Sober about "human hunters" and the public environment

 Очевидно срокът на годност на една история в българското обществено пространство е максимум седмица. Целокупният медийно-екпертен елит набързо спря да се възмущава относно досиетата „Панама“ и премина към следващия си обект на възмущение – доброволните граждански патрули по границата. Есествено, рационалният и спокоен дебат по важните теми свързани с досиетата не се състоя. Но какво от това, нали имаме нов и интересен повод да демонстрираме висок морал?

With some difficulty (caused by the fact that most of the writings on the subject are filled not with rational arguments but with emotionally charged manipulations), I have managed to synthesize the three main arguments against the activities of volunteer citizen patrols. Let us analyze these arguments one by one and see whether they can withstand the test of rational skepticism.

Argument 1: People who are members of the volunteer citizen patrols are racists and xenophobic.

It is difficult to build a more general profile of the people who are members of these organizations. We cannot claim that they are racists and xenophobes without knowing in depth their motivations and positions. However, this requires much more data, and we do not have such data.

We know one thing for sure about them - they see the mass illegal immigration from the Arab world as a threat to them, their families and society as a whole. But is this racism and xenophobia?

Against the backdrop of the painfully real Islamist threat to Europe and the deepening brutality of the Syrian civil war, skepticism about mass immigration from the Arab world is not an irrational position produced by blind hatred of foreigners, but a manifestation of healthy anxiety and an attempt to avoid a major catastrophe. This point of view is not at all radical. On the contrary, it is very widespread in Europe and is likely to soon find its political representation. It is in the interests of democracy that it be taken seriously and understood in depth, rather than making fruitless attempts to discredit it through insults and manipulation.

Conclusion: The argument is invalid. In fact, it is not even an argument. This is a well-worn leftist tenet, namely that anyone who is skeptical of mass immigration, multiculturalism, and political correctness is a xenophobe and a racist. Such epithets only hinder calm and rational discussion of the issue and poison the public space.

Argument 2: The activities of volunteer citizen patrols are illegal.

All groups operating on the border are lumped together and each of their activities is declared illegal. The reality is much more complex. Yes, many voluntary groups are working to address the problem of illegal immigration. But their approaches are very different.

Let's take for example the "Organization for the Protection of Bulgarian Citizens", awarded by the Border Police for its activities. The data we have on the activities of this group show that they carry out the following activities:

• Walking in Strandzha Nature Park as a group
• They carry with them equipment for orientation and survival in nature
• They communicate with groups of migrants, urging them to stop and wait for the police.
• They report violations to the police and provide them with information about the location of the violators.
• They engage in activism - petitions, protests, etc.

None of the above activities are illegal.

Let's contrast this with the video showing the activities of the "Civilian Squads for the Protection of Women and Faith." It clearly shows one of the group members tying the hands of a person lying on the ground on his stomach (presumably an immigrant) with a "pigtail," i.e. performing a citizen's arrest.

This can be interpreted as an illegal activity under Article 142 of the Criminal Code, which states:

Whoever kidnaps a person with the aim of unlawfully depriving him of his liberty shall be punished by imprisonment for one to six years.

On the other hand, there are legal texts that seemingly legitimize citizen arrests. Article 12a of the Criminal Code states:

(1) It is not socially dangerous to cause harm to a person who has committed a crime during his detention for the purpose of handing him over to the authorities and preventing the possibility of committing another crime, if there is no other way to detain him and if during such detention no excess of the necessary and lawful measures has been allowed.

(2) The necessary measures for the detention of a person who has committed a crime shall be exceeded when there is a clear discrepancy between the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed by the detained person and the circumstances of the detention, as well as when the person is unnecessarily caused manifestly excessive harm. In such cases, criminal liability shall be incurred only in cases of intentional causing of harm.

Asked how these texts are interpreted and whether they regulate citizen arrests, lawyer Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kristian Takov said the following: " The question is too general. In principle, yes. It depends on the case."

