It's been 4 weeks since the election run ended. Is that it? News and publicist services all day swell from reports who plays 5D chess with who. The run details go out into the shadows, and with elbows in the media space the latest face is spreading Realpolitik. But before we fall into social oblivion, it is essential to look back on what subjects have been devoted in pre-election mobilizations and narratives of "less evil"/ "greater good". 1 of them is surely a migration policy – or more generally, a social attitude towards migrants, people on the way.
For 2 months (and counting the preparatory period, much longer) at the Helsinki Human Rights Foundation we followed investigation as the language of contempt towards the number spread to us socially in the campaign. I'm afraid that's nothing new. respective erstwhile campaigns have already been poisoned by hate. This is for LGBTQ+ (2019, 2020), and for refugees and refugees (2015). In the latest campaign, the erstwhile led the second subject.
This was not a large surprise to the attentive observers – politicians associated with authority prepared the ground for this, even though they were building a securitisation and dehumanizing discourse on the Polish-Belarusian borderAnd the extremist right of the Confederate heated anti-Ukrainian moods.
However, neither 1 of us expected it to happen on specified a immense scale and will infect almost the full political scene – and behind it besides possible voters and voters. This is not going to be a text about precisely what narratives we observed or on what scale. specified information will be saturated with the final study from our study, which we plan to print in January 2024 (preliminary conclusions can be found here). We will focus on the main reflection that comes to us after these 2 months, which can be closed in a simple message that "Xenophobia has made us everyday." erstwhile again, the limit of what we give consent to in public debate has been shifted, and the limits of resentment towards others – additionally armed.
For example, take a image from the last days of the campaign: after pre-election debate on TVP More commentators were congratulating Simon Holownia, who they thought would win the debate. Even more progressive among them, they awarded him a triumph "despite differences". Even attention was paid to lighting, outraged long questions and conduct of the lead. And although there were separate voices (for example Paulina Januszewska), it was the majority of commentators without half a comment that slipped after many xenophobic films contained statements of the leader of Poland 2050. For example, he said that we request in Poland "less Syrians and more Poles" – creating a terrible alternate that does not truly exist.
The barely completed election run fed a very dangerous belief that "it is and already" – that "other than that 1 can not", "it only allows the election to win", or, worse still, "everyone knows that they do not think so, but it must be said so." What if by the way (at least) we marginalize a immense group of people? “The focus on the party’s needs shows that there is simply a social consent to sacrifice this value. This strategy was primarily adopted by the Civic Coalition. On social media, her candidates threatened “migrants from muslim countries”, “from Asia and Africa” or even “importing terrorists’. This followed the silent consent of any of their candidates – including those who build their symbolic capital for humanitarian aid. All in the name of triumph over the “full hypocrisy” of the Law. After all, it is only after “the defeat of populists” that populist language can be disposed of, right?
Ukraine – a past of field donation
Politics became a hostage to proverbial focusses, mass-produced polls and narratives with a "higher goal" of winning over the PiS. In our opinion, therefore, the more it turned out that xenophobia was profitable, the little scruples appeared erstwhile reaching for it. Or – a step earlier – the more doubts raised by active opposition to it.
Anti-Ukrainian narratives can be a good example of what the field strategy has led to. On the verge of a run of stories about “privileged Ukrainians” and “halting the Ukrainianization of Poland” It was only the far right. But erstwhile we searched the net in search of counternarration, it turned out, for example, that unless there were advanced words in the programs of all groups about "supporting independent Ukraine", or "protection of Polish grain", about about 2 million Ukrainian diaspora in Poland, there was not a word there.
In the background there were anti-Ukrainian sentiments. On the 1 hand, focused around subsequent developments of the "cereal affair", on the another hand, reflecting in a curved mirror the shortcomings in access to public services offered by the State and the related concerns about the future. We have observed them rather frequently in our research. The Confederacy took advantage of the chance to include its message in the audience’s expectations: “Yes, a Ukrainian takes distant your job, money, and even your partner. Only we offer the solution, the simplest possible, see how easy it is.”
