Microsoft Word - Stroinska
TRAMES, 2019, 23(73/68), 2, 223–238
CAN THERE BE A ‘SAFE HAVEN’ FOR TRAUMA SURVIVORS
IN THIS SOCIAL MEDIA DOMINATED WORLD?
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto
McMaster University, Hamilton
Hell is the other.
Jean Paul Sartre
Abstract. The 20th and 21st centuries have been marked by a number of traumatic events:
with the two World Wars, Korean War and, especially in the last twenty-five years, with
conflicts in the Middle East and in Africa, as well as others, vast numbers of people have
been displaced and have had to journey far and wide to find not only a new home but a
safe haven from the atrocities of war. While discrimination against newcomers to a
country, prejudice, racism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and authoritarian
dictatorships are not new phenomena, what makes the recent reactions to the current
worldwide human influxes different is the use of language manipulation, propaganda and
hate speech via social media to re-stigmatize and re-traumatize the new refugees, asylum-
seekers, immigrants and migrants. Social media platforms give everyone the opportunity to
express their views, whether positive or negative, about anyone who could be considered
the other. Both right-wing and left-wing parties and governments also see the usefulness of
using the manipulation of the labels given to newcomers and inciting fear of them for their
own agendas. In this paper we will investigate how the use of linguistic labels and stereo-
typing about the other contribute to the rise of hate speech worldwide and how the
presence of hate speech about the newcomers has re-traumatized many refugees who had
thought they had reached a safe haven after fleeing the source of their original trauma. For
the purpose of this study, we will be using data that primarily refers to Italy and Poland, as
well as some other examples.
Keywords: refugees, migrants, hate speech, social media, populist rhetoric,
re-traumatization
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2019.2.07
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 224
1. Introduction: what is in a label?
The 20th century was referred to as the century of the refugee or exile (from
both World Wars and the conflicts in Europe and central Africa), and the present
century as that of migration – immigrant/ emigrant, migrant or refugee. According
to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees [UNHCR] (UNHCR, 2018),
in 2017 the number of forcibly displaced persons worldwide amounted to
68.6 million, of which 25.4 million were refugees and 3.1 million were asylum-
seekers, all fleeing from persecution, war or violence mainly in the countries of the
Middle East and Africa: Syria (the largest refugee group), Afghanistan, Somalia,
Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African
Republic and Eritrea. To the above worldwide totals the approximately
150.3 million economic migrants – or migrant workers as the United Nations refer
to them (Migration, 2017) can also be added.1
The meanings of the different terms used to describe persons forcibly displaced
from their country have changed and continue to change according to the
connotations and associations they produce in different countries and situations. A
refugee – in the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford English Living Dictionary,
n.d.), or in Merriam Webster (Merriam Webster English Dictionary, n.d.), is “[a]
person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecu-
tion, or natural disaster”; while the Cambridge English Dictionary (Cambridge
English Dictionary, n.d.) is the only one to add for ‘economic reasons’ to the
definition. Sometimes confused with refugee is the term exile – “1. The state of
being barred from one’s native country, typically for political or punitive reasons.
1.1 A person who lives away from their native country, either from choice or
compulsion” (Oxford Dictionary). The migrant has been defined as “[a] person
who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better
living conditions” (Oxford), or “a worker who moves from place to place to do
seasonal work” (Google Dictionary). According to the UN 1951 Refugee Con-
vention, asylum seeker is the term used to define persons who have “left their
country of origin seeking safety, who have applied to another country, and are
awaiting a decision on their application.” Under this Convention, member nations
have a legal and moral duty to provide international protection to both refugees
and asylum seekers.
But the distinction between refugees, asylum seekers and other people migrat-
ing is often ignored by countries (e.g. the current crisis of South American
nationals seeking asylum in the US; some European leaders in Italy, Austria and
Hungary; the United States where ‘undocumented immigrants’ have now become
‘illegal aliens’ with all the connotations that this WWII designation resurrects).
French sociologist and blogger Eric Fassin (Lehn 2018) perhaps explains this best:
1
Although the report refers to data as of June 2017, the most recent data reporting worldwide
migrant workers, from the International Labour Organization (ILO) 2015 Report is from 2013.
Migration 2017: 28.
A “safe haven” for trauma survivors
225
“The emigrant is the one who has left, the immigrant is the one who has arrived,
the migrant is the one who has no ‘purpose’ to be here, nor anywhere:
he’s just moving about”. We will show how the populist and nativist associations
and parties use labelling as a destructive weapon against the other, and as
J. K. Rowling’s character says “Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.”
Regardless of the name, designation or label given to these vast numbers of
forcibly displaced persons, they have all suffered from persecution, war, ethnic
cleansing or other forms of violence, in some cases for many years, before their
decision to leave their native country in order to seek a safe haven. Adults and
children alike brought with them memories of their traumatic experiences, and,
unfortunately, in most cases, more and new trauma was added during their long
and arduous journey to a final safe place, sometimes halfway around the world
from their home country. Once arrived and settled in their safe haven, they had to
start dealing with their traumatic memories in order to heal and continue with their
lives. But given the current rise of xenophobic populism, hate speech and hate
crimes, this healing process may become difficult to sustain because these recent
immigrants are systematically re-traumatized by the actions of others in their new
country.
