handle, thus inflicting more damage. This practice has also been reported in other cases of alleged police violence.

In November 2014, Dimitris Liakos, a photojournalist, was covering a demonstration at the Athens Polytechnic, which involved clashes between students and riot police. According to his account, while he was photographing police beating students who were already face-down on the ground and handcuffed, he was himself hit on the head with a baton.

These high-profile cases involving journalists were widely publicised. They were protested by press unions and human rights groups. Internal disciplinary inquests were called for. But as time passed and the news-cycle shifted, nothing was heard about them. We requested information from the Hellenic Police on the findings of the inquests, and in each of the three cases got an identical answer: “The case was archived, as no evidence was discovered to establish the commission of a disciplinary offence by a police officer.”

So, unfortunately, it is perhaps unsurprising that we got the exact same answer from the police regarding cases that involved not journalists covering protests, but demonstrators themselves, such as Yiannis Kafkas. In May 2011, a peaceful demonstration was broken up by riot police in what the demonstrators have described as an unprovoked attack with tear-gas and police batons. Kafkas, a post-graduate student, was beaten on his body and his head. He and eyewitnesses have reported that he was hit on the head with a portable fire-extinguisher. His head injury was so severe that he fell into a coma.

Having undergone emergency surgery, he spent ten days in intensive care and another ten in the neurosurgery clinic. A hospital doctor who operated on Kafkas described his situation when he was brought in as “close to death”. Again, “the case was archived” by the police. Again, “the case was archived” by the police.

Trial and error

Of course, cases of police violence do reach the courts. But even when judges in principle accept the fact that violence has been perpetrated, in the face of overwhelming evidence in the form of photographs or video footage recording the incidents, they seem reluctant to convict or to pass sentences that might serve as any kind of deterrent.

A most striking example is the case of photojournalist Tatiana Bolari, who was punched squarely in the face by an officer of the riot police, as she was covering a demonstration in October 2011. The police were pushing the photojournalists back with their shields. When Bolari complained that they could not do their job, she was punched. Her head violently swinging back from the force of the blow, with the policeman’s hand suspended in mid air, was captured on camera by other photographers.[5] Still, the policeman was given an eight-month suspended sentence, which was reduced to three on appeal. He was acquitted of the charge of breach of duty.

In May 2008, Nikos Sakellion, a twenty-four-year-old expatriate Greek from Russia, who was in Athens on holiday, died while four police officers were attempting to arrest him. The officers maintained that he suddenly collapsed and they called an ambulance. During the autopsy, at the morgue, a bag of heroin was found in the dead man’s throat.

Dissatisfied with the police’s account of the incident, Sakellion’s father plastered posters around the area where he died, requesting information from anyone that might have witnessed the incident. An eyewitness came forward, who claimed to have seen everything from his window. He recounted that the officers beat the man violently, after having handcuffed him, mainly on the back of his head. He even filmed part of the incident with his mobile phone.

Despite eyewitness testimony being heard in court, all officers involved were acquitted. The doctor who performed an emergency tracheostomy in the ambulance testified that there was no “bag of heroin” in the victim’s throat.

On December 6, 2009, during the march commemorating the first anniversary of the murder of Alexis Grigoropoulos, a policeman from DELTA Team, a motorised police unit that has since been disbanded, was captured on video driving into the crowd.[6] Sixty-one-year old Aggeliki Koutsoumbou, a mathematics teacher and political activist, was seriously injured. She had to be hospitalised for skull, ribs and collarbone fractures, and has experienced recurring hearing and balance problems from the beating that followed. According to those present, when they tried to help her, they were also attacked and beaten by police. A doctor suffered permanent damage to his arm from the beatings, while he was trying to give her first aid. In March 2012, the state prosecutor dismissed Koutsoumbou’s lawsuit against the police. The policeman in question was tried for involuntary bodily harm, the court essentially accepting the police’s account that this was a “traffic accident”. He was given a twelve-month suspended sentence.

