Union européenne

On Thursday May 25th, Poland’s Law and Justice party (PiS) pushed a bill forward that includes provisions to limit access to emergency contraception (the “morning-after pill”) only to those with a prescription.

This controversial bill has successfully moved past the lower house of Parliament in Poland and could move through the Senate and be signed by Polish President Andrzej Duda by as early as this August.

Many have viewed this bill as a threat to women’s autonomy. In 2014, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended that the emergency contraception EllaOne be sold without need for a prescription, on the basis that the drug is safe and effective for women’s use. The European Commission adopted the decision of the EMA in 2015, amending the pills’ market authorization and causing the vast majority of EU countries to allow its sale without a prescription. Currently, Poland is one of the only EU countries to consider prescription-only limitations on emergency contraceptives.

Debates surrounding this bill have centered on women’s rights and health concerns. In terms of health, the Polish government has argued that the provisions will make the consumption of emergency contraception safer, as they will have to consult a doctor about their health before receiving the pills. However, many argue that the provisions will block women from accessing emergency contraceptives in due time for them to be effective, or perhaps even at all. Consequently, many believe that health is not the principle concern in this debate. As Natalia Broniarczyk, spokeswoman for the Federation for Women and Family Planning, stated to Reuters UK, “this is a politically and ideologically motivated decision not based on the concern for women’ heath and safety.”

This is not the first time in recent past that Polish women have stood up against a decision made by the Polish government. In October, a mass protest arose, effectively halting the PiS’s proposal of a law prohibiting abortion. The hashtag #czarnyprotest (black protest) created during this protest is now being revived in opposition to the provisions on emergency contraceptives.

Moreover, the question remains to what extent the Polish government holds women’s concerns as a priority. A report published on May 31st by the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality found that Poland’s main source of gender equality funding is received from the EU, with the biggest direct impact resulting from European Structural and Investments Funds (ESIF). While efforts to reduce gender inequality may be present at the EU level, it is still questionable to what extent the political reality in Poland inhibits these funds from creating tangible change for women on the ground. In terms of emergency contraceptives, women in Poland will have to hope their voices will be loud enough to be heard at governmental level once again.

Hayley Stauffer

Sources:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-poland-contraception-idUKKCN0WQ1U1

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/583146/IPOL_IDA(2017)583146_EN.pdf

http://www.politico.eu/article/polish-parliament-votes-to-limit-access-to-emergency-contraception/

http://www.newsweek.com/despite-black-protest-poland-pushes-ahead-law-restricting-access-morning-after-616778

http://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/socialists-and-democrats-reject-polish-morning-after-pill-restrictions/

http://www.ec-ec.org/custom-content/uploads/2016/04/UPDATE-Access-to-EC-in-EU-countries-ECEC-April2016.pdf

 

 

Classé dans:Fact of the day

Donald Trump s'apprête aujourd'hui à annoncer la position des Etats-Unis sur l'accord de Paris pour le climat. Cette déclaration, dans la lignée d'un G7 et d'un sommet de l'Otan jugés insatisfaisants par les pays membres de l'Union européenne, pourrait constituer un nouveau frein à la coopération américano-européenne. Mais loin de s'appesantir sur cette redistribution géopolitique, l'Union européenne pourrait également profiter de l'isolement des Etats-Unis.

The next meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights will take place on Thursday 8 June from 9 a.m. to 12.30 a.m. in meeting room ASP - A1G-2.

Representatives of NGOs as well as other organisations are requested to accede to the EU Transparency Register and follow the procedures therein for access to the European Parliament.
Further information
Watch the meeting live
Draft agenda and meeting documents
Press Statements
Calendar of DROI Meetings 2017
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) will organise, jointly with the Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI) and the European Parliament’s delegations to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey, an exchange of views on the rights of women in the enlargement countries.
The discussions will focus on "Violence against women in the Western Balkans and Turkey". The invited experts will share an overview about the current state of affairs with regards to the situation of women in the Western Balkan countries and in Turkey and the ongoing efforts to stop all forms of violence against women. For more information of the hearing please see attached draft programme.
Location : Brussels
Further information
Registration information
Draft programme
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Populism on social media: four words that in the current context tend to shake the Brussels bubble to its core. While some directly think about the free space social media provide for and the countless possibilities they offer, others get anxious thinking about ways to regulate these spaces considering the role they play in the spread of populist narratives. The Establishment is slowly realising how far behind they are in terms of mastering the “social media tool”. This explains the –sometimes accurate sometimes misguided- vendetta the European Union has been leading over the last years against issues as broad as hate speech, fake news or populist parties on social media.