From the liberal side and the ruling camp for a long time, it was almost completely quiet. Until it turned out that this communicative was already fed adequate to start paying off to others. Government spokesperson Piotr Müller began to wonder at Polsat News"Did we not exaggerate the treatment of Ukrainians in specified a privileged way", while Donald Tusk called for "a clear discrimination between the rights of the Polish citizen and the refugee. Explain what form of aid a state can afford to aid refugees, which is impossible." Fortunately, he added that "there is nothing anti-Ukrainian about it". Definitely.
Example coming from above
In our study, it turned out that information bubbles play an crucial function in making hateful statements. We have observed more frequently the speech of hatred under the posts of Sovereign Poland than – for example – the Association of Legal Interventions or Amnesty global (although this kind of content is not missing here). Users (because, however, this kind of content was published more frequently by men) usually do not want to face their views – not even to learn something, but even to convince those who think differently. Rather, the function of publishing hateful content is to strengthen your own view and the emotional satisfaction of collective bullling.
It is not for no reason that we give here an example of sovereign Poland, due to the fact that it was from its fanpejja – and from the fanpejja of any of its politicians – that we reflected most frequently in our research. It is about Patrick Jaka, who, despite not being a candidate himself, actively participated in the production of content encouraging the vote on his organization and mostly on the United Right. erstwhile Patryk Jaka throws in a commentless – or emoticon only – a post with a photograph of Jana Shhostak screaming, his followers already know precisely what to do. They do not request to be further encouraged, it is adequate to make an excuse, and the comments shed hatred – from accusations of being “the agent of Lukashenko and Putin” to threats of sexual violence.
Starch by helplessness
During our research, we frequently experienced feelings of infirmity. Helplessness. specified doubts did not leave us and do not leave us all the time. Especially since if you look for available – besides from the level of a "normal" net user – tools for resisting this phenomenon, the balance is definitely not optimistic.
While operating in social media, we agree to the conditions of public debate imposed on us by non-transparent algorithms of corporate giants. Black boxes in whose interest it is not to open up to all users – and whose main function is not to average public debate, but to sale services and products predatoryly. And that by the way they became a forum aspiring to be a modern agora (with all its chaos and sneaking under the feet of chickens)? Well, a small accident at work, or do you want to buy these shoes? Here's a link, erstwhile you're emotionally excited after seeing any political videos. On anti-hate-speech/anti-disinformation washing It's getting harder to fool. Especially if you are trying a long and hard way to study "non-practice content community" – sometimes it works, but in more subtle cases the procedure takes a long time and ends with rejection of the application.
What about the second pole of this spectrum? Since ultra-modern social media is failing, possibly we should turn to a more conventional institution, what is the court? But here we will encounter a number of problems. Both basic procedures have their limitations. To file a civilian action for the protection of individual property, it is fundamentally essential to be a associate of the group afraid (or to represent specified a person). So this is simply a useful tool for Agnes HollandBut not necessarily for an activist.
In criminal proceedings, however, the problem of "invoking hatred" is understood alternatively narrowly, according to the rule of the definition of criminal law. Both of these proceedings besides combine the fact that they last a long time and are at advanced hazard of failure. And in case of civilian action, besides advanced costs. An example of fresh days – the European Parliament decided to waive the immunity of 4 Members of the United Right (including Patrick Jak) in connection with the criminal proceedings against them concerning the anti-immigrant place of... 2018. late after the failure of the civilian trial, TVP published an apology for Khedi Alievej, a exile and social activist, for utilizing her image in 1 of the 2016 materials threatening migrants. It is not adequate for everyone to be stubborn and capital for 7 years of protracted trial.
How about election or referendum mode? In this case, the court has 24 hours to decide. The legislator even provided for a suitable provision in the referendum Act, which provides for the anticipation of submitting a request for e.g. a ban on dissemination and an order to correct false information. It seems promising – due to the fact that what else are stereotypes and harms towards those who migrate, if not just “false information”? Well, the court can answer that the “opinion” – which is not subject to assessment by the prism of this provision. This is what happened in the case that the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights submitted against any of the statements of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki on "the forced relocation of illegal immigrants". The Foundation was accused of "kneblating freedom of speech" and "promoting the political correctness of the left".
