U španjolskom gradu Huelva muškarac romskog podrijetla ubijen je pred svojim sedmogodišnjim sinom. U njega je pucano dva puta, prvo u grudi, a zatim u lice. Njegov jedini zločin bio je što je uzeo kanticu graha s tuđeg polja kako bi prehranio svoju obitelj.

 

Ubijen Rom bio je 45-godišnjak koji je trebao nahraniti četvero djece i suprugu, a šetao je stazom poznatom kao Dehesa de Lopez, koja se nalazi u gradiću Rociana del Condado, u Huelvi u Španjolskoj. Nakon što je sa svojim sedmogodišnjim sinom bio u ljekarni, prolazeći ovom stazom ugledao je polje graha. Kad je odlučio u svoju kanticu ubrati nešto zrna graha, pojavio se vlasnik polja, 70-godišnji Španjolac, koji je u njega pucao dva puta, oduzevši mu život. Njegov sin je pobjegao i javio majci što se dogodilo.

Ubojica je rekao da je to učinio zato jer je muškarac krao. Ipak, što je to on krao? Je li imao automobil ili kamion da ukrade svu proizvodnju s njegovog polja ili samo kanticu u koju je mogao staviti nekoliko zrna graha? Došli smo do točke u društvu u kojoj imovina, bilo koje vrste, čak i ako je mala kao zrno graha, vrijedi više od ljudskog života. Ubijen Rom nije krao mobitel, automobil ili novac; uzimao je nešto što je bilo nužno za njegov opstanak i opstanak njegove obitelji. Ovdje bi trebali uzeti u obzir i činjenicu da se ovo dogodilo tijekom krize uzrokovane koronavirusom, što uključuje sve ekonomske posljedice koje je ona donijela za španjolsko stanovništvo.

No, ova tužna priča tu ne završava. Način na koji su neki od španjolskih medija izvještavali o ovom slučaju bio je pun rasizma i anticiganizma. Različiti su mediji ubijenog Roma opisivali riječima „bespravan naseljenik i lopuža“, te „svadljivac“. Nisu imali milosti niti prema njegovoj obitelji izjavivši da je „cijeli grad pod opasnošću zbog njegove obitelji, a djeca je učio da kradu.“ Mnogi drugi su posebno naglašivali njegovo romsko porijeklo i kazneni dosje.

Međutim, način na koji su opisivali ubojicu bio je potpuno drugačiji, budući da je on bio „stvarno voljen u gradu“, te kako „ljudi žale njega, a ne onog ubijenog.“ Drugi mediji su pak pisali kako je on bio samo „stari radnik na polju kojem je bilo muka ljudi koji od njega kradu“.

Jedan od primjera ovakvih novinara, koji podupiru ubojicu, je televizijska novinarka Ana Rosa Quintana, koja je izjavila da je čovjek koji je pucao u Roma mogao tvrditi da je to bila samoobrana jer je Rom krao sa njegovog polja.

Bitno je istaknuti da, u većini pravnih sustava, kako bi se uzelo u obzir da je riječ o samoobrani, treba postojati izravan napad na osobu, ne na njezino vlasništvo, a sredstvo obrane trebalo bi biti proporcionalno onome korištenom od strane počinitelja. Ubijen Rom nije imao ni oružje, niti je fizički napao vlasnika polja.

Gospođa Quintana je za svoje komentare, zbog društvenog pritiska koji je izvršila romska zajednica i mnogi drugi ljudi, koji su odbijali njezin način govora o ovoj temi, na kraju ponudila neku vrstu 'isprike'. Ona se je sastojala od tvrdnje da je „riječ o nesporazumu“, dodavši da joj je žao ako su je pogrešno shvatili ili ako informacije nisu bile prezentirane na ispravan način, ili ako se ne samo obitelj, već i cijela romska zajednica osjeća uvrijeđenom.“

Da bi se nasilje iskorijenilo iz društva, važno je boriti se protiv govora mržnje u svim njegovim oblicima. Opravdati ubojstvo na temelju činjenice da je žrtva krala hranu ne bi trebalo biti prihvatljivo ni u jednom zdravorazumskom društvu. Hranu je nešto krajnje elementarno za ljudski opstanak.

Da bi se izbjegle ovakve situacije, potrebno je boriti se protiv siromaštva, socijalne neravnopravnosti i rasizma, budući da su to glavni faktori koji dijele društvo, zajedno s medijima koji potiču te podjele.

 

 

In Huelva, Spain a man of Roma origins was killed in front of his 7-year-old son. He was shot twice, first in the chest and then in the face. His only crime was to take some beans out of the field of someone else's property in order to feed his family.

 

The Roma was a 45-year-old man who had four children and a wife to feed, and he was walking through a path known as Dehesa de Lopez, which is in the small town of Rociana del Condado, Huelva. He was going through it after going to the pharmacy with his 7-year-old son when he saw a beans field. He decided to take some of them in his bucket when the owner of the field appeared, a 70-year-old Spanish man, who shot him twice, taking away his life. His son ran away and told his mum what had happened.

The murderer said he did it because the man was stealing. However, what was he stealing? Did he have a car or a truck to steal all the production out of his field or just a small bucket where he could fit some beans? We have reached a point in society where property, any kind of it, even as little as some beans, is worth more than the life of a human being. The Roma was not stealing a cellphone, a car, or money; he was taking something that is vital for his own and his family's survival. We should take into consideration that this happened during the Coronavirus crisis, with all the economic consequences that have brought among the Spanish population.

But this sad story does not end there. The way that some of the Spanish media have covered the issue was full of racism and anti-gypsysm. Different media have described the Roma as a “squatter and thief’’, ‘’he was conflictive”. They had no mercy neither with his family by stating that “his family has the whole town under threat, and his kids are indoctrinated to steal.” Many others did a special emphasis on his Roma origins and his penalty record.

However, the way they described the shooter was totally different, as he was “really beloved in the town, and people feel sorry for him, not the dead one.” Other media stated that “he was an old field worker who was sick of people stealing from him”

An example of this media supporting the murderer is the TV journalist Ana Rosa Quintana, who claimed that the one who shot the Roma man could claim that it was self-defense as he was stealing in his field.

It is important to take into consideration that in most juridical systems in order to consider that there has been self-defense there should be an attack directly on the person, not on his property, and the tool used for defense should be proportional to the one used by the perpetrator. The Roma man had no weapons on him and never attacked physically to the owner of the field.   

Mrs. Quintana ended up offering some kind of “apology” for her comments due to the social pressure done by the Roma community and many other people who repudiated her way to speak about the subject. It consisted of claiming that “it was a misunderstanding, and saying that they are sorry in case there has been a misunderstanding of the information or if it has not been provided in a right way, or if not only the family but the whole Roma community has been offended.”

It is important to fight hate speech in all its forms in order to eradicate violence from society. Justification of assassination based on the fact that the victim was stealing food should not be acceptable in any rational society. Food is something extremely basic for human survival.

In order to avoid the situation as such, it is needed to fight poverty, social inequality, and racism, as these are the main factors that divide society altogether with media which encourage these divisions.