According to the Reuters Institute, 46% of European citizens used social media as a primary source of information in 2016. This number is even higher when it comes to the youth, and is only growing. This new deal makes what we see on social media and what we don’t matter: there is a correlation between or beliefs, our perceptions, and where we get our information from.

The so-called “populist“ parties and their leaders have more followers on social media than mainstream parties. For instance, the Front National as almost half a million likes on their facebook page and Marine Le Pen has almost 1.6 million. This might be explained by the theatrical aspect of their publications: it is no scoop that scandalous publications have more success on social media. And this popularity pays off : what if I told you populist narratives on social media greatly influenced the Brexit outcome?  In a long article written for The Spectator in January 2017, Dominic Cummings, the campaign director of the Vote Leave campaign, revealed that 98% of their budget was dedicated to digital communication. An example of this investment: the Vote Leave campaigners gave £3.5 million to Aggregate IQ (AIQ), a technology consultancy company, specialised in high-targeted Facebook advertising. Although it is barely impossible to prove for obvious methodological reasons, the Vote Leave campaigners give their communication strategy on social media credit for the vote outcome.

In Brussels, the institutions and a part of the civil society have realised the situation and the impact it could have in the future: many fear these narratives on social media contribute to the development of a post-truth hateful European society that rejects the so-called mainstream political parties and institutions. Some member states have called for a European response to the problem. In April 2017, the European Parliament held a debate on “Hate speech, populism and fake news on social media “. If the European Union is right in dealing with all these issues, some clarifications about what exactly we’re dealing with here are needed to avoid any jumble together.

Populism, hate speech and fake news: interconnected problems?

Social media, as any other sources of information, can shape the way we think: the content we see on them influences how we conceive the norm, and how we build our truths. Populism on social media is in that sense an issue, as populist narratives are omnipresent in that space. But populist narratives, like in the non-digital world, can come from various different actors and take many forms, from a tweet to a meme. Populism on social media can’t be reduced to simply being within each and every hate speech, fake information or renowned populist parties’ publication. Just like fake news and hate speech aren’t always populist publications.

However, it is true that hate speech and fake news are often tightly connected to populist narratives, or to a greater extent to demagogic discourses: fake news tends to strengthen the anti-elite narrative and often denounce the corruption and inefficacy of the ones in power, while hate speech reinforces the categorisation of certain groups of the society as threats to the “worthy” citizens.

Fighting these populist narratives in the digital world is not only about countering renowned populist parties in the digital space, it’s about trying to restrain the construction of mislead perceptions. At the European level, in the war against populist narratives, the fights against fake news and hate speech are decisive battles. These fights can’t however happen on the same battlefield: fake news and hate speech being different issues, they need to be answered with different-although similar- solutions.

On the dangers of crying wolf with post-truth and of falsely defining hate speech

From Donald Trump to Emmanuel Macron, many are those who call on “fake news” the second they doubt the information they glanced at. Misusing and overusing the terms “fake news”, and these phrases will end up loosing all their sense. Before dealing with the problem of fake news on social media, it is essential to properly define what we mean by “fake news”. The terms “fakes news” are often confused with notions such as misinformation or propaganda. “Fake news” are also different from “false news”: the word “fake” implies that the information was marketed, designed to look true, while “false” implies that it results from a mistake, voluntary or not. According to the Australian Macquarie Dictionary, which chose “fake news” as the “word of the year” 2016, “fake news” means “disinformation and hoaxes published on websites for political purposes or to drive web traffic, the incorrect information being passed along on social media”. Fake news is a disseminated false information, written deliberately in the intention of influencing the opinions of those who receive it.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, hate speech is an “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. “. If this definition seems correct, it raises legal challenges, as it doesn’t cover for many nuances. There are many types of hate speeches on social media: some of these are the expression of serious thoughts, some others just the expression of an ephemeral feeling, some are ironic-humoristic comments, while some are just randomly written comments that aim at representing nothing but the absurdity vision trolls wish to spread on the web. Some attack the European Union, when some others target anti-Europeans. Sellars (2016) even argued that legally defining hate speech is near-to impossible: this definition has to be broad enough to protect the victims of these hate speech, yet narrow enough to protect free speech. Knowing the definition of hate speech used by the European Union is the first step towards understanding the approach it has regarding the issue. According to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation 97(20), “the term “hate speech” shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.” More recently, the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, cited in the European Comission code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online of 2016, defines hate speech as « means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. ».