2. The rise of populism, hate speech and hate crimes
The rise within nations of xenophobic populism, with the subsequent impact of
discrimination, prejudice, racism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and
authoritarian dictatorships on affected peoples is not a new phenomenon: there
have been instances recorded and commented on across the ages. Simultaneously
with the rise of populism, the world has seen an ever-increasing surge in hate
speech with alarming consequences for the ‘discriminated against’ – whether
traditional subjects of discrimination (e.g.: marginalized populations such as Jews,
Roma peoples or other ethnic and/ or cultural minorities), or the most recent ones
such as refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants in general. This surge has been
encouraged, protected, aided and abetted by the actions and rhetoric of certain
populist governments and leaders – one only has to mention the name of Donald
Trump for people everywhere to give examples of his inflammatory, dis-
criminatory and humiliating speech regarding the subjects of his vitriol. As Victor
Klemperer (1946/2000:15–16) remarked in his study of the language of the Third
Reich, “Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed,
appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic effect sets in after
all.”
What constitutes hate speech? According to the Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary (Merriam Webster English Dictionary, n.d.), the legal definition of hate
speech is language use (in any form – oral or visual) “that is intended to insult,
offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (such as race, religion, sexual
orientation, national origin, or disability)”, while the Cambridge Online Dictionary
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 226
(Cambridge Online Dictionary, n.d.) adds the important consequence of hate
speech, “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence [italics added
by authors]”. In formulating a hateful message, the speaker purposely intends that
the subject of the hate speech shall suffer some form of economic consequence
(e.g.: loss of job, reduction in pay, prohibition from applying for a job, housing or
other benefits) and/ or social harm (e.g.: by posting and sharing tweets, videos of
violent confrontations or shaming subjects on social media platforms). In extreme
cases, violence against the subject of the hate speech is purposely intended by the
speaker. Donald Trump during a March 2016 Presidential campaign rally in
Kentucky encouraged his supporters to use physical violence to deal with some
protesters (Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies? 2019):
“[k]nock the crap out of them, would you? Just knock the hell [---] I promise you I
will pay for the legal fees. I promise.”
3. Social media: tool for the dissemination of hate speech / hate crimes or
instrument to combat hate speech/hate crimes?
The widespread use and accessibility to diverse social media platforms (e.g.:
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat) and the potential instantaneous world-
wide reach of any posted items (such as blogs, pictures, videos, news and ‘fake
news’) makes the current crisis affecting war survivors, refugees and migrants
different. These platforms allow anyone with access the opportunity to express
their views – whether positive and encouraging or negative and hateful – about
those different from themselves (refugees, migrants, legal or illegal immigrants, in
other words, anyone who could be seen as the other) and work to keep them from
coming into their (or any closely associated) country.
Social media platforms also allow for ‘anonymous’ tribal affiliation and
instantaneous exposure so that the inflamed rhetoric has a much larger reach. In
addition, it can be spread to different countries since language is no longer a
barrier, given that English is now an established global lingua franca. Where
English is not known, online translation apps can be used to ‘get the message’,
sometimes unfortunately with misinterpretations that can be even more sinister.
Online sites can be ‘camouflaged’ to seem like legitimate government sites until
one reads the message. Populist sites operate with impunity since they rely on the
conventions allowing for free speech and the free exchange of ideas which are a
hallmark of social media platforms to spread their message, or allow party
members to be contacted when a ‘mob’ is needed at an event.
Psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists have described the natural
tendency all humans have to gather together into ‘groups’ based on norms, values,
beliefs and an understanding of the roles of group members within the group that
unite them and give them a guide to acceptable behaviour. This group adhesion
provides many benefits to the members, such as social, psychological support
(e.g.: from religious groups, political parties, athletic clubs, ethnic groups or
A “safe haven” for trauma survivors
227
communities in a geographic area) and perhaps even economic stability (e.g.: trade
unions or associations, word-of-mouth help in finding employment or housing or
even medical doctors), giving rise to feelings of better self-esteem, and the
possibility of their flourishing and surviving within the group. Belonging to a
group also motivates its members to favour, trust and protect the interests not only
of their own group, but also of similar or like-minded and like-structured groups –
us; and to disapprove of, mistrust, oppose or even fear groups and/ or group
members we see as different – them/ the other, leading to prejudice, discrimination
and potentially to hate speech and hate crimes against the other (see Twose,
Henderson 2018, Resnick 2017, Barth 2016).