Dimo Gospodinov, a lawyer at MoveBG, also commented on the case on social media:

"The case is indeed interesting. But no one dares to interpret the application of the institute of inevitable defense, lest it turn out that they are supporting a gang of pseudo-patriots, exhausted by drugs and anabolic steroids. Because the arguments that arise from an impartial legal analysis may be precisely in their favor. "

It is obvious that there is an unresolved legal dispute about whether or not citizen arrests are legal, and if so, in which cases. It is clear enough, however, that they are not unequivocally and categorically illegal, as is widely claimed in the public sphere.

Conclusion: The argument is not valid. Much more data is needed to understand what is really happening at the border. We need to know how many and which groups are involved in patrolling, what methods each of them uses and with what frequency, and which of these methods are legal and which are not.

Argument 3: The state supports these vicious practices.

Prime Minister Boyko Borisov is most often quoted here:

"I contacted these guys, we talked. Any help that is for the police, for the "Border Police" and for the state is welcome [...] But I personally talked [...] I talked to them, told them, thanked them, sent the director of the "Border Police" to meet with them, so that they coordinate their signals and what is needed so that the citizens of this state are ours together. Anyone who helps deserves only one "Thank you". So we have already done it. The fact is that I sent the head of the "Border Police" from Sofia to Burgas to come, they had contacted the border guards at the local checkpoint. So that is just help."

It is not clear from this statement which "guys" the Prime Minister is talking about and to whom exactly he is expressing his gratitude. It is also not clear why a statement by the Prime Minister out of context is assumed to be equal to support from the state.

However, Borisov subsequently clarified his position:

At the same time, I understand that part of my statement was used incorrectly. My categorical opinion was and is that civil society must be vigilant, report violations of the law and not remain indifferent to them, but in no case should there be an excess of rights. Any lawlessness or inhuman treatment is not only not tolerated by the state, but will also be prosecuted by the law.

It is obvious that the Prime Minister did not support arbitrary actions at the border, quite the opposite. He clearly states that he appreciates civil support only if it is within the law.

But let's also look at the actions of official state bodies. The awarding of the "Organization for the Protection of Bulgarian Citizens" is given as an argument that the state officially supports arbitrariness at the border and incites violence against illegal immigrants. But, as we have established above, the activities of the awarded organization do not include violent and illegal actions.

On the other hand, the state is taking completely different measures with regard to the “Civilian Squads for the Protection of Women and Faith.” The prosecutor’s office has launched an investigation into their release of a video of a civilian arrest, and the head of the “Border Police” has publicly stated that he considers the group’s actions illegal.

It is clear that despite the legal contradictions, state officials only encourage specific activities of specific groups and claim that they will punish arbitrariness.

Conclusion: The argument is invalid. In this case, the state has completely consistent behavior and it cannot be claimed that it supports violence or lawlessness on the border.

Conclusion

It is clear that the position of the media-expert contingent is not particularly logically sound. Rather, it is a tsunami of emotional reactions (mostly indignation) mixed with ideological slogans. It is clear that most political commentators are far more interested in advancing their own agenda than in soberly pursuing the truth in the interest of society.

My personal position

Since I expect to be accused of being a neo-Nazi and defending scumbags, I would like to state my personal position unequivocally in advance.

I don't like the people who are members of these organizations. From what I've seen of them, they profess irrational collectivist ideas based on extreme nationalist propaganda. I find the slogan "Bulgaria above all" dangerous for the personal freedom and property of every individual. I also don't think that voluntary civil organizations are a good way to guard a border. In my opinion, if the state has a legitimate role in society, it is to provide collective security. Accordingly, this is the job of official institutions - police, army and security services - and not of citizens.

But my personal preferences are irrelevant. The fact is that I and these people should have freedom of speech and expression, and be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is the spirit of true tolerance, something the left clearly does not understand. Voltaire's words apply with full force: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The purpose of this article is not to praise the Dinkites, but to point out the irrationality of the people who have already condemned them unequivocally, since the latter dominate the media space. In this regard, I would like to call on the esteemed reader to be highly skeptical of what he reads in the mass media and on social networks. Bulgarian citizens deserve a much better public environment. The only way to achieve this is to shed light on the mechanisms of manipulation and to raise our demands on the intellectual elite.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!