Was it worth it?
Narrative concessions from those more average only feed extremist tendencies. They should not be allowed to become normal. So – be careful of the language, as far as possible utilizing available tools and, possibly most crucial in the election period, require its representatives (and publicists) not only to side with xenophobic language, but to defy it actively. That's it. That's it.
On September 29, migration researchers and researchers published position on the mention question on the relocation mechanism. They opposed presenting people with migration experience as possible threats. The letter addressed politicians, calling for the cessation of the instrumental usage of refugees and migrants for political purposes, as well as the media to "not duplicate xenophobic narrative".
It is not said that the upturning of xenophobic sentiments has translated into better electoral results of this or any another political group. It's hard to justice from dry polls. However, they seem to tell a communicative alternatively about the fatigue of a crucial part of the ruling society for 8 years with a political option and the triumph of the alleged "minor evil" or "greater good". And the weak polling results of the 3rd Way, which not always convinced voters decided to "save" – without predicting the conventional underestimation of the PSL. However, a large group of politicians and politicians indifferent to migration issues – including the humanitarian crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border – joined the Sejm and the Senate. Consider Białystok as an example. The Senator's mandate was "reflected" there by a crucial difference of vote of the candidate of Poland 2050, Maciej Żywno, an experienced self-government man and a humanitarian aid trained activist from the Polish-Belarusian border.
What's next?
It is not that the run dust has fallen and abruptly – as with touching the magic wand of a possible seismic majority – xenophobia from public discourse has disappeared. This is known to anyone who has observed discussions about the crimes committed by Israeli authorities in the Gaza Strip and the terrorist attacks of Hamas. Thus, on the 1 hand, anti-Semitic statements appear, sometimes frighteningly extreme, about which calling on the Polish net invariably easily. On the another hand, typically Islamophobic narratives, comparing people from the Muslim cultural ellipse with terrorists or attributing terrorist incinations to them, service to justify the fatal bombings of Palestinian civilians, conducted regular by Israeli troops. Not to mention that in utmost cases they besides contribute to resentment towards those who search or will search global protection.
Next year we will have 2 more electoral campaigns – local government and Euro-Parliamentary. In both cases, migration can be expected to be 1 of the hotter and more pressing. Finally, due to the deficiency of a state migration policy, it is the self-government that must take large work for integration policies. On the another hand, the fresh Pact on Migration and Asylum continues in the European Union, and politicians, at least to the right, will surely not refuse to scare themselves with “forceful relocations” and a full host of another moral panics. This kind of communicative is expected, for example, at today's independency March, which, among the threats facing Poland, lists "the progressing federalisation of the European Union and limiting the sovereignty of the associate States, the war in Ukraine and mass immigration".
What can be proposed alternatively of stereotypes – or what is required of their political representatives? How about a state migration policy? We request this desperately in Poland. Let the scale of this request be borne out by the fact that both NGOs specialising in the case (here you will find proposals from the Migration Consortium), any self-government politicians who feel the burden of not having this policy all day and... The same independency March Association in its own Reference spot (of course in a different speech – as Krzysztof Bosak gave a foretaste in the pre-election debate, advocating the usage of physical force against those trying to scope Europe through the Mediterranean).
The aim is to support people coming to Poland on the 1 hand, but on the another – to care for the social fears that appear around it. It is not known to be worrying, especially if it is itself experiencing social shortages and hard economical situation. Now this fear uses the right to make an atmosphere of fear and to put oneself as a defender – and the answer is besides frequently either silence or the acquisition of the same narratives "in the name of the greater good."
**
Olga Świerkocka – researcher, student of psychology and Polish philology at the University of Warsaw. He is curious in the subject of migration, the relation of man with the place and modernist literature.
Ada Tyminska - A researcher. She has been a Ph.D. at the University of Warsaw Inter-Administrative School and a 3rd sector employee, for respective years connected with the subject of activistic and academic migration. Warsaw scholarship holder for 2023 in the field of literature. He's working on his Ph.D. on young people on the way and his fresh on Wisla.