Increasingly, refugees and immigrants/ migrants escaping the trauma
associated with war, ethnic cleansing, famine, poverty or economic hardship are
finding that it is difficult to feel safe in the country or community that once
welcomed them. The economic and political upheavals in the past two decades
(the economic crash or 2008, the rise of right-wing parties and governments, the
ISIS takeover of geographic areas in the Middle East, to name just a few) have
seen an increased movement of refugees and migrants towards Europe and North
America.
Because of incidents (e.g.: the Toronto attack; the Bataclan and Nice attacks2)
that have occurred in some of the countries that had previously accepted the
refugees and migrants, many people feel that it is now acceptable to consider the
new immigrants and refugees as targets of racism, discrimination and hate, since
they seem to belong to the same group as those who perpetrated these acts (e.g.:
ISIS affiliated terrorists, right-wing sympathizers), based on the assumption that
they share the same ethnicity, religion or citizenship. Given the international
impact of the 2008 crash of the financial markets or the effects of globalization,
many people who have lost their economic security – decreased income or loss of
their job or even homelessness – attribute this to the ‘invasion of immigrants’ and
they fear that with an increase in the number of refugees and migrants coming into
their country, they, the citizens, are being short changed. They are also becoming
increasingly angry with the ‘benefits’ from the governments in the accepting
nations that they see given to the refugees and migrants, and consequently taken
away from them (in their minds), such as monthly support, housing and health
assistance.
2
The Toronto attack occurred on the night of July 22, 2018 in the Greektown neighbourhood of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Faisal Hussain killed two people and wounded thirteen others using
a semiautomatic pistol. He committed suicide later the same night after engaging in a shootout
with Toronto Police. The Bataclan attack, where 90 people were killed, was one of a series of
attacks claimed by ISIL carried out on November 13, 2015 in Paris. In total, 130 people were
killed and 413 people injured, almost 100 seriously. In Nice, France, on the evening of July
14, 2016, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel deliberately drove his 19-tonne cargo truck into
crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day along the Promenade killing 86 people and injuring
458 others.
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 228
A campaign sign for Matteo Salvini in the 2018 election in Italy asserts that
Italian citizens suffer poverty while illegal migrants waste food that they receive
for free from the government:
Pozzallo [Sicilian town with migrant centre]
Al Centro di Accoglienza per migranti il cibo finisce nella spazzatura.
Con gli italiani che non hanno soldi per fare la spesa…
Vergogna! Basta soldi per questa gente.
[‘At the migrant reception centre food ends up in the garbage. And Italians
without money to buy food…Shame! No more money for such people’ –
Translations by the authors] (Quattrone 2017).
As a result, we have a marked trend to more right-wing governments who
promise to ‘protect’ us from them (e.g.: the right-wing governments in Italy,
Poland, the United States, and the Brexit vote in the UK). With this shift, we are
witnessing in many countries a shocking rise of hate speech – an essential element
of propaganda based on prejudice –, and we know from history that hateful
rhetoric is a prelude to violence. As Barth says:
One of my favorite psychoanalytical writers, Heinz Kohut, says [---]. Anger
[---] is often a reaction to feeling injured, either physically or emotionally. It is
a way of repairing damaged self-esteem, which makes us feel weak and vulner-
able. “See”, our rage tells us and the world around us, “I’m not weak, I’m
strong!”(Barth 2016).
The concept of an enemy, someone to blame, is needed: the other, someone
who is not one of us, who can be a scapegoat for all of a country’s ills, someone
who is vulnerable, recognizably distinct from the us and cannot speak against or
retaliate for the aggression perpetrated upon them (Burton 2017, Psychology
Research and Reference, n.d., Girard 1987). Graciela Chichilnisky explains that
“[p]olitical parties often take advantage of denial and fear in a moment of change.
This is a well understood phenomenon that often leads to scapegoatism: blaming
outsiders, such as immigrants, or racial and religious minorities. The phenomenon
is behind Brexit and the violence in the political cycles in the US and EU”
(Chichilnisky 2016).
In addition, this unease has led to a shift away from the concept of nation – an
entity that forged different peoples single-mindedly dedicated to the protection of
and service to their country or state into a citizenry, and a return to the idea of
tribe – an entity united by language, religion, blood and belief (Reich 2014). This
new tribalism is not an ethnic cohesion but one predicated on like-minded people
who share the same world views and values, sometimes bringing together
‘traditional enemies’, such as the Black Women for Trump groups during the 2016
campaign, or the Nigerian immigrant Toni Iwobi, elected as a senator from
Salvini’s Lega Nord Party (an anti-immigration party) with responsibility for
immigration (L’Espresso 2018, RAINews, Eletto il primo senatore di colore della
Repubblica Italiana: è nigeriano e della Lega 2018). Many already settled
immigrants now find themselves sharing the views of right-wing populist parties
A “safe haven” for trauma survivors
229
since they have the fear of losing their established status because of the influx of
new immigrants (e.g. support for Brexit; anti-immigrant feelings in Canada). With
this shift have also come political parties or associations that promote nativism–
“the intense opposition to an internal minority on the grounds of its foreign [---]
connections” (Perea 1997:167) or populism understood as an ideology which
contrasts the moral good of the people (usually middle class or poor) against the
corrupt and self-serving (wealthy) elite – with both right-wing and left-wing
political parties transforming this ideology for their own ends.
