Page 217 [217]
OCR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 215 Equally divided cake Fairly divided cake Fig. 5. Justice is not identical with equality or equity. Which is just? When everyone gets a piece of the pie, or everyone can have enough? (Source: author) According to the second viewpoint, injustice is the outcome of one or more parallel procedures and processes originating in everyday practices and decisions. Procedural injustice is the aggregate of unjust, biased, and inequitable situations detected in procedures, processes, and in their participation. It shows to what extent and how the individual, group, state, economic actor, etc. plays a part in the process of geographic “exclusion”. Procedural inequality or injustice is difficult to prove, and is debatable in several cases. Procedural justice can be complemented with restorative justice (Sharman — Strang 2007). This is actually the last phase of a process which causes the injustice: it may eliminate, conserve, or reinforce the injustices. During restoration, the number of certain actors and interested people might increase. New actors may appear who were not present in earlier phases (e.g. new aggrieved people entering the restoring process), making it even more complex and tough to reach justice. Moreover, the restorative intention may only be partly effective owing to the many participants (Sherman — Strang 2007). The restorative process depends on the context This is why even in similar cases, sanctions and compensation of differing weight and form may be agreed upon by the participants, depending on the actual situation (Gyéry 2009). This, however, can affect the deprived groups unfavorably. Hence, the outcome may be the conservation of the existing state, or the further marginalization and peripheralization of the handicapped groups instead of compensation, equity or equality. The third interpretation of justice presents both the state and the process from the perspectives of perception and recognition on the part of those concerned. It occurs when individuals or groups evaluate the given situation of injustice differently, owing to their original position, whether influenced by their education, a mental or physical disability, deprivation, segregation, or the uncontrollable conditions of life. It may also have its root in the application of a local system of norms. The “threshold” that triggers acts or attention in a given case is in many cases defined by exogenous factors (Maguire — Sheriff 2011) in which the affected people have no say. It has been generally observed that the negative evaluation of certain groups puts the actual problem in a new light, or may even relativize it. Similar was the situation of the aggrieved Roma people in the red mud disaster at Devecser. General public discourse relativized the lost properties of the Roma, saying they were worthless anyway. The attitude of the population to certain
