Downloaded by [82.28.181.28] at 02:36 18 February 2016 12 L. KARAMANIDOU attacks on makeshift undocumented migrant camps in the city of Patra, the spokesman of Golden Dawn refused to denounce them because ‘the illegal settlement of aliens would still be there and we would have more criminal actions and possibly more murders’ (Flash Radio Station, 2012). Violence is thus constructed as an emotional response, drawing on fear and insecurities experienced by the public, but also seen as a ‘virtue’ (McKeever et al. 2013) of legitimate self-defence against subjectively experienced threats. Similarly, state violence is rationalized by reference to the imperative of protecting citizens and society. Responding to a parliamentary question on police violence against migrants, the PASOK MPO juxtaposed ‘three, four, five incidents’ with the need to ‘protect the security of the citizens’ (HP 1997b, 420). Commenting on the prosecution of a border guard for shooting an Albanian migrant entering Greece irregularly, the minister condemned the action and reiterated the respect for the rights of migrants, but he also exhorted the role of border guards in protecting the frontiers of the country (HP 2008b). By referring to them as akrites – the army units guarding the borders of the Byzantine empire – he activated the topos of protecting the nation against external threats (HP 2008b). In a similar manner, MPO N. Dendias stated that he rejected ‘criticisms for barbaric behaviour’ of the police during operation Xenios Zeus stressing the aim of the operation was for the country ‘to protect its borders [..] to protect its citizens’ (MPOCP 2013a). This ‘protectionist’ narrative legitimates the use of violence within state-exercised migration controls as a necessary part of safeguarding collective security – a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. Not only is state-exercised violence legitimated, but the police is extolled for its effort (HP 1997b, 2008b; MPO 2012a), praised for its humane behaviour towards migrants (HP 2007) and even constructed as needing protection against allegedly untrue or malicious allegations by migrants (HP 2014a, 2014b). Such arguments emerge mostly, but not exclusively, among ND ministers and MPs suggesting the conservative party’s public order agendas and support for security-enforcing institutions. The protectionist narrative brings in sharp relief the challenge posed by the Golden Dawn’s usurping of the ‘protective’ function of the state. Informed by explicitly racist ideologies, it highlighted the state’s failure in controlling migration and maintaining the rule of law and legitimate violence (Wieviorka 1995). The Greek state’s response was, at least initially, not to penalize the actions of the Golden Dawn, but to discursively wrestle back the right to racialized controls. Responding to a journalist’s question on inhumane conditions in detention centres, the coalition government MPO countered that his ‘dilemma’ was ‘to leave things as they were [ … ] there was the threat of social collapse and imposition of the rule of Golden Dawn or the state had to protect itself and society and impose the law’ (MPOCP 2013c). Reflecting similar sentiments, a PASOK-affiliated MP argued that the control operations