Hungary: Is free speech a socialist issue?

Freedom of opinion is an ideal too important to be swept under the rug by vague promises by high officials, or limited to purely legal scrutiny of a patchwork of minimum standards, so we continue to look at the Euroblog discussion, as in: Hungarian media law and EU Council presidency: Evolving European opinion (8 January 2011).


Mathew Lowry

One of the earlier blog posts against the authoritarian media law in Hungary was Mathew Lowry: Censoring Hungarian Blogs during the Hungarian EU Presidency (originally 22 December 2010, but now updated four times).

Among the updates is a link to the text of Act CLXXXV of 2010 on media services and mass media in English on Politics.hu as well as a lot of comments discussing the law (48 by now).

Some among the 51 comments to Lowry's blog post are chilling reading for anyone who, like Gandhi, thinks that Western civilisation would be a good idea. Imposing legal sanctions on other than impartial reporting, as defined by a politically nominated authority of party hacks, is a far cry from freedom of speech, even if restricted to important events. There seems to be little protection against arbitrariness.

If commitments to democracy, freedom of speech and rule of law are luxuries of wealthy western states Hungarians (and other Central Europeans) can ill afford, their country should not have joined the Council of Europe or the European Union, which embody the continuing quest for higher standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

If official Hungary is opposed to improving fundamental rights of EU citizens, including free speech, the government should not have assumed the responsibility to represent the EU to its 501 million citizens or to champion human rights in the wider world.

As Mathew said, media freedom is not a left/right issue, it is a democracy/authoritarianism issue.

Mathew punctured the allegations that criticism of the media law came from socialists only or mainly, by mentioning in addition to The Economist known for its free market views:

- the French Govt (quite right wing, many would say)
- the German Govt (centre right)
- the UK Gov’t (a centre right coalition led by the UK’s Conservative Party)
- the Luxembourg Govt (centre-right)

The ones who proclaim that free speech is a socialist issue are offering socialist Europarties undeserved kudos. Free media becomes a socialist issue only if others betray our trust. Since appearances matter as well as substance, this puts the other political parties at European level under pressure to come out resoundingly in favour of improving media freedom, in Hungary, in Europe and universally.

A return to darker times is not an option EU citizens should have to contemplate.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Does ”Onward and upward in 2011” mean Talking about the EU on the blog, on the official website of the European Commission in the United Kingdom, on Facebook or on Twitter? Antonia is not the only (social) media user and producer to wonder.

My Europe Week: 61st anniversary of the Council of Europe

Call it low key …


One line in The Week in Brief is what I found on the Council of Europe website by the time of writing:

5/05, Strasbourg - 61st anniversary of the Council of Europe

The latest Grahnlaw entries with remarks on the Council of Europe were the Trivium and Quadrivium blog posts yesterday.



Still, I think that the important and patient work of the 47 member Council of Europe is worth more attention and discussion by the CoE itself, in Europe in general and the Euroblog community in particular, especially during My Europe Week.

The rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal values, but they have made their home in Europe.




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Trivium of European integration: Council of Europe at 61

In the 5th century the seven liberal arts were set as the basis for the new school curriculum. First came Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric (later known as the Trivium). (Source: Keith Sidwell: Reading Medieval Latin; Cambridge University Press)



Council of Europe

The Council of Europe was established on 5 May 1949 by Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.



According to the Statute of the Council of Europe, every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 3).

Each member must collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council:

Article 1

a. The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.
b. This aim shall be pursued through the organs of the Council by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
c. Participation in the Council of Europe shall not affect the collaboration of its members in the work of the United Nations and of other international organisations or unions to which they are parties.
d. Matters relating to national defence do not fall within the scope of the Council of Europe.

The United Kingdom and the Nordic countries fended off attempts to endow the Council of Europe with supranational powers, so it remained an expression of primary level international cooperation, an intergovernmental organisation.

The Committee of Ministers makes the decisions, regarding all important matters by unanimity.

The Consultative Assembly, nowadays called the Parliamentary Assembly, is allowed to discuss matters and to make recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. The members of the Parliamentary Assembly are elected indirectly, by the national parliaments among their members.



In the area of human rights, the Council of Europe has become a pioneer internationally. The groundbreaking 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) has been developed further by amending protocols, and especially the establishment in 1959 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), now issuing binding judgments, has offered Europeans an important and evolving instrument for the protection of the rule of law.

The CoE has widened into a pan-European organisation, with 47 members hosting about 800 million people. Some of the members were admitted on fairly optimistic assumptions about future progress. The ECtHR has become the victim of deep-rooted structural human rights problems in a number of CoE member states, leading to a huge backlog of cases.


A great number of treaties have been concluded within the European Council.