In June 2011, the police attacked the huge anti-austerity demonstrations that were taking place in front of the Greek Parliament, launching thousands of tear-gas canisters onto the crowds, and even inside the Syntagma metro station, where demonstrators had been trying to find refuge, as well as on the improvised infirmary, where volunteer doctors were giving first aid to the injured. We, the authors of this article, were present during the attack, as we were tasked with covering the demonstration at the time, so apart from numerous eye-witness accounts that have since been published, we can also personally attest to the brutality with which police beat demonstrators, even chasing them into apartment buildings and the streets of nearby Plaka. We left when it became absolutely impossible to breathe, and to this day we consider ourselves very lucky to have escaped unharmed.

For the incidents of June 2011, there were several different lawsuits filed against the police by members of the public, and also one filed by Alexis Tsipras, who was not Prime Minister at the time, but still the leader of a small party. The lawsuits were considered together, in light of a great volume of evidence, including photographs, video footage, and testimony from those injured in the attack. Eighteen police officers were finally brought to trial last summer. They were all acquitted.

Leniency escalating abuse

It would not be unreasonable to suppose that a failure to impose penalties that serve as a deterrent, not only exacerbates the climate of apathy towards excessive and unprovoked police violence, but also may allow a specific officer to continue to abuse citizens, having got away with illegal violence before. And facts do prove that such a supposition is justified.

Police using tear gas on protesters against US-led airstrikes in Syria, April,2018. Eurokinissi/Press Association. All rights reserved.

In December 2001, during a routine vehicle check, police officers severely beat up at least two persons. According to the account of one of the victims, Panayiotis Galotskin, whose case was eventually vindicated by the European Court of Human Rights,[7] the police suddenly turned on an acquaintance of his, a passer-by, who had simply wanted to know what all the fuss was about, and began to punch him and kick him.[8] They then burst into a nearby cafeteria, where Galotskin had meanwhile been visiting the toilet, and beat him up with a pool cue. He was subsequently hospitalised.

Galotskin was charged with attacking the officers and freeing a prisoner (his acquaintance). He was acquitted in court, but despite that fact, the officers involved never faced any consequences for their actions: they were cleared in the internal inquest, and they were acquitted in the lawsuit Galotskin filed against them.

Five years later, on November 17, 2006, after another march in memory of the Polytechnic uprising had finished and everything was quiet, Cypriot college student Avgoustinos Dimitriou was walking in Thessaloniki. Dimitriou was totally unrelated to the earlier march and was just taking a stroll. He was suddenly attacked by police officers in plain clothes who began to savagely beat him with their fists. Not knowing that the men attacking him were police, he called to uniformed officers who were standing a little further away for help. Instead of helping him, they handcuffed him, and the beating continued. The violence was prolonged and extreme, and, as it later turned out, took place under the eyes of the Director of Police in Thessaloniki, who did not stop it. The violence was prolonged and extreme, and, as it later turned out, took place under the eyes of the Director of Police in Thessaloniki, who did not stop it.

Despite the incident being captured on video,[9] leaving no doubt about the circumstances of the attack, the police officially insisted that the student had injured himself by tripping and falling into a planter box.

Dimitriou was hospitalised for eleven days and has since stated that he has been facing serious psychological problems as a result of the attack. A civil court later found in favour of Dimitriou and awarded him a 300,000 euro compensation.

Eight officers were brought to trial. One of them had also been a participant in the beating of Galotskin, five years earlier, for which he had been cleared. Despite this indication of systematic abuse, the court was lenient for yet another time. Six officers were acquitted on appeal, and two were given prison sentences of two and a half years. The court suspended the sentences.

An antifascist motorcade, “State Security” and bodily harm

The Greek Police have often been accused of racially motivated ill-treatment. Such accusations have, on occasion, crossed the country’s borders.

In May 2012, Indian university professor Shailendra Kumar Rai, who had been invited to lecture at Athens University of Economics and Business, was arrested during a police crackdown on illegal street vendors, who are mostly immigrants.

In July 2012, an American tourist, Christian Ukwuorji was detained during a police anti-immigrant “sweep operation”, and claimed to have been beaten until he lost consciousness. After that incident, the State Department published a travel warning that Americans could face discrimination by the Greek Police.

