Environmental injustice in Europe
"[3]: 264 This peripheral position, in which segregated Romani settlements and their inhabitants become viewed as de-territorialized zones "beyond the pale" of government responsibility and European Union citizenship,[3]: 264 has been identified by some scholars as an aggravating factor in the prevalence of environmental hazards (such as proximity to industrial facilities and illegal or toxic waste dumps).
[2]: 19–20 [3]: 252, 263 [4]: 74–5 This practice has been identified in relation to the lack of basic services such as water, housing, sanitation[2]: 19–20 [3]: 263 and access to education[5]: 238–9 affecting marginalized Romani communities.
[3]: 255 Even though public concern over the environmental effects of industrial expansion such as mine and dam construction grew in the late 1980s and early 1990s, policy makers continued to focus on privatization and economic development.
[3]: 255 Environmental racism is a prevalent issue in all of Western Europe which primarily impacts individuals of minority ethnic backgrounds and racial groups.
[6]: 43 Most Romani, both itinerant and sedentary, live in Trakya (Thrace) and Marmara regions in the northwest of the country,[6]: 43 and generally inhabit settlements that are socio-geographically distinct and isolated from majority populations.
"[6]: 43 In at least two cases (the 2010 demolition of Sulukule and the 1970 Bayramiç forest products industry dispute), conflicts surrounding access to land and natural resources has led to the dislocation of entire Romani communities.
[8]: 45 As a central area of Istanbul, Sulukule was subject to land speculation,[8]: 45 while underlying ecological and environmental issues were potentially exploited as part of the arguments for demolition.
[9]: 225–227 In the words of Turan, "the 'ecological turn' of Istanbul is currently limited to specific managerial perspectives on urban governance—such as 'resource management,' 'environmental risk,' or 'urban renewal and transformation.
If it was up to me, as a state policy, I would take all the kids under the age of ten from their parents, put them in boarding schools, educate them and make them members of society.
[6]: 114 Part of a larger conflict surrounding access to forest resources,[6]: 57 the attacks were triggered by a dispute over ownership of a logging truck.
[6]: 3 Social and behavioral sciences scholar Gül Ӧzateşler has argued that the attacks, whose timing closely correlated to important dates in the logging industry season[6]: 57 reflected insecurities about ethnic Turkish loss of power to Romani persons, who were gaining socioeconomic influence due to their role in the transportation sector[6]: 169–170 of the forestry industry.
[6]: 56 Due to increased investment in forestry management and production, Turkey became recognized for its timber industry, to the extent that its supplies were viewed as competitive within a globalized international context.
[6]: 157 In the words of Ӧzateşler, "They were just doing the dirty job at that time; as it was very tiring and dangerous due to lack of proper roads to the mountain ... one was supposed to be a little mad to be a driver as the risks were considerable.
"[6]: 157 In 1970, a Leyland truck was purchased by a Romani family in partnership with an ethnic Turkish driver (who later helped start the attacks), and became subject of great interest.
[6]: 132–133 According to ӦzateşlerIn cases of conflicts and war, the female body is often treated as an arena for masculine honor and prestige along with nationalistic territorial claims ...
[6]: 161 The violence ended on February 22, 1970 when word spread that one of the key perpetrators, a logging truck driver named Halit Er, was in critical medical condition.
