slackbastard

Nine months ago, in Sofia, Bulgaria, a 21 year-old Australian named Jock Palfreeman was arrested and charged with murder and attempted murder, following an altercation between Jock and a small group of Bulgarians on the streets of the capital. Jock maintains that he is innocent, and that the death of 20-year-old student Andrei (Andrey) Monov, and injury to Antoan Zahariev (19) — both of whom Jock admits he stabbed — were the result of acts of self-defence. According to Jock, on the night of December 28, upon leaving a bar, on Stambolijski Boulevard he witnessed a group of Bulgarian men beating a Gypsy (Roma), and intervened in order to end the assault. Subsequently, the group turned on him, and he drew his knife. In the ensuing melee, Jock stabbed the two men, one of whom later died.

Jock’s court case commenced in May, and is continuing. The prosecution case appears to rest on the testimony of the dead man’s friends, as video footage of the confrontation has been lost. According to the prosecution, Jock attacked the group of young men without provocation — “police say… an unprovoked frenzied attack on a public street” — and probably while drunk or under the influence of (other) drugs. His defence, at this point, rests upon the testimony of other witnesses, who confirm the broad outlines of Jock’s account, and the existence of a Romany (which Andrei’s friends deny outright).

Jock’s case is complicated by the existence of ultra-nationalist currents in Bulgaria, and the fact that the dead man, Andrei Monov, was acknowledged by his father, in court, as being a right-wing nationalist and as believing in ‘Bulgaria for the Bulgarians’. Secondly, and intimately tied to Bulgarian ultra-nationalism, is the existence of a strong current of anti-Roma feeling: according to this view, Roma are not Bulgarian, and do not belong in the country. Finally, Jock claims to have been assaulted by ‘nationalists’ in Bulgaria on a number of prior occasions, and that this was the reason for his carrying a knife.

Please note that, contrary to Marnie O’Neill’s claim (The Daily Telegraph, January 20, 2008), this blog is not “run by Palfreeman’s close friends”. In fact, this blog is “run” by one person; I have never met Jock; and I knew nothing of his existence until I read of his arrest in December, 2007. My interest in his case, therefore, derives from my more general interest in monitoring the activities of the far right, particularly, but not exclusively, within Australia.

For further information, please see:
Happy New Year, Suckers! // Justice 4 Jock, January 1, 2008
Palfreeman not scared, did duty (says Mister Miranda), January 7, 2008
‘Murder accused has star status’ (Er… Marnie? Um…), January 20, 2008
Jock Palfreeman : Update, February 6, 2008
Jock Palfreeman in court, May 22, 2008
Dad’s bid to free murder charge son Jock Palfreeman, July 8, 2008
Also:
Man Shoots Neo-Nazi in Self-Defense, September 23, 2008

Recently, Organise has published a survey of emerging ultra-nationalist and fascist currents in Bulgaria, and reading it provides some further background to Jock’s case, as well as demonstrates, I think, that his account of previous harassment, and being witness to an apparent assault upon a Roma, if not proven, is still not improbable. See also this video, titled ‘Special treatment for bulgarian anarchist’, dated December 6, 2007, and apparently showing footage of a gang of Bulgarian fascists harassing an elderly Bulgarian anarchist:

In June 2007, boneheads attacked fans at the Tangra Mega rock concert, injuring several (among the headline acts on June 20, 2007 @ Universiada Hall, Sofia, Bulgaria was the English punk band The Exploited).

Bulgaria and “Bulgarisation”

The example of Bulgaria is illustrative of the continuing problems in the peninsula. Bulgaria is a country of nearly eight million people, with a history of toleration of minorities and with a substantial Roma and ethnic Turk population. For years, even under the Ottoman rule that was endured for nearly five centuries, ethnic Bulgarians and ethnic Turks could live [as neighbours]. The program of the Bulgarian Central Revolutionary Committee, the 1870s organisation for the liberation of the country, forbade Bulgarians from attacking ordinary Turkish citizens in the struggle for independence. This stability continued into the 1980s until Todor Zhivkov, the infamous ruler for the majority of the People’s Republic’s life, started a campaign for “Bulgarisation” of the Turks in Bulgaria, forcing them to change their names, resulting in almost 300,000 leaving the country. The mid-to-late 1980s climate of terrorism by ethnic Turks, police actions against whole villages in their drive to “Bulgarise” them, and then the sudden collapse of the monolithic state threw things wide into the open. Rampant privatisation and ineffectual government in the nineties left a legacy of division that simply did not exist before. Many Roma families, left without the jobs provided for them under communism, fell into poverty and crime. The Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) monopolised the Turkish vote and has been an element of every coalition government since its inception. Unemployment rose generally.

