Esta es un versión antigua publicada el 2021-09-20. Consulte la versión más reciente.

Alcance, estructura y aspectos del discurso en línea de odio antigitanista

Contexto de la Unión Europea, seguimiento y presentación de informes

Autores/as

Palabras clave:

Antigitanismo, discurso de odio en línea, redes sociales, estudios románicos, organizaciones no gubernamentales

Resumen

Este artículo tiene como objetivo proporcionar los parámetros relevantes de los fenómenos del antigitanismo, el discurso de odio en línea y su conexión. Los parámetros sirven como base para conocer las tendencias en el discurso de odio online dirigido a la comunidad romaní, los conceptos y tropos más importantes sobre el antigitanismo y las tendencias relevantes en el discurso de odio online antigitanos. El artículo se centrará en el contexto de la Unión Europea porque proporciona un marco político y jurídico comparativo y posibilidades de actividades y políticas conjuntas para abordar la discriminación contra los romaníes. Al combinar recursos académicos e informes gubernamentales, el seguimiento y los informes recopilados a través de organizaciones no gubernamentales, se concluye que el fenómeno del antigitanismo online se está fortaleciendo. Refleja el discurso del odio offline, que está relativamente mal monitoreado. Se difunde a través de todas las principales plataformas de redes sociales cuyo historial de eliminación tiende a oscilar. Una breve sección está dedicada a los aspectos interseccionales del discurso de odio antigitanista cuyas iteraciones en el espacio digital están poco investigadas.

Citas

Alliance against Antigypsyism. (2016). Antigypsyism - a reference paper. https://secureservercdn.net/192.169.221.188/abv.a52.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Antigypsyism-reference-paper-16.06.2017.pdf

ARA ART (2021). https://www.araart.cz/cs/roma-lgbt

Council of Europe. (2015). Human Rights Comment - Time to cure amnesia about the history of Roma in Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/time-to-cure-amnesia-about-the-history-ofroma-in-europe?desktop=true

Council of Europe. (1997). RECOMMENDATION No. R (97) 20. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680505d5b

Council of Europe. (n.d.). Roma History/Holocaust. https://www.coe.int/en/web/roma-and-travellers/roma-history-/-holocaust

Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(8). https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

Data from the 4th monitoring exercise evaluation. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/code_of_conduct_factsheet_7_web.pdf

Data from the 5th monitoring exercise evaluation. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/codeofconduct_2020_factsheet_12.pdf

Digital Service Act, 2020. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:825:FIN

ECRI. (2011). General Policy Recommendation No. 13 on Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination Against Roma. https://rm.coe.int/ecri-general-policy-recommendation-no-13-on-combating-anti-gypsyism-an/16808b5aee

European Commission, n.d. The EU Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/eu-code-conduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en

European Commission (2019). Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online – Results of the fourth monitoring exercise. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/code_of_conduct_factsheet_7_web.pdf

European Commission (2020). Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online – Results of the fifth monitoring exercise. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/codeofconduct_2020_factsheet_12.pdf

FRA. (2016). Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey – Roma Selected Findings. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/second-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey-roma-selected-findings

FRA. (2018). A persisting concern: antigypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b262c438-387b-11e8-b5fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

FRA. (2019). Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey - Roma women in nine EU Member States. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-eu-minorities-survey-roma-women_en.pdf

FRA, UNDP. (2012). The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/situation-roma-11-eu-member-states-survey-results-glance

Garmendia, M., & Karrera, I. (2019). ICT Use and Digital Inclusion among Roma/Gitano Adolescents. Media and Communication, 7(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i1.1624

Gilbert, M. (2010). Theorizing digital and urban inequalities: Critical geographies of ‘race’, gender, and technological capital. Information, Communication and Society, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.499954

Goméz, C., End, M (eds.), (2019). Dimensions of antigypsyism in Europe. European Network Against Racism and the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma.

Kóczé, A. (2009). Missing Intersectionality. Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Class in Current Research and Policies on Romani Women in Europe. Center for Policy Studies, Central European University. https://cps.ceu.edu/sites/cps.ceu.edu/files/cps-policy-study-missing-intersectionality-2009.pdf

Láj?aková, J, Hojsík, M, Karoly, M (2020). Combatting Antigypsyism. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/post2020_eu_roma_in_antigypsyism.pdf

Loveland, M. T., & Popescu, D. (2016). The Gypsy Threat Narrative: Explaining Anti-Roma Attitudes in the European Union. Humanity & Society, 40(3), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597615601715

Roma Civil Monitor, (2020). A synthesis of civil society’s reports on the implementation of national Roma integration strategies in the European Union. Identifying blind spots in Roma inclusion policy. https://cps.ceu.edu/sites/cps.ceu.edu/files/attachment/basicpage/3172/rcm-civil-society-monitoring-report-synthesis27-2020-eprint-fin.pdf

sCan project (2018). Antigypsyism on the Internet. http://scan-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/scan-antigypsyism.pdf

sCan project (2019). Intersectional Hate Speech Online. http://scan-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/sCAN_intersectional_hate_final.pdf

Slovo 21 (2014). Position of Roma Women in the Czech Republic – Research Results. http://www.slovo21.cz/images/dokumenty/POSITION%20OF%20ROMA%20WOMEN%20IN%20THE%20CZECH%20REPUBLIC%20-%20RESEARCH%20RESULTS.pdf

Talewicz-Kwiatkowska, J. (2015). Roma immigrants in western europe – the example of france and italy. Politeja, 31/2, 111–122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24919779

Tilt, C.A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility research: the importance of context. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(2) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7

University of Graz (2021). Factsheets on Romani History. http://romafacts.uni-graz.at/?l_history=en#history

Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage Publishing.

Y?ld?z,C., & De Genova, N. (2018). Un/Free mobility: Roma migrants in the European Union. Social Identities, 24(4), 425-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2017.1335819.

Descargas

Publicado

2021-09-20

Versiones

Cómo citar

Muhič Dizdarevič, S. (2021). Alcance, estructura y aspectos del discurso en línea de odio antigitanista: Contexto de la Unión Europea, seguimiento y presentación de informes. Transdigital, 2(4), 1-20. Recuperado a partir de https://www.revista-transdigital.org/index.php/transdigital/article/view/79

Número

Sección

Ensayo científico