2. Language/Culture

Од Wikibooks

Section 2: Language/Culture

“With one dubious exception, Greek laws appear to encourage the assimilation of persons of non-Greek ethnic background. (…) Although direct religious discrimination is not easily tolerated by the majority of the Greek courts, most notably the Council of State, there exists a number of laws which fail to take into account religious diversity. (…) The only exception to the policy of linguistic uniformity has again been dictated by foreign policy considerations. (…) It emerges clearly (…) that the enjoyment of several constitutional rights can vary depending on ethnic origin, religion and language “ (Stavros, 1996: 120-3). “The preceding analysis has indicated the rudimentary character of the protection of minorities in Greece, with the exception, of course of the Muslim Turcophones. (…) The degree of homogeneity of its society, the composition of the latter and its rather limited exposure to alien elements (…) have contributed tot he creation of a low degree of tolerance and of a high degree of fear of external threats” (Rozakis, 1996:109).

Consequently, there is no policy to promote diversity and minority cultures; nor any substantial subsidies granted to minority associations. On the contrary, national Greek cultural associations in areas inhabited by non-ethnic Greeks tend to be lavishly subsidized. And when, for the first time in 30 years, an amateur theater company of exclusively Turkish minority actors, wanted to perform a Turkish language play, the theater of the state minority school in Komotini was refused to them, and they had to perform in a private association’s premises.

Moreover, until the 1980s, the public use of Macedonian was discouraged if not persecuted. Until the mid-1990s, the singing of Macedonian songs was suppressed by police, and even in the late 1990s, pressure is occasionally exerted against it. Even today, “at school pupils are still censored by teachers as their accent betrays them. This they cannot hide. This is the reason why at school pressure is exerted so that the language not be spoken at home” (National Center for Social Research, 1998:364). The public use of the Macedonian language has been prosecuted in at least one occasion in recent years, that od the Macedonian minority party “Rainbow.” It opened an office on 6/9/1995 in Florina, with a sign mentioning “Rainbow - Florina Committee” in both Greek and Macedonian. On the evening and night of 13 (and early hours of 14)/9/1995, the office was attacked and eventually sacked by a ‘mob’, led by the mayor of Florina. Before the sacking, police acting on the prosecutor’s order removed the sign, while the prosecutor announced the indictment of the Rainbow leaders for having incited discord among citizens through the use of the Macedonian language in their sign. No political party, nor any media condemned the sacking of the party offices. On the contrary, it was praised by extreme right nationalistic papers like “Stohos” and “Chrysi Avghi,” whose members reportedly took part in the sacking. And the use of the bilingual sign was condemned by all mainstream political parties and other social groups. Greek courts never indicted the perpetrators: the charges brought against them were dropped by the courts which justified the perpetrators’ hostile actions. However, “Rainbow” leaders did face trial for “causing and inciting mutual hatred among the citizens” through that public use of their mother tongue. It is noteworthy that the witnesses of the prosecution included the local leaders of all five main Greek parties at the time (PASOK, ND, Political Spring, KKE, and Coalition); as well as leaders of professional associations (lawyers, merchants, priests, taxi drivers). Most of them, in their pre-trial depositions characterized the defendants as “paid agents of Skopjan propaganda”, “anti-Greeks”, etc. Following international outcry, the defendants were eventually acquitted in September 1998.