4. Why we fear the other: the role of anti-immigrant discourse
Edmund Burke (1834) recognized that “no passion so effectively robs the mind
of all its powers of acting and reasoning as does fear”. More recently, Rick
Wilson, a Republican political strategist observed in an interview: “Fear is the
simplest emotion to tweak in a campaign ad. You associate your opponent with
terror, with fear, with crime, with causing pain and uncertainty” (Ball 2016).
Especially in the last two decades, nativist/ populist parties have gained power or
at least a major foothold in many Western democracies, Italy, Poland, Hungary,
France, Britain and the United States, to name just a few. The political discourse
of these parties has subsequently been employed to highlight the correlation
between times of relative economic unease and/ or despair and increases in migra-
tion patterns towards these countries, stoking the latent racism and discrimination
against the other, resulting in an anti-immigrant backlash and sometimes violence.
We know from history that hateful rhetoric is a necessary prelude to violence.
The political right also blames the rise of political correctness for what they
perceive as a prohibition to talk about the problems associated with the influx of
immigrants. They maintain that political correctness represents a new cultural
Marxism that has many elements of past communist regimes, which is committing
the very evils it claims to correct, in effect causing reverse discrimination
(Andary-Brophy 2015, Carroll 2015). After a Muslim gunman killed 49 people at
a gay nightclub in Orlando, Donald Trump declared about his political opponents:
“They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and
above all else [---] I refuse to be politically correct.” (Weigel 2016) As Robert
Folsom (2016) indicates: “Today’s negative mood involves unformalizing the
norms of the previous positive trend. Political correctness, and the collective
tendencies it epitomizes, have given way to a new normal of exclusion, polariza-
tion, impenitence and more wide-open speech.” Populist parties have essentially
transformed this artificial problem and misrepresentation of political correctness
into a powerful discourse tool, through the use of social media platforms, for
galvanizing their base and spreading hate speech, racism, bigotry and ultimately
(veiled) calls to violence against the other – mainly visible minorities, migrants
and refugees (Jakubowicz 2017, Trindade 2018).
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 230
5. The language used by populist parties in social media and its impact
As J. A. C. Brown (1963) reminds us that (1) most people want to feel that
issues are simple rather than complex, (2) want to have their prejudices confirmed,
(3) want to feel that they ‘belong’ with the implication that others do not, and (4)
need to pinpoint an enemy to blame for their frustrations. Modern political parties
have taken these persuasion techniques to heart, especially on social media
platforms (even those that do not restrict the character or word count) to the
detriment of the groups being targeted. According to the 2017 Annual Report of
the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance “[t]he populist rhetoric
has blended into a hatred of non-nationals or minorities; migration and
multiculturalism have continued to be presented as a threat to social cohesion and
security [---]” (ECRI 2017).
Sophisticated propaganda and media manipulation techniques are being used
across social media platforms and in political party rallies, party meetings and
roundtables to “galvanize the base” of both the right-wing and left-wing populist
parties. Left-wing leaning media seem to use graphic and dramatic prose, pictures
or video that describe the horror encountered by the refugees and migrants in their
dangerous journey across the Meditteranean or Agean Seas, or across nations in
their quest for safety: the world opinion was moved by the 2015 photograph of the
lifeless body of Alan Kurdi, the 3 year old Syrian boy, on the Turkish beach at the
resort of Bodrum; or by the reports of the many children separated from their
parents who were detained in the US as illigal migrants in 2018. Right-wing
leaning media instead focusses on the safety, security and economic issues raised
by the ‘invasion’ of migrants: we remember Trump’s warning that all Mexican
migrants are terrorists; or the fear of losing national identity expressed in slogans
such as Singapore for Singaporans or Poland for Poles. A similar sentiment was
more explicitly formulated by Marine LePen: “Immigration is an organized
replacement of our population. This threatens our very survival” (Washington,
2015). It has also been shown that, particularly in polls and surveys, the language
used is important and can be manipulated to sway responses: “Of the 11 polls to
gauge public opinion since the immigration order was issued [Trump’s 2017
Travel Ban], each uses different verbiage to describe Trump’s order – choices that
impact the ultimate results” (Shepard 2017).