Fake news and hate speech: fake issues?

“There is 20 million unemployed people in Europe. There is Islamist terrorism. There is immigration that has gone out of control. And what are you doing here in the European Parliament? You’re talking about hoaxes on Facebook. Fake news. For God sake, you all need to be taken to the doctor, all of you. “. It’s in these terms that Matteo Salvini, dedicated member of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) political group, expressed himself in the European Parliament during a debate on “Hate speech, populism and fake news on social media “.  And he is not only one holding this opinion: many believe fake news and hate speech are fake issues, useless debates.

While these suspicious voices rise, countless examples of the negative impact fake news can have in the society can be given. A few days ago, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem accused the reporter Vanessa Burggraf of relaying some fake information: the reporter implied that the former French minister of education had led a reform on the French spelling system. Mrs Vallaud-Bellkacem immediately called on “fake news”, claiming that her ministry never led such a reform. This last assertion is true: the reform of the French spelling system was decided almost one decade ago, based on a report itself form 1990. It’s not the first time Mrs Vallaud-Belkacem is the victim of the fake news trolls: she was successively accused of being actually called “Claudine Dupont”, of making the learning of Arabic mandatory at school, and of having grown up as a shepherd girl in Morocco. Some other fake news had even more appalling effects. In a recent Ted Talk, Stephanie Busari talked about the impact fake news had in Nigeria in 2014. On April 14, Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls: these tragic events led to the creation of the popular #BringBackOurGirls hashtag. Some officials contested the reliability of this information, calling it fake, thus considerably delaying the implementation of the efforts to save these girls. All these examples are proven facts, not opinions or rumours, as evidenced by primary sources of information such as the “Bulletin Officiel” no3 of 2008 of the French Ministry or the testimonies of the mothers of these abducted Nigerian girls. Considering the impact some “fake news” have had in the society in the last few years, it’s getting harder and harder to believe the issue is not important enough to be dealt with.

Hate speech has also been accused of being a fake issue: many saw the fight political entities are leading against hate speech as a fight against what is not politically correct. Some others also argued that this vendetta only serves the interests of the Establishment, accusing this fight to be too often directed towards the discourses the so-called mainstream media and parties disagree with. Finally, it was pointed out that this fight might be useless, as the feeling of hatred is a human attribute, a natural instinctive emotion, that no authority has the legitimacy to control.

If some of these arguments are to a small extent accurate, they don’t disprove hate speech itself as a problem: they’re more of a denunciation of the illegitimacy and inefficiency of the policies lead so far. Hate speech is an issue for one first obvious reason: even in the virtual world, hate speech has a real impact in the non-digital world, as it has the power to hurt the feelings of the individuals and/or groups targeted. Multiple example of these real-life consequences can be found: a quick look at the statistics linking suicides to cyber-bullying is enough to understand the repercussions these speeches can have. And these direct consequences aren’t the only issue at stake when it comes to hate speech: just like fake news contribute to building false truths, hate speech contributes to reproducing stereotypes and feed the narrative that blames minorities for the majority’s issues.