The case of the Macedonian cultural association “Home of Macedonian Civilization” is also characteristic. It first filed for registration in April 1990. The request was rejected by the Multi-Member First Instance Court of Florina (73/296/26/1990); the Court of Appeals of Salonica (1558/1990); and the Supreme Court (795/1994). The European Court of Human Rights (case of Sideropoulos et al.), on 10/7/1998, convicted Greece for the violation of freedom of association (Article 11 of the relevant European Convention). The most important argument of the Court decision was its position towards the Greek courts’ and state’s view that the Home of Macedonian Civilization was not allowed to be established as its founding members did not aim simply at a cultural activity but at supporting the view that there is a Macedonian minority. The latter’s alleged “non-existence” was “documented” by the Greek courts and state with evidence full of “scholarly” quotes even from texts dating from the Nazi occupation period: “a guide to Salonica written by German historians and archaeologists during the last world war states that….” Such minority was considered by the courts “ethnologically non-existent and historically repulsive.” In countering such arguments, the European Court mentioned the binding character for Greece of the OSCE documents which the country has signed and which have usually been considered merely declaratory and without any legal value. The Court stated that the aims of the Home were “clear and legitimate” and added: “Even supposing that the founders of an association like the one in the instant case assert a minority consciousness, the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (Section IV) of 29 June 1990 and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 21 November 1990 – which Greece has signed – allow them to form associations to protect their cultural and spiritual heritage.” The “Home of Macedonian Civilization”’s registration was subsequently pending before the courts by mid-1999.

The Macedonian names of nearly all Macedonian families were forcibly changed in the 1920’s into Greek ones. Nowadays, it is in theory possible to revert to the old names, but as the example of Stoidis showed, it is practically not only difficult but also risky, hence hardly anyone is using it. On 16/8/1996, the prefect of Pella rejected the request of Nicholas Stoidis to change his last name back into Stojanov -his ‘indigenous Bulgaromacedonian’ -as N. Stoidis calls him- grandfather’s name that was forcefully “Hellenized” in 1913. The rejection was based on three citizens’ objections which though were never given to N. Stoidis. In the meantime, Stoidis’ request, though classified ‘top secret’ by the administration- was leaked to the media with the obvious purpose that Stoidis be harassed by those objecting to his request, which did in fact happen in both local and national media.

Turkish is formally admitted in court, as it is guaranteed by the Treaty of Lausanne. However, it is hardly ever used and when GHM & MRG-G asked the Ministry of Justice for list of accredited interpreters in Thrace in 1997, they received a decision of appointment only for the following year 1998, which indicated that there was none before. No other use of minority languages in official communications or administrative proceedings is available.

As for the Turks’ names, Greek authorities in practice impose their own transliteration into Greek and then a transliteration back into any Latin scripture (in passports) that makes them very different from the way the Turkish language is written a the Latin alphabet. In theory, Turks have the option to ask for changes but they are not aware of that possibility and, when informed, are persuaded, not unjustifiably, that this will put them in trouble with the authorities.

No inscriptions in minority languages are found in either Thrace or Western Macedonia (where though inscriptions in Russian to attract potential tourists can be found). Although again in theory there is no law against them, the example of the violent reaction against such an inscription of the “Rainbow” party and the ensuing prosecution of its leaders indicates that the authorities are still discouraging the use of minority language signs or inscriptions.

Consequently there is no use of traditional local names and/or names in minority languages. On the contrary its occasional use draws the strong criticism by most media and politicians.

The E.U. does not provide the member-states with an explicit obligation to establish (ethnic) minority media: The European Council Directive for “the co-ordination of several legislative, regulative and administrative provisions of the member-states regarding their exercise of television activities” [“Official Gazette of the European Communities”, n. L 298/23, Directive 89/552/ European Community, October 3, 1989], in one of its articles (Article 19) simply recognizes the need for the securing of pluralism in the media. The same stands for the common directive of the European Parliament and Council with which, the former directive was amended. [Directive 97/36, Luxembourg, June 30, 1998]. However, within the frame of these directives, there are provisions for transnational, multicultural, multilingual programs and for the necessary co-ordination of the member-states for common productions. These provisions are, by far, “ethno-nationally centered”. For example, article 31 of the second directive, recognizes the need for protection of the least spoken languages within the Union and the encouragement of independent producers to create programs in these languages. Paradoxically enough, although article 3, paragraph 19, of Law 2328/95, states that “public broadcasting as well as privately owned radio and television stations shall emit a series of programs (at least 15, of minimum 30 minutes each and for every six months) aiming at the promotion of the correct use of the Greek language or for its instruction to foreigners or illiterate people,” there are no similar provisions for other languages besides Greek. The only relevant special provisions concern deaf people.