"We haven't found our way to each other yet." – with Jan Husák on anti-Gypsyism and finding paths to systemic change

The international Jekhipe project aims to restore dignity to the Roma. However, it often encounters resistance from the majority society. Where do these hateful feelings toward the Roma minority come from? As an advocacy worker, Jan Husák highlights the systemic failures that repeatedly push the Roma to the margins. In this interview, he explores the essence of this intolerance and the possibilities for striving toward a more hopeful future.

How would you define anti-Gypsyism?

We will have to come to terms with this term in some way over time. And we need to explain it very clearly—not just to the Roma themselves, but especially to non-Roma—what anti-Gypsyism entails and why it is a subject of debate. Anti-Gypsyism does not just mean the discrimination, marginalization, and stigmatization of the Roma; it is a specific form of racism that affects not only individuals but entire communities. It encompasses a set of prejudices and all forms of discrimination, not only against the Roma minority but against everyone whose lives resemble the so-called "Gypsy" category.

What are its various manifestations?

Anti-Gypsyism manifests in many ways: through the distortion of history, racist and psychological oppression, and stereotypes directed at the Roma as well as other groups of people whose way of life is considered strange or unethical by the majority society. It includes linguistic stigmatization, as the word "Gypsy" is often used to separate a specific group of people from the majority. Anti-Gypsyism is also linked to systemic injustice and is reflected in systemic discrimination. It also involves the spread of hatred toward the Roma in the media, on social networks, and on public platforms.

When we talk about specific cases of anti-Gypsyism, we see it in the context of educational segregation, where children of Roma origin are automatically placed in different types of schools with lower academic standards. We see it in housing, where many Roma are forced to live in segregated areas with substandard living conditions. We see it in the labor market, where being a member of the Roma minority—or being labeled as such—prevents you from obtaining a job that matches your experience and education.

Some authors argue that anti-Gypsyism is strongest in the countries of the former Eastern Bloc. How do you perceive this?

That is indeed the case. The roots of modern anti-Gypsyism can be found in the countries of the former socialist bloc. During socialism, the cultural and ethnic development of the Roma was suppressed in these countries. The Roma were often forced to assimilate, which led to the oppression of their traditions and language. That is where the legacy comes from—Roma forgetting their language or not considering it important enough to pass down from generation to generation and develop further. At the same time, there were efforts to separate the Roma from the majority society in terms of housing and education. But to be fair, this wasn't just a problem in the Eastern Bloc; we saw large Roma ghettos in Western Europe that went through very similar suffering.

In the countries of the Eastern Bloc, however, the 1990s brought regime changes and economic shifts that unfortunately hit vulnerable groups, including the Roma, much harder. Roma communities faced mass unemployment, social exclusion, the creation of further ghettos, and rising tensions between the Czech and Roma populations. This persists to this day. Expressions of intolerance appear most frequently during times of crisis, often fueled by the political climate.

We see various politicians trying to consolidate their support through targeted attacks on the Roma, telling the public that the Roma are a burden on the system, that they collect social benefits, destroy apartments, and so on—that they live a lifestyle that poses a security risk to Czech society.

So, not much has changed...

No, because all of this is reflected in the attitudes of the majority society. I have personally encountered many cases, and I think that Roma reading these pages will find these stories familiar. It’s about meeting a non-Roma person who stares at you with their mouth open, perhaps just because you speak Czech. Because you think, because you don't fall apart when touched, because you don't even smell, or because you live in a clean and safe environment. It shatters all the prejudices they held. And not because they chose those prejudices as their life philosophy, but because they had never heard anything else about the Roma. "You're completely different from other Roma," they say. And when you ask that person how many Roma they know, they admit that you might be the only one. And yet, they have the audacity to say: "You're completely different." You feel a certain bitterness and disappointment in how little we know each other, despite the fact that we have been living side by side here not for decades, but for centuries. Unfortunately, even after all these years of democracy, we still haven't found a way to reach one another.

Why is it important from today's perspective for a definition of anti-Gypsyism to be incorporated into legislation?

 We already have legislation that addresses the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of minorities. I am not aware of any legal standard that does not include provisions against discrimination. The Public Procurement Act prohibits discrimination, and education legislation speaks to the prohibition of discrimination. We have an Anti-Discrimination Act, a law on minorities, and so on. All of these standards, along with the Criminal Code, should provide a guarantee that discrimination and attacks against Roma will not occur.

There are people who are convinced that anti-Gypsyism must be written into law. I ask myself: if the laws we already have do not guarantee that discrimination will not occur, how will having anti-Gypsyism in the law help us? That is not the point. It might be formally sanctioned, but that does not give us any certainty that real change will happen. We can already prosecute manifestations of anti-Gypsyism from a legal standpoint today. Who can guarantee that if anti-Gypsyism is enshrined in law, we will actually achieve change?

We can take the example of antisemitism, which is also not explicitly in the law. Yet, it carries much more weight in society than any manifestations of discrimination against Roma. This is because Jews themselves and the majority society have very forcefully pointed out any manifestation of antisemitism. Roma do not do that. Let’s be honest: how many of us have just shrugged it off, and how many of us have had the courage to pursue a court case or civil litigation?

You are also part of the Jekhipe project, which focuses on promoting systemic change. What is your role in the project?

 I work as an advocacy officer for the Jekhipe project. I try to highlight the manifestations of discrimination that Roma experience, while also reminding people of historical events such as the Roma genocide during World War II. Based on this, we create strategies for systemic reform. My goal, in short, is to ensure these manifestations no longer occur. We must, of course, be realistic. The project has its time and capacity constraints and faces many obstacles. But we can at least kick-start the process. So, through advocacy, we highlight anti-Gypsyism while simultaneously seeking solutions.

How can we imagine your role in practice? Do you represent clients in court cases, for example?

Advocacy is not the same as legal representation. I do not represent clients in court cases or similar matters. Advocacy is work intended to lead to systemic change. Therefore, an advocacy officer must use collected data to prove that discrimination is taking place.

Let me give you an example. My task is to say: "The Czech Republic created a desegregation plan for education, which it submitted to EU Council committees." I then monitor that desegregation plan and find that it is not being implemented. So, the advocacy officer says: "You have a plan here that you committed to. Based on this data, you have only fulfilled three out of the six tasks you set for yourselves." Or you might say: "You have made some changes, but you did not invite Roma to the decision-making process. Why? Because you consider them unworthy of professional discussion."

‍An advocacy officer can also step in when a law is being drafted and they see that the amendment will have a far worse impact on Roma than on other groups of people. They will try to convince politicians that this law carries certain risks. It doesn't always work, of course. An advocacy officer shouldn't be a naive idiot who thinks they will change the world. But they should have the courage to point out problems and do their utmost to ensure corrective measures are taken.

‍

Funded by the European Union. The views expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.