ENORB, COMPLAINT TO BX1 RADIO AFTER HOST VALIDATES RACIST STATEMENT

Get The Trolls Out partner ENORB have sent a second complaint letter in a week to BX1 radio following a live segment on the 8th September. This segment was focused on racism in the police and involved interviewing chief of police Jurgen De Landsheer, who denied the issue of structural racism, and instead blamed the communities that are under-represented, instead accusing Muslims and Black people of having more criminal records than white people, which prevents them from being police officers, thus causing the imbalance in the police. Journalist and segment host Fabrice Grosfilley did not correct De Landsheer’s statement, but instead, he confirmed that “yeah, it's a question of having been convicted”.

ENORB criticised the platform for: ‘conveying the unacceptable idea that the cause of the lack of representativeness within the Belgian police force is linked to the fact that young people from black or Muslim minorities have criminal records.’ They suggested that promoting this idea ‘is not only discriminatory, but also very dangerous towards minorities who are already sufficiently marginalized.’ They warned BX1 that: ‘it should be remembered that the racial profiling and violence suffered by these minorities by the police, followed by a lack of confidence in the institutions are - among other things - the real reasons for such a lack of representativeness.’

BX1 have now sent the following response to ENORB about this and an earlier complaint:

“First of all, could you give us some details and references regarding your organisation, which is unknown to us?

In any case, below are our reactions to your reactions:

Concern: reaction to your radio show: Face to Face (Is there Racism in the Police)

You say you find racist and discriminatory insinuations in the remarks made by the journalist presiding over the debate. I remind you that his role is to allow the interlocutors to elaborate their arguments and that he remains in this role. Equally, he also has to synthesize some points, which he does after hearing the words of the Chief of Police. He also uses verbal precautions [in reference to the veracity of certain statements], which you do not acknowledge.

You believe not only that the statements by the Chief of Police are totally wrong, but, on top of that, that your sociological research is completely accurate. We cannot follow you in this reasoning, which is a value judgment on your part and not objective information.

Moreover, you monitor anti-religious discourse. We see no trace of it here.”

Concern: reaction to your radio broadcast on the wearing of the veil in public administration

You attribute very stereotypical words and insinuations to the presenter leading the discussion. These pseudo ‘stereotypes’ are in fact ‘devil’s advocate’ positions, assumed by the journalist leading the discussion[… His role] is, among others, to bring out the contradictions and to allow for different lines of arguments to measure up against each other. Therefore, the playmaker is impartial, monitoring the time, treating all his guests in the same way. In addition, he monitors the accuracy of the claims advanced by his interlocutors in real time. As such, this exercise meets the professional and ethical standards appropriate for debates.”

ENORB sent the following follow-up response, specifying:

“Concern: reaction to your radio show: Face to Face (Is there Racism in the Police)

We recognize the verbal precautions you are talking about. But, in this case, this does not justify the fact that these precautious confirm the Chief of Police’s assertions and do not question them. The presenter could have specified that van Landsheer’s statement is false, that it convers an inaccurate and stereotypical image of Muslim and Black individuals. He could have challenged him to provide data to support his claim. Instead, he confirms/synthesizes that “yes, it's a matter of having been convicted.” Although this discourse forms part of a larger debate, the journalist ought to challenge false and discriminatory statements like this. Of course, there are Muslim and Black individuals who do not have the opportunity to enter the police force because they have a criminal record. But, this is absolutely not the main reason for the lack of diversity within the police, since the lack of diversity within the Police is a longstanding problem in Belgium and in Europe more broadly. More likely, it is a combination of different factors, including the lack of trust in institutions – especially the specific institution that has contributed to the marginalisation of minority groups. If Grossfilley had mentioned other barriers, for example ethnic profiling, police violence against these minorities, excessive surveillance, structural discrimination, etc., listeners would have had a completely different picture of the issue. Even if subtle and unintentional, we cannot allow for the propagation of the premise that the lack of diversity within the Belgian Police is linked to the fact that Black and Muslim youth have criminal records

Concern: reaction to your radio broadcast on the wearing of the veil in public administration

We are not judging the impartiality of the journalist in relation to his interlocutors or to questions of ideology. But, nevertheless, by asking if a veiled woman [in the civil service] could foster a certain kind of connivance/complicity with other Muslim people [she does not know], who would call her ‘my sister,’ he perpetuates the notion that veiled women would engage in unprofessional behaviour that favours people of the same religion or origin. We have never heard similar insinuations about Catholic people wearing a crucifix, for example. The message he conveys, perhaps unconsciously, and the stereotype he reinforces intersect with the supposed existence of a Muslim community with private/sectarian interests, which prevent a veiled Muslim woman from working professionally and independently (something she is, nonetheless, able to do when not wearing the veil). Here, the question posed by the presenter places the burden of proof on the discriminated persons. However, if the opponents of the changes in the work regulations of the municipality wish to question the professionalism of Muslim women, it seems obvious to us that they have to justify themselves. Taking the accusations of connivance for granted and then demanding that the discriminated persons be cleared reinforces stereotypes, since one cannot prove a negative. This is also one of the foundations of the justice system.”

Read more: Dig Deeper: Anti-Muslim Tropes of Criminality and Submission in Belgian Public Radio