In January 2013, Korean tourist Hyun Young Jung was also detained in a “sweep operation” and maintained he was beaten both during his arrest and at the police station. Commenting for a BBC report and apparently confident that he was not saying anything problematic, a police representative at the time stated that anyone who looks foreign can be stopped.[10] A police representative at the time stated that anyone who looks foreign can be stopped.

Unfortunately, such xenophobic or racist motivations are not accidental. On the contrary, they appear to be connected to sympathies for far-right ideologies that run much deeper in the Greek Police.

On September 30, 2012, an antifascist motorcade demonstration was organised to protest the repeated racist violence against immigrants, perpetrated by fascist gangs, members or affiliates of Golden Dawn, the notorious neo-Nazi party that had just gained entry to the Greek Parliament. The leadership as well as numerous members of Golden Dawn are currently on trial, charged with constituting a “criminal organization”. The latest such incident at the time was a violent attack on the premises of the Tanzanian Community in Athens, six days earlier. A press release by the Hellenic Union for Human Rights, and other anti-racism watchdogs, described the attackers as “a group of about eighty Golden Dawn members”.[11]

According to the protesters, motorised police were following them and harassing them all along. After an altercation between the protesters and a small group of passers-by that included Golden Dawn members, the police suddenly attacked the motorcade, using flash-bang grenades and tear gas. They arrested fifteen of the demonstrators, and beat them with batons while handcuffed. A protester stated that police officers were stepping on his chest, causing him serious difficulty to breathe. Another said he was hit with a taser in his spine.

The fifteen detainees, according to their allegations, were then transported to the Attica General Police Directorate and were told to stay in a corridor outside the offices of the Directorate informally known as “State Security”. Formally the Directorate for Regime Protection, “State Security” is responsible for various surveillance operations and usually collaborates closely with the Antiterrorist Division.

They were to remain there until they gave a statement to the police, without being allowed access to a lawyer. Officers of the police unit that made the arrests were also to give statements, and they were allowed to stay in the same space. According to accounts, the “State Security” officers, who were at that point responsible for handling the detainees, then withdrew to their offices, and only emerged occasionally to tell everyone to “keep it down”.

The protesters maintain that while at the Police Headquarters they were beaten again. They claim that members of the arresting police unit, as well as a few others from the Police Special Forces that wondered in, then proceeded to put cigarettes out on them, shine flashlights and laser pointers in their eyes, spit on them, slap them, strip search them in plain view, all the while humiliating them and threatening them that they were going to kill their families. They were all denied water, and the only way to drink some was when they were allowed, after much taunting, to use the toilet. They were also denied sleep all through the night. They did not see a lawyer until the following day, almost twenty hours after their arrest.

Pictures of the detainees after their release on bail confirmed the presence of serious injuries, including a mark from a taser. The accusations against the police were widely publicised when The Guardian published a report.[12] The Minister of Public Order at the time, Nikos Dendias, denied the allegations in a speech in Parliament, and threatened the Guardian with a lawsuit, which he never filed. Forensic reports subsequently confirmed the injuries.

After a lawsuit filed by the fifteen, the Internal Affairs Division investigated the allegations, and some of the officers were positively identified. The public prosecutor decided to charge the officers with a misdemeanour charge of bodily harm. Only one officer is charged with torture, again as a misdemeanour and not a felony. The officers of “State Security” that had the detainees in custody were not charged with a crime. The lawyers of the fifteen argue that the “State Security” officers were the designated custodians and should have been charged with failing to protect the detainees.

We again requested information from the police on the findings of the internal disciplinary inquest – this time regarding the torture allegations. They replied: “After the sworn administrative review was concluded, it was tried by the General Police Director of Attica, and was by his decision archived, as no responsibility by police officers was determined, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 49 of Presidential Decree 120/2008, concerning the repetition of the disciplinary trial in the case that a verdict of conviction is issued in the penal trial”. To translate, the police say that they determined no officer was responsible, but they are aware that they are required by law to reopen disciplinary proceedings if the officers are found guilty in court.

“Six years on,” Marina Daliani, a lawyer representing some of the protesters, told us “they are still waiting for their lawsuit against their torturers to be tried by a court of first instance, while the police officers involved have already been cleared of any disciplinary responsibility for the incident. Meanwhile, the ECHR continues to censure Greece for its inefficient prevention of torture and the impunity of the perpetrators. Incidents of police violence and corruption are increasing, and nobody feels surprised any more when they are publicized”.