There are reasons to take note of the Council of Europe during My Europe Week. Tomorrow, 5 May 2010, the Council of Europe turns 61. It is worthy of our respect and felicitations, but the limits of intergovernmental cooperation have left its academic achievements at primary level.


My European vision is on the lookout for more: Is there a Quadrivium out there?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. I noticed that the website of the European Council had succumbed to multimedia temptations, making it harder to find solid and useable material without being dragged into picture shows.

Trust is good, control is better? US & EU at a crossroads

In the Lisbon Treaty preamble the member states of the European Union confirmed their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law. The EU shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice, according to Article 3(2) TEU.

“Trust is good, control is better”, has been ascribed to V. I. Lenin, not our first choice among icons of liberty. However, these words seem to encapsulate the purported defence of our freedoms, by elected governments on both shores of the Atlantic.



From data retention of all electronic communications and nudie pics at airports to spying on bank data, nothing is to be left unseen by the US administration and the European Union, in the name of our security.

Security is important, but are our administrations driven by fear? Is any level of control ever sufficient to eliminate all threats?

What happened to liberty, human rights and fundamental freedoms?

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself” would be a better motto for our leaders than the vain pursuit of total control.




Ralf Grahn

Rights and freedoms for Russians

The BBC reports that EU spars with Russia over rights:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7874110.stm

Why put such a negative spin on it?

Surely, human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as the rule of law for Russians must be advancing by bounds and leaps.

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso is promoting these causes in Russia and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for Russians elsewhere.

With these heavyweights behind them Russians are indeed a chosen people.


Ralf Grahn

Understanding between EU and CoE

The Council of Europe signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the European Union on 11 May 2007.

The Memorandum of Understanding is a new framework for cooperation between the organisations, which share the same values: pluralist democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

The Memorandum contains a number of the recommendations made by Jean-Claude Juncker in his report on the relations between the organisations.

The Council of Europe and the European Union will develop their relationship in all areas of common interest: human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and good governance, democratic stability, intercultural dialogue and cultural diversity, education, education, youth and promotion of human contacts as well as social cohesion.

The Council of Europe will remain the benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe.

The Council of Europe norms will be cited as a reference in European Union documents in the fields of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Coherence with the relevant conventions of the Council of Europe will be ensured. This does not prevent Community and European Union law from providing more extensive protection.

The organisations are in agreement that early accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would contribute greatly to coherence in the field of human rights in Europe.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is deemed to strengthen the respect for fundamental rights within European Union and European Community law. A bilateral cooperation agreement will be agreed.

The Council of Europe and the European Union will try to establish common standards for a Europe without dividing lines. They will strive to respond to challenges like terrorism, organised crime, corruption and money laundering.

Ralf Grahn

EU Charter intro

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) brings together, in up-to-date form, the various international and European human rights conventions.

The Charter encompasses freedoms as well as economic and social rights. Its 54 articles form the backbone of individuals’ rights within the European Union, and the Community institutions pay increasing attention to the compatibility of all new legislation with the provisions of the Charter.

The Court of Justice has affirmed that the Charter may be invoked before the Court.

A quick overview of the headings gives an impression of the scope of the Charter:



CHAPTER I DIGNITY

Article 1 Human dignity
Article 2 Right to life
Article 3 Right to the integrity of the person
Article 4 Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 5 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour



CHAPTER II FREEDOMS

Article 6 Right to liberty and security
Article 7 Respect for private and family life
Article 8 Protection of personal data
Article 9 Right to marry and right to found a family
Article 10 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 11 Freedom of expression and information
Article 12 Freedom of assembly and of association
Article 13 Freedom of the arts and sciences
Article 14 Right to education
Article 15 Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
Article 16 Freedom to conduct a business
Article 17 Right to property
Article 18 Right to asylum
Article 19 Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition



CHAPTER III EQUALITY

Article 20 Equality before the law
Article 21 Non-discrimination
Article 22 Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
Article 23 Equality between men and women
Article 24 The rights of the child
Article 25 The rights of the elderly
Article 26 Integration of persons with disabilities



CHAPTER IV SOLIDARITY

Article 27 Workers’ rights to information and consultation within the undertaking
Article 28 Right of collective bargaining and action
Article 29 Right of access to placement services
Article 30 Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal
Article 31 Fair and just working conditions
Article 32 Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work
Article 33 Family and professional life
Article 34 Social security and social assistance
Article 35 Health care
Article 36 Access to services of general economic interest
Article 37 Environmental protection
Article 38 Consumer protection



CHAPTER V CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

Article 39 Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament
Article 40 Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections
Article 41 Right to good administration
Article 42 Right of access to documents
Article 43 Ombudsman
Article 44 Right to petition
Article 45 Freedom of movement and of residence
Article 46 Diplomatic and consular protection



CHAPTER VI JUSTICE

Article 47 Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Article 48 Presumption of innocence and right of defence
Article 49 Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties
Article 50 Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence



CHAPTER VII GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 51 Scope
Article 52 Scope of guaranteed rights
Article 53 Level of protection
Article 54 Prohibition of abuse of rights


The ones who rant against “Brussels” rarely point out that European integration is based on the rule of law, including protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Often the detractors’ point of view seems to be to banish one set of European Community “red tape” with 27 different national sets of discrimination based on nationality and 27 incompatible sets of bureaucratic obstacles to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the treaties.