Latent nationalism lifts its head

It was, in short, a good climate for latent nationalism to come to the fore – one that was present since the 1980s. The National Union Ataka is the natural outgrowth of this. This is a party that was created only two months before the 2005 legislative elections, a coalition of insignificant right-wing and ex-communist splinters. It managed to win 9% of the popular vote in June of that year, bagging 21 seats out of 240 in parliament. Little, you might say, but considering it was running against parties with decades long histories such as the Socialist Party (BSP) or ones that had already had a stint in office such as the National Movement Simeon II (NMSII), it is no mean feat. What’s more, its leader – Volen Siderov – managed to poll 25% at the presidential elections of 2006. He was the only candidate apart from the winner, Georgi Parvanov, who made it to the second round, brought about by low voter turnout. For a party that is based around a strong Fuhrerprinzip (leader principle akin to that in Nazi Germany), that is significant.

This use of evocative language by the author is of course, deliberate. The party has been called fascist by many, and its members do appropriate the jackbooted style of many ultranationalist groupings. A closer examination of its stances, set out in the “20 Points of Ataka”, reveals a nationalist, populist party. What are its main currents? At the heart of Ataka’s political program lies a statement that Bulgaria is a monolithic, one-nation state, indivisible along ethnic or religious lines. The party also attacks the MRF and the national channel’s news in Turkish indirectly by stating that the national language is Bulgarian only, and that any ethnic parties should be prohibited. The party also supports an ill-defined criminalisation of verbal attacks on national “holies”. On economic issues, it supports a protectionist policy and state provision of health, social security and “spiritual and material prosperity” for all citizens. The party aims for isolationist foreign policies, including a withdrawal from NATO, operations in the Middle East and the expulsion of US bases from national soil. Quite apart from that, unofficially but widely supported, is the inclusion of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in political decisions – a de-facto merging of state and church.

What emerges is a party that cleverly combines populist policies designed to appeal to both business people and the common person on economic grounds, and taps into cultural chauvinism that is an expression of dissatisfaction on the part of many Bulgarians with the current state of affairs. It is easy to blame Romas for crimes and the West for poor conditions, and whipping up the historical Turkish threat is also popular. Calling to spirituality, which is on the upswing in this traditionally conservative country, is also a good source of support. The official program of Ataka is worrying enough – it would create a state based on ethnic supremacy where other ethnic groups would not be allowed to be heard in the political process.

Traditional scapegoats

Privately, things are worse. The author himself has seen the graffiti – “all gypsies into soap” – and a visit to the forums of Ataka’s newspaper would reveal what its members really want. Complete social regression is the norm of the day, the ideals of Christianity imposed on all society; scapegoating of the traditional suspects – Romas and ethnic Turks – which goes hand-in-hand with anti-Semitism (which Siderov himself is guilty of in his various books). Ataka is not a fascist party then – if it was it would by easy for people to dismiss it. It is an ultranationalist entity that has addressed real poverty, income disparity, crime and corruption at the highest levels of politics in radical ways – nationalisation, exclusion of foreign business in preference for domestic firms, for example. At the same time it has taken unofficial harsh actions against ethnic minorities and has branded the current government as one of Turks and not Bulgarians. Centred around a charismatic ‘strong’ and ‘intelligent’ leader figure with a sharp tongue, the party is rallying social conservatism and economic promises that hark back to an almost quasi-Communist state of the nostalgic yesteryear. Alongside Christianity and populist history that is directed against “those other Bulgarians – the Macedonians” the party has a strong base from which to build on.

The consequences would be disastrous, of course. Bulgaria is not faced with the same problems that Serbia is – sectarian troubles – but it has a very sizable and growing Roma population while the nominally Bulgarian population is facing a demographic collapse, a Roma population that, it has to be noted, was not forced to revert to crime when they had housing, educational and job prospects in the years of Communism (not to excuse that state of affairs, of course). But rational debate is thin on the ground in Bulgaria. The popular media is distinctly patriotic, as in the popular history show of Bozhidar Dimitrov that champions any Bulgarian achievement with little academic justification, plus Ataka with its own channel. People find it easier to blame others rather than take action themselves. You might say that the election results show little, yet the voter turnout has always been extremely low – under 50% – and Ataka can only grow, with many of the voters who didn’t support the party in 2005 now turning towards it. The last polls in Bulgaria showed the party second in popularity only to the ruling Socialists. When the generation of the “red grandmas” – the elderly who vote Socialist out of nostalgia and promises of social security – leaves the political scene, and with some flocking to a party that is also promising pensions, who knows what might happen?