Both the trial of the police officers and the trial of the protesters are on-going, with the next court dates upcoming in November.

The group of people that was involved in the altercation with the antifascists that night was never arrested. Two persons from the group subsequently became witnesses against the protesters, claiming they were just ordinary citizens out on a stroll, when the “anarchists” attacked them. Their statements to the police were instrumental in the state prosecution against the fifteen protesters: the charges were upgraded to include attempted grievous bodily harm, a felony. Both “ordinary citizens” are today defendants in the on-going Golden Dawn “criminal organization” trial. Both were also convicted, in another case, for arson against a bar owned by immigrants in the Agios Panteleimonas area.

Some of the fifteen protesters have also claimed that during the time they spent under arrest at Police Headquarters, the officers who tortured them were bragging about being members of Golden Dawn, and photographed them with their mobile phones in order to put their pictures on the Internet – the implication being that their faces would then be known to Golden Dawn gangs.

A family affair

The issue of the ties between Greek Police and Golden Dawn has been hotly debated ever since the neo-Nazi party’s appeal started rising in 2010 – but has been investigated, albeit by very few people, for a lot longer.[13]

After a notorious Golden Dawn attack, in 1998, which left student Dimitris Kousouris – today a professor in Germany – in a coma due to grave head injuries, the main perpetrator, Antonis Androutsopoulos – who was later convicted of attempted murder – remained a fugitive for six years. Michalis Chrysochoidis, Minister of Public Order at the time, formed a special police task force in spring 1998 with the mission of capturing Androutsopoulos, who was then Golden Dawn’s deputy leader and went by the nickname “Periandros”. Nothing came of the special task force’s efforts, and the fugitive finally surrendered on his own.

In April 2004, Ta Nea newspaper published classified documents by the special police task force, where it was claimed that the investigation into Androutsopoulos’s whereabouts was “sabotaged from within”. The documents further revealed that some elements from within the police were supplying Golden Dawn with radios and batons during popular demonstrations, in order for them to strike against “leftists and anarchists”.[14]

Ties between the police and Golden Dawn were again up for public debate in 2008, when Golden Dawn members attacked an anti-racist demonstration, stabbing protesters, and then were seen to retreat behind the lines of riot police, who protected them.[15]

After video footage emerged that showed riot police providing shelter for far-right extremists, during a demonstration in 2011, by herding them into the grounds of the Greek Parliament,[16] even the vice-chairman of the Police Employees Union of Attica, Nikos Karadimas, had to admit that “it is true that in the Police Force there are many who sympathize with the far-right”. He went on to say: “In some units they may be up to 20%”.[17] Enquiring about the sheltering of far-right extremists on parliament grounds sometime later, we requested information from the police on the results of the internal disciplinary inquest. Unsurprisingly, we were told that, “the case was archived, as no evidence was discovered to establish the commission of a disciplinary offence by a police officer”.

Particularly during the years of the Greek crisis, as Golden Dawn was becoming a law unto itself in certain areas of Athens, the police’s willingness to investigate mounting racist attacks against immigrants was questioned on many occasions.[18] In a most characteristic incident, on the day after the Golden Dawn attack on the Tanzanian Community premises that we mentioned earlier, Yianna Kourtovic, a well-known lawyer, responded to an invitation by members of the community and went to the Aghios Pandeleimonas police station, where an investigation into the previous night’s attack had begun.

According to her account, members of Golden Dawn were also present. “Everyone, both the ones who were identified and the ones doing the identifying, were taken to the station,” Kourtovic stated at the time. “But when I arrived, I found the accusers on the bench where the accused normally sit, and the accused outside the station, laughing with the police officers. In the station, while I was not there, as soon as one immigrant had filed a lawsuit, they told him he was to be detained, and pressured him to withdraw the complaint and the identification”.[19] While all this was going on, members of Golden Dawn were freely roaming the offices of the police station. More of them gathered outside the station and started shouting and threatening. Platoons of riot police then arrived, but stood around chatting with the Golden Dawn members. As Ms Kourtovic tried to leave the police station, she was harassed in the presence of the police. While all this was going on, members of Golden Dawn were freely roaming the offices of the police station.