Coded language that is understood only by the adherents of a particular party,
group or association is used to inform and communicate with members without
fear of the general public being able to understand the true meaning behind a post
or slogan (Magu, Joshi, and Luo 2017), or to circumvent new restrictions placed
on media platforms by some governments, e.g. the European Union. In the
campaign ads, posts on Facebook, Twitter and on their own website, the language
used by the Lega Nord, and Forza Nuova is strongly racist, anti-immigrant and
violent:
A “safe haven” for trauma survivors
231
Secondo il leader della Lega Nord bisogna effettuare una pulizia ‘via per via,
quartiere per quartiere e con le maniere forti se serve, perché ci sono interi
pezzi d’Italia fuori controllo…Non vedo l’ora una volta al governo di
controllare i confini come si faceva una volta e usare le navi della Marina
Militare per soccorre e riportare indietro i finti profughi’ (F.Q., 2017).
[‘According to the leader of the Lega Nord, a purge has to be effected ‘street by
street’, district by district and with heavy handed methods if needed, because there are
parts of Italy that are out of control… I can’t wait to be in government so that I can
control the borders as was done in the past and to use the ships of the Navy to help
and then to repatriate the false refugees.’ Translation by the authors].
This passage echos the words of the former Fascist government and underlines
the safety and security hardline of the new parties. Buzz words and slogans such as
“Italia per gli italiani” [‘Italy for the Italians’], “Contro Rom e stranieri, le case
agli italiani” [‘Against Roma and foreigners, houses to Italians’], “L’Italia ha
bisogno di figli non di omosessuali” [‘Italy needs children not homosexuals’] or
“Proteggiamo le nostre donne. No alla cittadinanza per gli immigrati” [‘Let’s
protect our women. No to citizenship for immigrants’] emphasize the racism,
disdain and hate these parties engender for those they consider the other.
Today’s Poland is the most ethnically homogenous country in Europe: 96.9%
declare their ethnicity as Polish. This rather simple situation, especially in the
context of the increasingly globalized world and multicultural Europe, may be
misleading if considered in isolation from a more colourful and multilingual past.
For centuries, Poland was a linguistic and cultural melting pot of Europe with
many languages spoken throughout its territory. Poles used to find pride in their
tradition of tolerance that made Poland a safe haven for people fleeing religious
persecution in Europe, from the 16th century onwards. Granting equal rights and
state protection to nobility of all religions in Poland goes back to the 14th century
and became an official policy in 1573, known as the Warsaw Confederation. Until
WW II, Poland or Polish territories partitioned by the occupying neighbours were
a multicultural mosaic. After regaining independence in 1918, while not free
from ethnic conflicts, in particular antisemitism, Poland was a true mixture of
nationalities and tongues with ethnic Poles making up only 65% of the population.
The war brought total destruction, the death of millions of people and completely
changed the ethnic and linguistic landscape of Poland. The most tragic was the
planned and meticulously executed extermination of Polish and European Jews in
Nazi concentration camps.
One could expect that the trauma of war, mass deportations and random
executions would have made Poles particularly sensitive to the suffering of people
fleeing war and persecution in other countries. With a centuries-long tradition of
emigration from Poland, the country is now prosperous enough to attract
immigrants from less fortunate parts of the world. And indeed, there were waves
of refugees from Vietnam or Greece who found a home in Poland in the 2nd half
of the 20th century. Up until 2015 and the change of government, Poland was
ready to participate in the EU plans of distributing refugees from the Middle East
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 232
with ca. 20% of the population against accepting any refugees. Within 18 months,
i.e. at the end of 2016, the percentage of those opposed rose to over 60 (Stosunek
Polaków do przyjmowania uchodźców. Komunikat z Badań NR 1/2017, 2019).
The main reason for this dramatic change is the rhetoric of fear and the language
of hate used by the official propaganda. The most dramatic illustration of the
changing climate is the rising number of hate crimes: in 2016 there were 1632 hate
crimes reported; in 2015 – 1548; in 2014 – 1365, and in 2013 – 835. In three
years, the numbers doubled.
In her 2018 paper reflecting on the 14 thousand immigrants from Greece
warmly welcomed in Poland in the 1950s, Magdalena Ochwat recalls refugee-
hostile slogans from the more recent anti-immigration mass demonstrations in
Poland:
Witajcie w piekle, zabłąkane owieczki [‘Welcome to hell, lost sheep’]
Narodowy solidaryzm zamiast Multikulti [‘National solidarity instead of
Multikulti’]
Płaczą Niemcy, płacze Francja, tak się kończy tolerancja [[Germany is crying
and so is France, that’s how the tolerance ends’]
To nie uchodźcy, to najeźdźcy [‘They are not refugees, they are invaders’]
Imigranci do domu [‘Immigrants go home’]
Polska to kraj dla Polaków [‘Poland is the country for Poles’]
Chcemy repatrianta, nie imigranta [‘We want repatriates, not immigrants’]
Nie islamska, nie laicka, wielka Polska katolicka [‘Not Islamic, not lay but great
Catholic Poland’]
Dzisiaj imigranci, jutro terroryści [‘Today immigrants, tomorrow terrorists’].
(Ochwat 2018:207) [Translations by the authors].