What we are facing is quite frankly a quiet nationalism rising up in a country that, for the Balkans, is stable and on the upsurge in economic terms. This nationalism threatens civil war between ethnic groups, even if a Kosovo scenario is unlikely because there are no real regions in the country that could secede or are likely to do so (even where ethnic Bulgarians are the minority). Time will tell. The next legislative elections will show whether the nationalist party have retained their appeal. But as long as it manages to play at its populist game while the establishment does nothing to address organised crime and corruption among its own ranks, the mentality of the population is unlikely to change. With the centre and centre-right of the political spectrum fractured in a way that we only think Communists can follow, there are few alternatives to the status quo in a political sense. Whilst everyone looks to Serbia or the Caucuses for the obvious signs of nationalism and ethnic trouble – as has been fashionable for a long time – a quiet, ‘unfashionable’ force is arising in a country that the EU would like to portray as a model for the Western Balkans…

~ ‘Unfashionable Balkan nationalism? The rise of ultranationalist politics in Bulgaria’, Organise, No.70, Summer 2008

As expected, the far right — Heinz-Christian Strache’s Freedom Party (FPOe) (above, left) and Joerg Haider’s Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZOe) (above, right) — has done very well in the national election in Austria (birthplace of Mister Hitler).

Extreme right emerges as strong force in Austria
Ian Traynor
The Guardian
September 29, 2008

Austrian center slips as far right wins votes
Nicholas Kulish
International Herald Tribune
September 28, 2008

The two major parties — the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and Christian Democrats (ÖVP) — have jointly ruled Austria since the end of WWII. In addition to cultivating xenophobic and nationalist sentiment, the far right has been able to capitalise upon the increasing convergence of the two — who will likely form another ‘Grand Coalition’ to rule Austria until the next election — as well as more general discontent with government corruption and ineptitude. According to AFP, “In a last-minute bid to demonstrate their decision-making abilities, the various parties approved on Wednesday a package of laws — expected to cost some three billion euros (4.38 billion dollars) — raising family aid and pensions and abolishing university tuition fees.” The results should give ♥ to activists of the far right across Europe, and follows similar developments in the neighbouring states of Germany, Italy and Switzerland.

“Ausländer Raus!”

Austria swings to the right in snap elections

VIENNA (AFP) — Austria’s two ruling parties, the Social Democrats and conservatives, received a severe drubbing in a snap general election here Sunday, which was marked by a resurgence of the far-right.

As of 7:00 pm (1700 GMT), two hours after the polls closed, the interior ministry calculated that the Social Democrat SPOe managed to hold on to first place, garnering 29.9 percent of votes.

But the reading represented a drop of 5.4 percentage points from the previous election in October 2006 and was the SPOe’s lowest score since the end of World War II.

The conservative OeVP’s losses were even more dramatic, plummeting 8.3 percentage points to 26.0 percent.

Both parties lost votes to the far-right FPOe and BZOe parties, with the Freedom Party (FPOe) under Heinz-Christian Strache seeing its vote-share surge by 7.1 percent to 18.1 percent while Joerg Haider’s Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZOe) saw its score more than double to 9.8 percent.

The Greens slipped slightly to 9.9 percent.

The estimate was made on the basis of 81.4 percent of votes cast.

Turnout at 78.5 percent was the same as in the last election in October 2006. Some 6.1 million Austrians were entitled to vote.

Of the 183 parliamentary seats, the Social Democrats would hold 59, the conservatives 51, the Strache’s Freedom Party 35 and both Haider’s BZOe and the Greens would hold 19 seats apiece, the ministry calculated.

Observers said the clear swing to the right stemmed from voter dissatisfaction with the constant bickering and political in-fighting that characterised the outgoing “grand” coalition.

Under Social Democrat Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, the two parties seemed incapable of passing legislation on even the simplest projects.

By contrast, the last week of campaigning was marked by a marathon parliament session last Wednesday, in which parties mixed and matched in various unconventional alliances to approve a flurry of new legislation on anti-inflationary measures, family aid, pensions and the abolition of university tuition fees.

Forming a new government could prove extremely difficult.