After the murder of Pavlos Fyssas by Golden Dawn member Dimitris Roupakias, in September 2013, an investigation was launched by the Internal Affairs Division into issues of “corruption”, covering the whole of the police force, and including racially motivated and discriminatory abuses of power. The investigation resulted, a month later, in fifteen arrests of officers, ten of which were determined to have had “direct or indirect” connections to Golden Dawn, and concluded that there are “no ‘nuclei’ or (non-transparent) ‘factions’ or extra-constitutional poles in the Hellenic Police, which as a whole is a pillar of the democratic order”.[20]

Protestors marking 4th anniversary of murder of Pavlos Fyssas by a supporter of Greek ultra-right Golden Dawn party clash with anti-riot police, September, 2017. Marios Lolos/Press Associaition. All rights reserved.

Lawyers representing the victims of Golden Dawn in the on-going “criminal organisation” trial had criticised the Internal Affairs investigation, calling it a “parody”. They pointed out that just by examining media reports, the officers that had “direct or indirect connections” to Golden Dawn (through, for example, being implicated in criminal investigations, or through the police’s own public announcements) were at least three times as many. In addition, they maintained, the investigation failed to examine the systemic ties between the police and Golden Dawn, as evidenced in the implication of officers in higher positions, such as commanders of police precincts.[21]

Thanassis Kampayiannis, one of the lawyers at the trial, who is representing Egyptian fishermen attacked by Golden Dawn, told us :

“the investigation of relations between Golden Dawn and Greek Police has turned into a cover-up. At a time when the immunity enjoyed by the members of this criminal organisation has been manifestly shown at the Golden Dawn trial, there are still no penal or disciplinary responsibilities for those who are to blame.

“ The findings of the Internal Affairs investigation during the ministry of Nikos Dendias was a parody. However, the approach taken by the new government, led by SYRIZA, was also an unpleasant surprise. Not only were ministers unwilling to touch the abscess of the ties between Golden Dawn and the police, but Minister Nikos Toskas reached the point of attacking his predecessor, Nikos Dendias, in a statement saying that there was a “hunt against the police” and a “huge mistake”. The continuity between the state, the fascist deep state and Golden Dawn is still, unfortunately, the rule.”

Photoshop skills

The question why Greek governments have not been doing more to address the problem of abuse of police powers and to increase police accountability is a pressing one. Ministers responsible for the police have through the years appeared more willing to absolve the police of any wrongdoing than to seriously investigate claims of brutality – as is evidenced by the following infamous incident:

On February 1, 2013, four people were arrested for a double armed robbery. During their attempt to escape, they took a hostage with them, but they released him unharmed when their getaway van was blocked.

On the next day, the police published their photographs on its website. The photographs were very obviously and crudely altered with some image editing software. After persistent questions by journalists and a veritable storm in social media, the police published the original photos, which showed the faces of those arrested full of blood, bruises and swelling.

Three of the four claimed, through their families and lawyers, that they had been tortured during their detention. Forensic reports confirmed the injuries, and the police conducted an internal investigation, which concluded that they had resulted from the struggle during the arrest. [22]

The four did not file lawsuits, citing ideological reasons – meaning their anarchist convictions. It was largely for those convictions that along with armed robbery and other charges, they were also charged with participating in a terrorist organisation.

When the Minister of Public Order at the time, Nikos Dendias, was asked during a TV interview why the pictures had been altered, he replied: “I asked about it, too, like you, like any reasonable person, why was this done? Why were the photographs published? So that there could be an identification, so that there could be information about hide-outs. Because if there was no photoshop, so that they could resemble the image that the average person has, then the job of publishing the photographs would not have been done.” [23]

The Minister’s reply could be interpreted as saying that the pictures were altered because the faces of those arrested were so disfigured from the beatings that they were not recognizable for identification purposes. Though he was not as adamant in his denials of wrongdoing by the police as he had been in the case of the antifascist motorcade the previous year, he did repeat the police’s contention that the injuries were sustained during the arrest. He also said that the four were heavily armed terrorists, and that if terrorism was not dealt with, then there was no hope for Greece’s economic recovery.