Ochwat labels these sentiments in post-2015 Poland using the Bakhtinian term
cosmic fear, a fear that feeds off the insecurity and vulnerability of people. Cap
(2018) argues that this fear is used by the government to legitimize anti-immigra-
tion policies, coercing its supporters to see refugees “as ‘different’, ‘alien’ and
‘unbelonging’” (Cap 2018:380), i.e. as an imminent threat to the safety and to the
traditional way of life of Polish citizens. Cap uses his Proximization Theory to
demonstrate that government discourse manipulates societal attitudes towards
refugees from non-Christian countries and encourages anti-European Union senti-
ments. Anti-immigration discourse in Poland gives fuel to nationalistic and
xenophobic demonstrations and the tacit approval of such movements by both the
government and the Catholic Church hierarchy gives their supporters access to
state and church sponsored mass media.
The language used by the government representatives to refer to refugees uses
ad hominem argumentation and often demonstrates features of hate speech.
History teaches how this dangerous strategy was used in the past, in particular in
both communist Russian and Nazi German propaganda. One common technique
was the use of medical and scientific language to create metaphors that described
A “safe haven” for trauma survivors
233
those who were deemed undesirable as parasites, pests, virulent bacteria, diseases,
etc. Dehumanising language was also an important factor in the Kosovo war
(Stroinska and Popovic 1999). When people of a certain ethnicity or political
persuasion are perceived as vermin, dangerous parasites, a threat to health and life
of the nation, destroying the enemy becomes an action of cleansing; elimination of
a health risk. Killing such undesirable elements is no longer a question of
morality, but of hygiene (Stroinska and Drzazga 2017).
The first to use such language in modern Polish political discourse was
Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of the now ruling party (Law and Justice). On
October 12, 2015 (at an election meeting in Maków Mazowiecki, reported by
Gazeta Wyborcza (Jarosław Kaczyński boi się, że uchodźcy sprowadzą zarazę?
Tak mówił na wyborczym wiecu., 2015) on 13 October 2015), he said that
refugees may bring parasites and diseases with them that had not been seen in
Europe in a long time. He suggested that there have already been cases of cholera
on the Greek islands and dysentery in Vienna. He then added that refugees may be
the carriers of “various kinds of parasites, protozoans, which may not be
dangerous in the organisms of those people, but may be dangerous here. This is
not intended to discriminate against anyone, but it must be checked out.” For
anyone aware of the mechanisms of hate propaganda, this is a very dangerous
development. Atrocities usually start with words used to strip the enemy of their
humanity. Once this happens, people will stand by and observe the elimination of
the enemy with the indifference of someone watching the extermination of
bedbugs.
6. Conclusions: quo vadis mundi?
In many countries all over the globe, we observe a tendency towards stereo-
typing and scapegoating and a dramatic turn towards language that is markedly
rude and offensive. This may not be a new phenomenon, but the intensity and
spread through multiple social media platforms requires that attention be paid to
all aspects of this wave of hate speech. As hatred and fear of the other are among
the strongest of emotions, they play an important role in the creation of media
stories that capture the attention of the audience. We all naturally need to impose
some kind of order on the surrounding chaos of social and political reality. We all
need a narrative and, unfortunately, online haters, trolls, and propagandists provide
that narrative for many. With some governments’ tacit approval of hate speech
against the refugees, the immigrants and all those seeking a refuge and safe haven
from war, poverty, and violence, the spread of verbal aggression is getting out of
control. This is the case particularly online where anonymity allows people to
write what they would hesitate to say in face to face conversation, but,
increasingly, even public figures feel at liberty to make hateful and offensive
comments and are praised for their outrageous views by their online fans.
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 234
Hate speech is a prelude necessary to incite violence. Hateful propaganda
dehumanizes the enemies so that it becomes easier to attack them. Where there is
hate speech, violence will follow. In the USA, anti-immigrant rhetoric, promoted
by some Republican Party supporters and encouraged by President Trump himself,
contributed to violence during demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia in
August 2017. A peaceful protest against the Unite the Right rally ended with one
of the white supremacists driving a car into the crowd, killing one young woman
and injuring 28 people.
Whether it is in Poland, Italy or other countries under right-wing governments,
the government-controlled mass media and even some members of parliament
regularly spread lies, hate speech, and all kinds of hostile comments about anyone
and anything that is not following the official party line. In Italy, Forza Nuova, a
neofascist party, regularly attacks migrants whether alone or in groups, or even
groups of visible minorities (i.e.: Roma, Asians), or gays throughout the country.