A repetition of the left-right coalition of Social Democrats and conservatives seems the most likely solution, but both sides will have to ensure that political paralysis is not allowed to return…

Above : Australia First Party sticker, accompanying BBC report, Australia racism ‘still serious’: “Researchers in Australia have concluded that people are becoming more tolerant of cultural diversity. But racism remains a problem, with one in 10 Australians believing some races are superior to others…”

The results are in. 4 in 10 Australians are ‘racist’; 1 in 10 ‘racial supremacists’.

Well, that’s apparently what a recent survey ‘Challenging Racism: The Anti-Racism Research Project’ concludes. The SMH provides a ‘positive’ spin, selecting a photo of Asma Yusra, “a 21-year-old Muslim from Lakemba who will speak at [a forthcoming] conference”, holding the Australian flag, to accompany the article; the ABC goes for the more straightforward ‘One in 10 Aussies are racist: study’.

Simmering tensions seen as downside of diversity
Sarah Price
The Sydney Morning Herald
September 28, 2008

“NSW is the most racist state in Australia, a 10-year study has found. Challenging Racism: The Anti-Racism Research Project also found that while Australians were largely welcoming of diversity, the view of national identity was still narrow. The first results of the study will be unveiled at the 4Rs international conference – Rights, Reconciliation, Respect and Responsibility – at the University of Technology, Sydney, which starts on Tuesday. The full results will be released early next year, with the data to be used by human rights and anti-discrimination agencies across Australia to implement strategies specific to the needs of each region. The study, led by human geography and urban studies professor Kevin Dunn, from the University of Western Sydney, found high rates of migration meant NSW, on average, was the least tolerant of all the states and territories…”

The Australian adopts a less positive approach:

40pc believe others don’t belong here
September 28, 2008

“FORTY per cent of Australians believe some ethnic groups do not belong in the country with one in 10 having outwardly racist views, a new study shows…”

The study itself is certain to be more nuanced than a newspaper headline. A few points:

The results as reported are non-specific in terms of allocating particular attitudes to particular ethnic, racial, cultural and national groupings. It also appears that religion — in particular, attitudes towards Islam and Muslims (and to the extent that these may be separated from attitudes towards peoples from the Middle East) — play a large role in shaping overall attitudes. The SMH report states, for example, that “Women were found to be more tolerant than men, with one exception – attitudes towards Muslims”. Further: “Prof Dunn said people also revealed who they singled out the most. ‘The most often-mentioned groups were Muslims or people from the Middle East.’ The overall figures surge to 65 per cent for people over 65 but drop to 31 per cent for those aged 18 to 34.”

That ethnic/racial/cultural/national prejudice is much more common among older citizens than younger is not an unexpected finding, and reflects, it seems, more general attitudes towards ‘difference’. An earlier study — ‘Mapping Homophobia in Australia’, Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton, Australia Institute Webpaper July 2005 (PDF) — concludes that “Older Australians are considerably more homophobic than young adults. However, those in the 14 to 17 age group, especially boys, are much more inclined to hold antigay views than young and middle-aged adults. Homophobic attitudes are closely related to levels of education − 25 per cent of those with tertiary education hold homophobic views compared to 40-50 per cent among those who did not complete high school.”

The survey (again, according to the SMH) “scored highest when people were asked if Australia was weakened by ethnic groups sticking to their old ways and if there were any cultural or ethnic groups that did not fit into Australian society”. Which is an interesting finding — how are ‘old ways’ understood, and by whom? Which “cultural or ethnic groups”, in particular, are considered as unsuitable for Australian society, why, and what distinguishes the ‘cultural’ from the ‘ethnic’ — or are these terms synonymous?

Finally: “On average, about one in 10 people said it was not good for people of different cultures to marry and about the same number said not all races are equal. “It’s only about one in 10 people now in Australia across the different states that would have that sort of view – the racial supremacists for instance,” Prof Dunn said. “That’s still quite high I suppose – there’s a lot of concern that comes out of that”. Yeah… read literally, that means that there’s a political market of around two million or so people in Australia for whom (White) racial supremacy is appealing. Sadly for the supremacists, the major parties, especially the Tories, are well aware of this reservoir, and — leaving aside the brief challenge posed by Pauline Hanson and One Nation — appear reasonably adept at absorbing such sentiment into their programs and policies. Of course, given the diverse constituencies on which they rely for support, this is unlikely to always be the case, and so it’s certainly possible that, probably in response to other, future crises, this sector could be mobilised by other political forces less interested in ‘social harmony’.

Whatever…