In the event, both the Minister’s premature verdict and the internal police inquiry were disproved during the trial. The four were not convicted of terrorism, with the public prosecutor himself saying that there was “no evidence” of participation in a terrorist group, and that “a crime with an ideological or political motive does not necessarily mean terrorist action”. [24] But he also asked the court to consider the conduct of the accused during their arrest as a mitigating factor, because “the hostage related the dialogue between the accused in the van, according to which they decided not to use their weapons in order not to endanger the life of the hostage, and despite having a tactical advantage, such as heavy weapons and a hostage, they did not use it. As to the charge of resisting arrest, it would be unreasonable to accept that the accused surrendered their option for armed attack while they had the advantage, but they decided to do so while they were being arrested.”

They were all acquitted of resisting arrest. Nevertheless, no inquiry was launched – neither was the disciplinary inquest reopened – into the causes of the injuries they suffered while in custody.

The responsible Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection has through the years demonstrated little interest in questioning the procedures through which the police seem to never find any evidence of wrongdoing among their peers. This remains true to a large extent today, even though SYRIZA had been very vocal about the issue while in opposition, with one notable exception: the creation of a new “mechanism” for investigating complaints, as part of the Ombudsman’s office, which is an independent authority for mitigation in differences between citizens and public administration.

The so-called “National Mechanism for the Investigation of Incidents of Abuse”, which was launched in 2016, allows the Ombudsman to intervene in internal disciplinary proceedings in various institutions, including the police. Effectively, the Ombudsman can halt the disciplinary proceedings until they conduct their own independent investigation into allegations of abuse. They have the power to request documents and hear testimony from involved persons, which they can use to produce an independent report. Upon submission of the Ombudsman’s report, the disciplinary inquest resumes and must take it into account without diverging from it, except by providing a “specifically justified reason”. The Ombudsman also has the power to request a reevaluation of findings in such proceedings, can make recommendations to ministers, and can forward its findings to state prosecutors when they determine that there is evidence of criminal activity. Finally, in cases where the European Court of Human Rights finds Greece in violation of its obligation to conduct effective investigations, the Ombudsman has the power to request that disciplinary inquests be reopened.

A portable transceiver

In the last fifteen years, the European Court of Human Rights has found against Greece in numerous cases concerning violations of article 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

These are, obviously, only the cases where the people affected had both the determination and the resources to see a rather difficult process through, and also where the strict ECHR standards for admissibility could be met. Depending on whether one only includes torture as legally defined or also varying degrees of degrading treatment in the more general sense ­– including conditions of detention in police stations, refusal of access to medical attention, etc.—the number of these cases ranges between thirteen and over one hundred.

The most recent such case that was decided by the ECHR, in 2018, concerned two young men – one of them a minor at the time – who were arrested for traffic violations in 2002, in separate incidents. Once taken to a police station, they were beaten up. Then, a police officer produced a device for delivering electric shocks and tortured the detainees. During the administrative inquiry that followed, the officer’s superiors decided to archive the case with respect to the allegation of using an electric shock device, and found only that he carried and used during the performance of his duties a “portable transceiver” without the prior permission of the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications. He was fined 100 euros. The officer was subsequently promoted, and left the service in 2010.

After a long series of delays and postponements, the officer was put on trial and convicted in 2011, receiving a sentence of six years imprisonment. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to five years and converted to a pecuniary penalty of five euros per day of sentence. Because the court took into consideration the officer’s financial difficulties, it decided that the amount could be paid in thirty-six instalments.

The ECHR found that the process followed by the Greek authorities failed to provide a deterrent for the officer or other agents of the state, so that they may not commit such acts in the future. It awarded 26.000 euros in moral damages to each of the two victims.[25]

The thirteen cases against Greece involving violations of articles 2 and 3, collectively known under the leading case title “Makaratzis v. Greece”,[26] were discussed in a meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in September 2018.[27] The Committee has placed these cases under “enhanced supervision”, particularly with regard to the possibility of reopening disciplinary inquests under the new Ombudsman “mechanism”. The Ombudsman has requested the re-evaluation of one case, so far.