Beyond appellations such as “fake news” or “hate speech”, we’re reaching a far deeper problem: the problem of the construction of a wrong knowledge, of false truth(s), and the perpetuation of misbeliefs. This problem is nothing new. Plato in his famous Allegory of the Cave already warned about the risks of mislead perceptions: the prisoners chained to the cave wall take for true reality nothing other than the shadows. The cave prisoners are incapable of distinguishing facts from fictions, partly because of external manipulations. This problem is a philosophical –more precisely an epistemological-one that societies have always had to deal with. What’s new here is the apparition of social media as new sources of information and the ability everyone has on these new platforms to become journalists and news propagators. The European Union’s task is in this context extremely complicated:  how can a political entity control the content posted on social media while preserving the freedom of speech right? Is this fight even technically possible?

Controlling posts on the Internet: on the risks of creating an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth and Love”.

Imagine you’re using Facebook. You end up on the page of an NGO that helps migrants integrate themselves in the society. Now try to picture the comments below each publication on this page. As you probably correctly imagined, many of these comments are hateful ones. Some posted by false accounts, by people with no names, no pictures. Imagine deleting all these posts, or suing each of these individuals. It appears quite obvious that this legal fight will take years, if it ever comes to an end. Now imagine deleting every post that could qualify as “hate speech” or “fake news”, and suing everyone that has ever posted one of these publications. It would be technically impossible. The Internet has the reputation of being a space impossible to regulate. And this reputation is well deserved: the internet lacks of centralised control, the world wide nature of the posts makes it complicated to legally intervene, and the frequent anonymity/pseudonymity of the users makes it very complicated to identify who posted what. This problem is not only present on social media:  regulating hate speech and fake news in “real” public spaces is also extremely complicated as well, if not impossible.

Plus, beyond these technical aspects, controlling and censoring what is posted on social media goes against free speech.

When it comes to fake news, who can judge when an information is fake and when it is accurate? Many have warned about the risk of creating a “ministry of truth”: no one wants the institutions in power to control what news the public receives and which one don’t pass the test.  It is well known, and well understood, that a government with such power over the media can’t be called “democratic” anymore. Luckily, it seems like the European Union doesn’t whish to turn social media into the new books of Fahrenheit 451. During the debate on “Hate speech, populism and fake news on social media “, every party has expressed their reluctance to set up anything that would resemble even by far to a European system of censorship.

Another solution, that has long been advocated for by the European Union, is to encourage to social media giants to take their responsibilities and boost their efforts to tackle the problem. This is for instance what Andrus Ansip, European Commission vice-president in charge of the digital single market and of the digital economy and society, advocated for in a declaration in January 2017. Some digital tech leaders such as Facebook or Google adopted some measures to address the issue: for example, since March 2017, it is now possible to mark with a “flag” alleged “fake news” on Facebook. If this strategy could be efficient, as many MEPs underlined in the European Parliament, social media owners aren’t more legitimate to regulate these posts, and the users seeing their posts being deleted are likely to call on “censorship” and get even more attention.

The same problem can be evidenced when it comes to hate speech on social media: who has the legitimacy of differentiating a hateful discourse from humour for example? A ministry able to censor any content it identifies as “hateful” can’t be called democratic anymore, but rather tends to turn into an Orwellian “ministry of love”. After analysing the laws of several countries in the world, Sara Colvier finds out that hate speech laws have either been abusively used, or not used at all. She concludes that « the possible benefits to be gained by laws simply do not seem to be justified by their high potential for abuse ». Once again, the European Union has acknowledged these facts and so far has focused its actions on getting the IT companies of its side. In 2016, the European Union released a code of conduct on illegal online hate speech. This code encourages IT companies to combat the spread of illegal hate speech in Europe through a series of measures. The same critic made towards the strategy adopted here by the European Union can be made here: social media owners are no more legitimate than the EU to censor posts.

It is not the first time a political authority is facing the “free speech” dilemma: finding the balance between protecting potential victims of hate speech and fake news while trying not to censor abusively is a very complicate task. Yes, fake news and especially hate discourses shouldn’t be tolerated in any form of public space, whether it is social media or not. But at the same time laws restraining what people can say, whether it is on social media or elsewhere, have always failed: they’re not only technically inapplicable, they can turn into censorship devices. So far the European Union has understood these risks, and pushes IT companies to take measures against fake news and hate speech posts instead of intervening directly. The European Union should keep on focusing on strategies other than censorship to fight hate speech and fake news on social media.

