Im europäischen Parlament bin ich da bei den Grünen zuständig für den Anti Rassismus Report und freue mich, dass dieser Bericht eine klare grüne Handschrift trägt und progressive auf strukturellen Rassismus eingeht. Rechtspopulistische Parteien haben im europäischen Parlament gegen diesen Bericht gewettert. Einer der Abgeordneten hat die Gelegenheit genutzt um von der great Replacement Theory zu sprechen und hat damit im europäischen Parlament den Nährboden für Rassistische Ressentiments gesetzt. Mit meinen Kolleginnen haben wir uns an die Parlamentspräsidenten gewendet und sie aufgefordert gegen diesen Abgeordneten Maßnahmen zu ergreifen. Ein solches Verhalten hat im europäischen Parlament nichts verloren. Das ist keine Meinung!
Dear Ms. President,
We are writing to call for disciplinary measures as stated in the Rules of Procedure against MEP Nicolas Bay for promoting the Great Replacement Theory in the plenary chamber on Thursday (10th of November). The Great Replacement Theory is not a theory, it is a fascist conspiracy narrative warning that white population is being replaced by non-European immigrants. The Great Replacement concept was popularized by French writer Renaud Camus in his 2012 book Le Grand Remplacement (“The Great Replacement”). Camus postulated that black and brown immigrants were reverse-colonizing “native white” Europeans.
Racists use the Great Replacement Theory to justify violence. For example, Brenton Tarrant, who killed 51 people during attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on March 15, 2019,tit led his manifesto after the ‘theory’ and warned of a ‘white genocide’. Patrick Crusius, who killed 21 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, on August 3, 2019, also subscribed to the Great Replacement Theory. Racists believe they are ensuring the survival of their own ‘race’ through violence against ‘others’. The notion that non-white immigrants, and generally non-white communities, threaten the freedom and well-being of whites has been a battle cry among racists in Europe too, of which the plenary speech of MEP Bay is a proof.
This has no place in the European Parliament.
As laid down in Rule 10 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedures (RoP), “the conduct of Members shall be characterised by mutual respect and shall be based on the values and principles laid down in the Treaties, and particularly in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Members shall respect Parliament’s dignity and shall not harm its reputation”. Article 4 adds “in parliamentary debates in the Chamber, Members shall not resort to offensive language”.
The following explanation, also in the RoP details: “The assessment of whether the language used by a Member in a parliamentary debate is offensive or not should take into consideration, inter alia, the identifiable intentions of the speaker, the perception of the statement by the public, the extent to which it harms the dignity and reputation of Parliament, and the freedom of speech of the Member concerned. By way of example, defamatory language, “hate speech” and incitement to discrimination based, in particular, on any ground referred to in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, would ordinarily constitute cases of “offensive language” within the meaning of this Rule.”
The European Parliament Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup together with civil society partners has been working intensively since 2016 to ensure the strengthening of the Rules, but also its implementation. In particular, Rule 176 says: “In serious cases of breach of Rule 10 (2) to (9), the President shall adopt a reasoned decision imposing upon the Member concerned the appropriate penalty in accordance with this Rule”.
Honourable President, we would like to ask you to sanction the member according to the rules of procedure.
Hate speech is not freedom of speech.