It is, however, crucial to note that although this new “mechanism” is an undoubtedly positive development, it is at best a means of applying pressure to relevant authorities, and not a definitive measure – which is perhaps why Gavriil Sakellaridis told us that “Amnesty International is deeply concerned that although some steps have been taken to address impunity, such as the creation of a police complaints mechanism, more needs to be done”.

Impunity

To our question on how the Ombudsman’s findings would be binding or could be enforced on the police, the Press Office replied that they are “obliged to comply”. This does little to counteract the view that the Ombudsman’s powers amount, in the final analysis, to a capability of making recommendations, as it has no power to actually enforce its decisions. It is still down to relevant authorities – whether the police disciplinary mechanism or the state prosecutors and the courts – to heed the Ombudsman’s recommendations and mend their ways.

“Greece consciously avoids as far as it can punishing officers of its security forces who are implicated in torture and other forms of ill-treatment,” says Panayote Dimitras, head of Greek Helsinki Monitor, an NGO that has represented eight out of the thirteen cases in the ECHR “Makaratzis v. Greece” bundle. “Even when there are convictions by the ECHR,” he told us, “a proper execution of the decision does not take place. This would mean, at least, a review of the disciplinary and penal decisions that have led to impunity, even if such actions would not result in new sentences for the perpetrators, due to the statute of limitations. A review, nevertheless, that would quash decisions or parts of decisions that led to impunity, combined with an apology to the victims, would be a very significant step in rectifying injustice”.

It seems to us that the Ombudsman’s powers are not on their own sufficient for this task—nor for preventing or substantially limiting the continuation of police abuses in the future. The police, in a democracy, is subject to elected political authority, and it is ultimately that authority which is responsible for addressing the issue of police abuses and the apparent “culture of impunity”.

With that in mind, we requested an official statement from the current minister, Olga Gerovassili. Her response, which was emailed to us via the ministry Press office, included a pledge that the manner in which the police operated in the Zak Kostopoulos incident will be thoroughly investigated and the affair will be resolved, as well as a lengthy exposition on the culpability of “some” of the media for how the incident was reported, and other thoughts on the “fascisisation” of society.

When we replied that this statement did not address our question, which was about police impunity, we were told by the press office that the Minister’s schedule would not allow her to draft a new statement. We replied again that we were willing to wait, and indeed allowed ten days for the Minister to find the time to reply. To the last of several reminders that this is an issue of the utmost importance for the Ministry, the press office replied for a final time that the Minister would not have the time for further comment.

Justice for Zak?

“We will ask to speak with the Minister, Ms Gerovassili,” one of the lawyers for Zak’s family, Anny Paparroussou told us. Her intention is to communicate to the Minister not only her concern over the conduct of the police at the scene of Zak’s death, but also their less than satisfactory, in her view, performance in the on-going investigation.

Characteristically, once Zak had been taken away in the ambulance, the arresting officers left the scene, without securing it. It is only after about an hour and a half that an officer, according to his own testimony to the prosecutor, was ordered to go back and secure the scene. In the meantime, the jewellery store owner, who had beaten up Zak, was still not in custody and was seen on video cleaning up.

“The investigation is not going very well,” says Paparroussou. “The video material from cameras of adjacent shops, which could help to retrace everything that happened, has not been collected by the police. We are told this matter is now closed. There does not seem to have been any active search for witnesses by the police – it is only some friends of the victim who are looking for them and are trying to convince them to come forward. Around fifteen people have testified, but there were over a hundred present. The prosecutor did ask the police to identify the people that appear in videos with Zak before the incident, and particularly one person who was with him before and is also seen during the beating. The police replied one day later, just one day, that they were unable to identify them”.

A great many people, including from the queer community, have expressed outrage online about the way Zak died and are demanding “justice for Zak”. Protests have been held in Athens and Brussels. At the massive anti-racist march in Berlin, on October 13, there was a block dedicated to Zak. Amnesty International, the Hellenic Union for Human Rights, and various NGOs have issued statements condemning the conduct of the police and calling for an investigation.

An internal disciplinary inquest is now under way. Several NGOs have petitioned the Ombudsman’s new “mechanism” to intervene – and they have pledged to do so. “They have no intelligible place in the philosophy of democracy.”