The relevance of prevention: raising awareness to avoid the perpetuation of mislead practices

So where does the European Union go from here? If fake news or hate speeches can’t be forbidden, how can the European Union effectively fight them? The only area the European Union can directly intervene in is the information, prevention and education field.

When it comes to fake news, the European Union should provide for fact-checking websites, and most importantly teach its citizens the importance of checking the sources of an information before sharing and spreading. According Forbes, six out of ten articles shared are passed on without being read first. The European Union has already started to adopt policies consistent with this strategy: a website called “Les Décodeurs de l’Europe”, that aims at fighting fake news and fake rumours, was launched in 2016; the East StratCom task force of the EEAS has been sending weekly newsletter collecting disinformation stories since 2015 in order to tackle the Russian disinformation campaign; and the European Union regularly publishes illustrative diagrams on social media to warn about the dangers of spreading a non-verified news.

The European Union has also lead some prevention campaigns to dissuade social media users from employing hate speeches lightly. For example, between 2012 and 2014, the youth department of the European Council lead a “campaign against hate online”. Another example of this strategy: on the 7th of April 2017, the Maltese presidency of the EU Council, in partnership with the European Commission, held a conference in La Valletta to discuss how to effectively deliver positive narratives to counter hate speech online.

The most efficient fighters against hateful and fake narratives on social media are individuals. The EU has some leverage to make these individuals aware of their responsibilities. However, for those already convinced by populist narratives picturing the mainstream media and parties as liars, these strategies seem inefficient if not counter-productive.

“Don’t feed the trolls”: on the difficulty to fight erroneous and hateful narratives without reinforcing vicious circles

Despite all these measures, fake news and hate speeches are still spreading like wild fire on social media. How can this be explained?

Fake news is not an issue that can simply be tackled by more prevention and more control. Individuals frequently relaying and reading fake news are, like every one else, in so-called social media bubbles. Each individual is stuck in a bubble, where he gets all his news from and where nearly no other source of information enters. Our social circles usually like and follow the same contents we do. If they don’t though, algorithms such as the ones used by Facebook and Twitter will make sure that what we mostly see on our social media feed are news similar to the ones we read. The more we like and share some news, the more similar news will be suggested to us. These bubbles are the modern versions of the caves Plato once described in his allegory. And just like the prisoners of the cave, the longer individuals stay in their bubbles, the more convinced they will be about their truth, thus doubting every other fact presented to them. And the fact that fake news describes entities such as the European Union as providers of fake news themselves doesn’t help. Here we have our paradox: how can the European Union warn individuals about fake news when a part of the population perceives it as a provider of fake news itself? How can giant tech such fight “fake news” when they’re perceived by “fake news” believers as corrupted themselves? The strategy led by the European Union to prevent and inform the citizens only works before the bubble feeds itself from these policies, before the prisoners gets stuck far too deep in their caves.

Trying to break these bubbles isn’t a solution for those already stuck in it. Suddenly blinding the prisoners with dazzling light might scare them deeper into their caves. However, trying to “reunite” some bubbles together could be solution. The problem here mostly lies in algorithms, that reproduce the real-life social phenomenon of offering us only what we want to see and what we believe in. It also lies into the common demonization of someone else’s bubble. Changing the algorithms, if possible, could allow bubbles to connect with each other, thus opening up not only the minds of the ones under the spell of populist narratives, but also our owns: only by interacting with each other we can understand the other side’ narrative and thus better counter it. Only if the EU finds a way to widen everyone’s horizons can vicious circles turn into prosperous social media bubbles.

Fighting hate speech at the EU level can also lead to a reinforcement of a vicious circle. In an article published in March 2017, the journalist Catherine Zheng argues that using trials to limit hate speech « provides populist politicians with a platform to air their grievances, but also validates a pernicious narrative—that far-right politicians and parties are victims of political elites who seek to silence them ». She gives the example of two trials of politicians often accused of being populists: Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilder. Both managed to present these trials as attempts to silence the truth. In terms of prevention policies, trolls feed on campaigns such as the ones lead by the EU so far. Anyone who has ever tried to argue with a “hater” or a “troll” online knows that bringing them to see reason is near to impossible. Prevention campaigns are essential in order to prevent the creation of some new “haters”, but are usually inefficient to change the minds already made.