In Poland, the nationalistic youth organization, Młodzież Wszechpolska (‘All-
Polish Youth’), went as far as sending fake death certificates to mayors of some
Polish cities who openly supported the opposition in Poland. A popular charity
collecting money for medical equipment for children’s hospitals also became a
regular target of hate speech. Its organizer was portrayed in a racist way, as a
corrupt fraudster, trying to gather money for himself. In January 2019, at the
closing event for this year’s money collection in Gdańsk, in front of hundreds of
celebrating people, the mayor of Gdańsk was fatally stabbed by someone who
blamed his personal failures on the Polish opposition party that the mayor
supported. Even if mental illness was a factor, hatred needs to be channelled and
this assassin’s negative emotions were likely focussed on whom the media were
telling him to hate. These examples of violence would have been impossible if
there was no approval of hate and aggression. Jarosław Kurski, an opposition
journalist commented on this tragedy: “The seed of hatred, once sown, will sooner
or later produce its harvest” (Kurski 2019). People in Poland are already reaping
the harvest of the last three years of government sponsored hate speech. The same
will be the case in other countries that encourage this kind of rhetoric. It is easy to
start but it cannot easily be stopped.
The primary cause of evil in the world is hatred, and hatred is generated from a
fear of the other, the unknown. Fear can easily lead to hatred, especially in times
of scarcity and economic insecurity. The other, no matter how peaceful and
willing to assimilate, can be portrayed as threatening and becomes the scapegoat,
the target, and if there is enough fear and hatred, the victim. We know that in the
past, such societal attitudes led to violent conflicts. All of those conflicts started
with verbal aggression. As linguists, we believe that it is our duty to point to those
dangers today. We must not turn away or be indifferent to the danger of hate
because hate destroys both its target and the hater. We need to be a part of the
solution or we risk becoming a part of the problem.
In a Cherokee tale popular in Canada, a grandfather is teaching his grandson
about life. He tells the little boy that a fight is going on inside him. It is a terrible
A “safe haven” for trauma survivors
235
fight between two wolves. One is evil and represents negative emotions such as
anger, envy, greed, arrogance, superiority, and ego. The other wolf is good – he
represents joy, peace, love, hope, kindness, empathy, generosity, truth, com-
passion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside every other person, too. The
grandson thinks about it for a while and then asks his grandfather, “Which wolf
will win?” The powerful answer usually quoted in internet sources is “the one you
feed”. However, the original Cherokee version of this tale said that one has to feed
both wolves. If we try to starve the evil wolf, it will only make it angrier and more
dangerous. People who are full of hatred towards others, especially the immigrants
and refugees need reassurance that the newcomers are not posing a threat and that
diversity is a positive force. It may be easier in Canada, a big country with a
relatively small population than in some European nations that struggle to
accommodate thousands of refugees. But there is no moral excuse for countries
that deny safe haven to traumatized women and children fleeing war, poverty, and
starvation. It is particularly hypocritical when their leaders invoke the need to
protect their countries’ Christian traditions from people of other faiths to cover up
their fears.
The use of the term migrant instead of refugee, exile or immigrant removes
from the set of associations the reasons why the affected people leave their
country: war, violence, poverty, famine or natural disasters. Thus, by promoting
this particular terminology, the politicians and the media who accept their
language rob the traumatized refugees of the main reason why people in potential
accepting countries would want to show them the compassion that comes naturally
when we see someone in need. This simple linguistic operation, removing the
prefix from the term immigrant, may be a truly nefarious propaganda strategy. The
words we use change our perception of the world and need to be handled with
care.
Addresses:
Magda Stroińska
McMaster University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, Ontario
L8S 4L8
Canada
Tel.: 1-(905) 525-9140 ext 27067
E-mail: stroinsk@mcmaster.ca
Vikki Cecchetto
McMaster University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, Ontario
L8S 4L8
Canada
Email: vikkicecchetto@gmail.com
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 236
Internet sources
Ball, Molly (2016) “Donald Trump and the politics of fear”. The Atlantic. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Barth, Diane F. (2016) “How can we understand our fear of the other?”. Psychology Today, March
11. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Andary-Brophy, Cristine Anne (2015) Political correctness: social-fiscal liberalism and left-wing
authoritarianism. Master of Arts Theses, University of Toronto. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Burton, Neel (2017) “The psychology of scapegoating”. Psychology Today, September 17. Available
online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Cambridge Online Dictionary (n.d.) Cambridge dictionary. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Carroll, Rebecca (2015) “Fear lies at the heart of opposition to political correctness”. The Guardian,
October 22, Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Chichilnisky, Graciela (2016) “Global warming and the future of humanity: an interview with Noam
Chomsky and Graciela Chichilnisky”. Truthout Org, September 17. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Did Donald Trump encourage violence at his rallies? (2019) Snopes.com, January 11. Available
online at .
Accessed on 20.02.2019.
ECRI (2017) Annual report of the Commission against Racism and Intolerance. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Folsom, Robert (2016) Why Trump? Why now? The violent death of political correct-
ness.Gainesville, GA: Socioeconomics Institute. Available online at .
Accessed on 20.02.2019.
F.Q. (2017) “Migranti, Salvini: ‘Serve pulizia di massa via per via, quartiere per quartiere’”. Il Fatto
Quotidiano, February 18. Available online at .
Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Goldman, David (2018) “Big Tech made the social media mess. It has to fix it”. CNN Business,
October 29. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Henderson, Leslie (2018) Why our brains see the world as ‘us’ versus ‘them’. The Conversation,
June 21. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Jarosław Kaczyński boi się, że uchodźcy sprowadzą zarazę? Tak mówił na wyborczym wiecu
(2015). Gazeta Wyborcza, October 13. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Kurski, Jarosław (2019) “Zasiane ziarno nienawiści prędzej czy później wydaje plon”. Gazeta
Wyborcza, January 14. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Lehn, Suzanne (2018) “Word frames: ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’ in French media”. News Frames,
April 10. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
A “safe haven” for trauma survivors
237
L’Espresso (2018) “Elezioni 2018, eletto il primo senatore nero della storia d’Italia: ed è della Lega”.
L’Espresso, March 6. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Magu, Rijul, Kshitij Joshi, and Jiebo Luo (2017) Detecting the Hate Code in Social Media.
Researchgate, March 16. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Merriam Webster English Dictionary (n.d.) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Migration, I. I. (2017) World migration report 2018. IOM Publications. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Ochwat, Magdalena (2018) “O uchodźcach z Grecji (i nie tylko) na lekcji we współczesnej szkole –
Nowe życie. Jak Polacy pomogli uchodźcom z Grecji Dionisiosa Sturisa”. Postscriptum
Polonistyczne 2, 22, 207–223.
Oxford English Living Dictionary (n.d.) Oxford Dictionaries. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Psychology Research and Reference (n.d.) “Scapegoat theory”. Psychology. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Quattrone, Tony (2017) “Elezioni italiane che fare”. Meridem, September 19. Available online at
. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
RAINews (2018) “Eletto il primo senatore di colore della Repubblica Italiana: è nigeriano e della
Lega”. RAINews, March 6. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Reich, Robert B. (2014) “The new tribalism and the decline of the nation state”. Huffpost, March 23.
Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Repubblica (2018) “Nigeriano, immigrato, titolare d’azienda: eletto dalla Lega il primo senatore di
colore”. Repubblica Milano, March 06. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Resnick, Brian (2017) “7 lessons from psychology to explain the irrational fear of outsiders”. VOX,
January 28. Available online . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Shepard, Steven (2017) “Polls fuel both sides in travel ban fight”. Politico, February 08. Available
online at .
Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Stosunek Polaków do przyjmowania uchodźców. Komunikat z Badań NR 1/2017 (2019) CBOS,
January 14. Available online at . Accessed on 20.02.2019.
Trindade, Luiz Valério P. (2018) “On the frontline: the rise of hate speech and racism on social
media”. Discover Society, September 04. Available online at . Accessed
on 20.02.2019.
Twose, Gabriel (n.d.) “Understanding attitudes toward recent arrivals to the United States”.
American Psychological Association, September 26, 2018.Available online at https://
www.apa.org/advocacy/immigration/prejudice-facts.pdf. Accessed on 20.02.2019.
UNHCR (2018) UNHCR Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2017 Report UNHCR. Global
Trends, May 15. Available online at . Accessed
on 20.02.2019.
Waldorn, Jeremy (2012) The harm in hate speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Magda Stroińska and Vikki Cecchetto 238
Washington, Ellis (2015) “The case against Marine LePen”. Ellis Washington Report, October 26.
Available online at . Accessed on
20.02.2019.
Weigel, Moira (2016) “Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy”. The
Guardian, November 30. Available online at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news /2016/
nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump.
Accessed on 20.02.2019.
References
Allport, Gordon W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Brown, James A. C. (1963) Techniques of persuasion. London: Penguin UK Press.
Burke, Edmund (1834) The works of Edmund Burke. New York: George Dearborn.
Cap, Piotr (2018) “‘We don’t want any immigrants or terrorists here’: the linguistic manufacturing of
xenophobia in the post-2015 Poland”. Discourse and Society 29, 4, 380–398.
Girard, René (1987) Things hidden since the foundation of the world. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Jakubowicz, Andrew Henry (2017) “Alt_Right White Lite: trolling, hate speech and cyber racism on
social media”. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies 9, 3. DOI: 10.5130/ccs.v9i3.5655
Klemperer, Victor (1946/2000) The language of the Third Reich: LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: A
philologist’s notebook. Trans. By M. Brady. London: Athlone Press.
Perea, Juan F. (1997) Immigrants out! The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the
United States. New York and London: New York University Press.
Stroinska, Magda and Grazyna Drzazga (2017) “Polish hejt: hate speech reexamined”. Warsaw East
European Review, 119–134.
Stroinska, Magda and Branka Popovic (1999) “Discourse of black and white: linguistic principles of
hate speech”. In Jef Verschueren, ed. Language and ideology: selected papers from the 6th
international pragmatics conference, 544–557. Antwerp: IPrA v.z.w.