Still, given the Greek police’s track record, of which we here have documented merely a few most memorable instances, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that the officers of the law and the rule of law will continue on their separate ways.

“Part of the reason,” Mark Greif writes, “police seem at present unreformable is that they have no intelligible place in the philosophy of democracy”.[28]

In Greece at least, this certainly has a ring of truth.

Protesters opposing planned changes to Greek strike laws and rampant real estate auctions clash with police outside parliament, Athens, January 12, 2018. Angelos Tzortzinis/Press Association. All rights reserved.


[1] Video footage is available from SKAI TV here, in a news report billed as “attempted robbery”.

[2] Video footage available via Efimerida ton Syntakton, here .

[3] Statement made during live interview here on Antenna TV. Video available online (in Greek).

[4] See Amnesty International, “Police Violence in Greece. Not just ‘Isolated Incidents’,” report, 2012, available online (in English) here; “A Law Unto Themselves. A Culture of Abuse and Impunity in the Greek Police,” report, 2014, available online (in English) here.

[5] A photo by Reuters/Yannis Behrakis is available to view here.

[6] A clip from the video footage is available to view here.

[7] See “Case of Galotskin v. Greece” (Application no. 2945/07), 14.04.2010, available online (in English) here.

[8] The victim of this abuse was also vindicated by the ECHR. See “Case of Zelilof v. Greece” (Application no. 17060/03), 24.08.2007, available online (in English) here .

[9] A part of the video footage is available here and here.

[10] See Chloe Chadjimatheou, “The tourists held by Greek police as illegal migrants,” BBC News, January 10, 2013, available online here.

[11] See Hellenic Union for Human Rights, “Violent attack by Golden Dawn,” Press release, September 26, 2012, available online (in Greek) here.

[12] See Maria Margaronis, “Greek anti-fascist protesters ‘tortured by police’ after Golden Dawn clash,” The Guardian, October 9, 2012, available online here.

[13] For an introduction to the issue, see the article by the investigative team “Ios”, which over the years has revealed a lot of what we know about Golden Dawn: “The Blackshirts of the Hellenic Police” [Oi melanohitones tis ELAS], Eleftherotypia, February 10, 2008. Available online (in Greek).

[14] See Areti Athanassiou, “Police were covering for ‘Periandros’,” Ta Nea, April 17, 2004, available online (in Greek) here.

[15] “The Blackshirts of the Hellenic Police”, ibid.

[16] Part of the footage is available to view here.

[17] See Stelios Vradelis, “The intimate relations between Hellenic Police and Golden Dawn have surfaced” [Stin epifaneia oi sheseis storgis EL.AS.-Hrysis Avgis], Ta Nea, July 1, 2011, available online (in Greek) here.

[18] See Amnesty International, Public Statement, October 29, 2012, available online (in Greek) here.

[19] See “Golden Dawn Attack on Immigrants and lawyer Ioanna Kourtovic” [Epithesi Hrysavgiton se metanastes kai sti dikigoro Ioanna Kourtovic], tvxs.gr, September 27, 2012, http://bit.ly/1NLWi44

[20] The findings of the investigation are no longer available on the Hellenic Police website, but they are available (in Greek) here.

[21] The statement is available (in Greek) here.

[22] Statements by the Commander of the Internal Affairs Service of the Hellenic Police, February 8, 2013, available online (in Greek) here.

[23] Ministry of Public Order and Protection of the Citizen, Press Release, Statements by the Minister on ΜEGA Channel to journalists Dimitris Kampourakis and Yiorgos Oikonomeas, February 4, 2013, available online (in Greek) here.

[24] See Mariniki Alevizopoulou, “Do you remember the guys from Velvendo?” [Thimaste ta paidia sto Velvento?], Unfollow, September 5, 2014.

[25] See “Affaire Sidiropoulos et Papakostas c. Gréce” (Requête no 33349/10), 25.04.2018, available online (in French) here .

[26] The relevant ECHR documentation is available online (in English) here: the original decision is available (in English) here.

[27] The relevant documentation is available online (in English) here.

[28] Mark Greif, “Seeing Through Police,” Verso blog, October 6, 2017, available online here.