Is this progressive? Is it wise?


Ralf Grahn

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was signed by the member states of the Council of Europe on 4 November 1950.

Subsequently the Convention has been amended according to various protocols, which have given the Convention more scope and instituted the supranational European Court of Human Rights, with jurisdiction extending to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the protocols thereto.

The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation of one of the member states of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols.

The member states have undertaken to abide by the final judgments of the Court. Final judgments of the Court are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and the Committee supervises their execution.

The member states have promised to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention.

An overview of the substantive rights guaranteed by the Convention, as amended by Protocol No. 11:

Right to life
Prohibition of torture
Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Right to liberty and security
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Right to respect for private and family life
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry
Right to and effective remedy
Prohibition of discrimination

Most articles declare a right in principle, and then mention the formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties, which are allowed (subject to the evolving interpretations of the Court).

There are some general clauses concerning these rights:

Derogations in time of emergency
Restriction on political activity of aliens
Prohibition of abuse of rights
Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

Substantive rights added by protocols are:

Protection of property
Right to education
Right to free elections
Prohibition of imprisonment for debt
Freedom of movement
Prohibition of expulsion of nationals
Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens
Abolition of the death penalty (in peace time)
Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens
Right of appeal in criminal matters
Compensation for wrongful conviction
Right not to be tried or punished twice
Equality between spouses
General prohibition of discrimination
Abolition of the death penalty

Protocol No. 14, amending the control system of the Convention, has not entered into force, because it is still one ratification short of the 46 ratifications needed.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its control system headed by the European Court of Human Rights try to guarantee the basic human rights for 800 million individuals in Europe.

Ralf Grahn

When success becomes a curse

The European Court of Human Rights has become a victim of its own success. Rapid expansion of the Council of Europe membership into Central and Eastern Europe and growing awareness among individuals of human rights standards have led to a huge case-load for the Court.

Last year the Court gave 1,560 judgments and dismissed or struck out 28,000 applications, but around 50,000 new applications were made to the Court.

Thus, the situation is quickly worsening. At the beginning of 2007 there were 90,000 cases undecided.

In the long term the member countries should be able to secure the rights and freedoms they have promised to respect in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and their judicial systems should manage to uphold the rule of law, but today there are serious problems in some of the newer member countries in the East.

The European Court of Human Rights is supposed to be a last safety net, “after all domestic remedies have been exhausted”, but now the Court is all too often called upon to remedy grave, systematic deficiencies on the national level. In the short run something has to be done to help the Court.

The Court has tried to streamline its procedures internally and the Council of Europe has looked for resources and remedies, but the situation is still dramatic.

Ralf Grahn

Council of Europe today

With 46 member states the Council of Europe is a Pan-European organisation, which has managed to conclude 200 international treaties, including the amendments.

Perhaps there is some reason to see the emergence of a Pan-European legal area, as suggested by the title of the book “Le droit du Conseil de l’Europe – Vers un espace juridique paneuropéen” by Florence Benoît-Rohmer and Heinrich Klebes (Council of Europe Publishing, 2005); published in English as “Council of Europe law – Towards a European legal area”.

The Council of Europe works intensely with the member states to aid their progress towards democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Some of the new Eastern European members are still way off the values they have professed to share with the rest of Europe.

The conventions and the activities of the Council of Europe are wide-ranging, including:

· human rights
· democracy
· rule of law
· co-operation between local and regional authorities
· social and economic rights
· intercultural dialogue
· migration and integration
· national minorities and minority languages
· gender equality
· rights of the child
· mass media
· health
· animal welfare
· education
· culture
· youth

Most conventions have reporting and monitoring mechanisms, which means that the Council exerts (gentle) pressure on the member states to raise their standards of legal protection.

If this preventive work fails, individuals have a safety net in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the European Court of Human Rights.

Any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the states, can apply to the Court after all domestic remedies have been exhausted (ECHR Art. 34–35)..

The Court’s case-load has increased dramatically, both as a consequence of expansion and of citizens being more prone to demand fair treatment from their governments.

Ralf Grahn