Cyprus/ Journalistic Ethics Committee/22/2023

Country

Cyprus

Title

Cyprus/ Journalistic Ethics Committee/22/2023

View full case

Year

2023

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Incident(s) concerned/related

Hate speech: Public incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Racial or ethnic origin

Groups affected

Migrants/Non-EU citizens

Court/Body type

High regulatory authority

Court/Body

Journalistic Ethics Committee

Key facts of the case

The Journalistic Ethics Committee investigated a complaint about racial hate speech in a media article which described migrants as ‘Third Attila’, a phrase which equates migrants to the Turkish army which invaded Cyprus in 1974. The Committee found that the article in question amounted to hate speech, in violation of article 14 of the Code of Journalistic Ethics.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Journalistic Ethics Committee held that the use of phrases like ‘Third Attila’ and ‘new invasion’ to describe migration is unacceptable as it utilises the pain caused to Cypriots from the Turkish invasion of 1974 to incite public sentiments against migrants, via re-traumatising the public in a context that is historically unrelated to the 1974 war. The Committee acknowledged the columnist’s right to free expression but stressed that stereotypes in the coverage of issues like migration can lead to racism, adding that the manner in which the article presented numbers and the data and views of the columnist on the origins of migration, as well as the use of expressions like ‘time bomb’ incite hatred against the entire migrant population.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The Journalistic Ethics Committee clarified that the prohibition of hate speech casts a duty upon journalists to ensure that their content does not incite hatred and violence against persons or groups of persons. It pointed out that hate speech can take the form of denying or trivialising or forgiving crimes and that hate speech can be integrated into journalistic discourse in the form of statements made by others. In the case of the latter, journalists as well as media outlets remain responsible for the content they are replicating.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Journalistic Ethics Committee requested the media outlet concerned to publish the Committee's decision; this is the only sanction which the Journalistic Ethics Committee is entitled to impose. This is the only body which deals with hate speech in the media and it comprises of representatives of media outlets and the jounralists' union. As such it is a self-regulating body implementing the journalists code of conduct, without taking into account the jurisprudence on hate speech at EU level.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Η Επιτροπή, ως ο προασπιστής της ελευθερίας της έκφρασης, αναγνωρίζει το δικαίωμα του αρθρογράφου να εκφράζει την άποψή του, ωστόσο τονίζει πως τα στερεότυπα στην κάλυψη θεμάτων όπως το μεταναστευτικό, μπορούν να καλλιεργήσουν ή/και να διαιωνίσουν ρατσιστικές νοοτροπίες. Επιπλέον, ο τρόπος με τον οποίο παρουσιάζονται στο άρθρο οι αριθμοί του μεταναστευτικού και οι όποιες πληροφορίες και απόψεις τυχόν έχει ο αρθρογράφος για τις ρίζες του υπό αναφορά προβλήματος, καθώς και η χρήση εκφράσεων όπως «ωρολογιακή βόμβα που άρχισε να δείχνει τα δόνται της» σαφώς και ωθούν, υποκινούν ή και δικαιολογούν το μίσος εναντίον του συνόλου των μεταναστών, με ό,τι αυτό συνεπάγεται για την κοινωνία." "The Commission, as the defender of freedom of expression, recognises the right of the columnist to express his or her opinion, but stresses that stereotypes in the coverage of issues such as immigration can foster and/or perpetuate racist attitudes. Moreover, the way in which the article presents the figures of the immigration issue and any information and opinions the author may have on the roots of the problem in question, as well as the use of expressions such as 'a time bomb that has started to show its teeth' clearly encourage, incite or even justify hatred against all immigrants, with all that this implies for society."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.