The European Union is thus stuck in a vicious circle. Ignore fake news and hate speech, and they’re free to spread themselves and influence left, right and centre without any restrictions. Confront them through censorship or prevention measures, and they might feed on these policies. This paradox is inherent to democracy itself: freedom of speech can lead to creating debates of opinions rather than truths.

Treating the disease rather than the symptoms: the importance of taking into consideration the roots of the “populism on social media” problem.  

Populism on social media can’t be erased or fought through any direct policy. However, hate speech and fake news, even if not always populist publications, often use an anti-elite rhetoric, and tackling these issues is a first step towards diminishing the impact populist narratives have on social media.

But fighting fake news and hate speech is no easy task: beyond the technical difficulties of identifying and punishing each and every populist publication, censoring these publications endangers free speech and might even feed the problems fought against. Prevention and education measures are the main options the European Union has, and these policies might be efficient in order to avoid the reproduction of misguided practices. However, the European Union has a limited impact, as the campaigns they’re leading mostly preach to the converted.

So what can the European Union do to avoid these backlash effects? More research on these backlash effects are needed in order to evaluate to what extent policies such as the ones lead by the European Union can effectively counter hate speech and fake news on social media. Despite their arguably limited impact, prevention measures shouldn’t be given up on, as they can prevent more fake news to be shared and more hate speech to appear. Changing the algorithms creating the social media bubbles could also be a solution.

But most importantly, the European Union should take into account the reasons why populist narratives, hate speech and fake news are so popular on social media. As no disease is ever cured by only treating the symptoms, the European Union could also address the roots of the fake news and hate speech problems, too often ignored. These issues evidence a lack of trust from the civil society in the traditional political system. This trust can’t be rebuilt on censorship, but rather through more democracy and more transparency. Kostadinka Kuneva, European MEP for the European United Left party, wisely reminded the European Parliament that fake news, for example, were more likely to spread were transparency was more opaque: “The answer we should give can only be one: everything should come to light”.

Camille Guey

Sources:

Audureau, W. (2017), « Pourquoi il faut arrêter de parler de « fake news » », Le Monde Online URL :http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/01/31/pourquoi-il-faut-arreter-de-parler-de-fake-news_5072404_4355770.html#M6Pfh0FxyqLsobBH.99

Busari, S. (2017), How fake news does real harm, TedTalk, filmed Februray 2017, URL : https://www.ted.com/talks/stephanie_busari_how_fake_news_does_real_harm

Cummings, D. (2017), “How the Brexit referendum was won”, The Spectator Online, URL: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/#

Coliver, S. et al. (1992), Striking a balance: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination, Article 19, International Centre against censorship, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex.

European Commission (2016), Code Of Conduct on Counterring Illegal Hate Speech Online.

European Parliament (2017), At a Glance : Fake news and the EU response, European Parliament Website, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2017/599384/EPRS_ATA%282017%29599384_EN.pdf

European Parliament (2017), Hate speech, populism, and fake news on social media – towards an EU response (debate), Plenary session from 03/04/017 to 06/04/2017, URL : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/plenary/video?debate=1491397770340

Foster, P.; Evans, M. (2017), “Exclusive: How a tiny Canadian IT company helped swing the Brexit vote for Leave“, The Telegrah Online, URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/exclusive-tiny-canadian-company-helped-swing-brexit-vote-leave/

Lay Williams, D. (2016), “Plato predicted ‘Pizzagate’ (or rather, fake news more generally) “, The Washington Post Online, URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/13/plato-predicted-pizzagate-or-rather-fake-news-more-generally/?utm_term=.4a6ab96bb06a

Les Décodeurs (2017), “Réforme de l’orthographe: « On n’est pas couché » relaie une intox sur Najat Vallaud-Belkacem », Le Monde Online, URL: http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2017/05/21/reforme-de-l-orthographe-on-n-est-pas-couche-relaie-une-intox-sur-najat-vallaud-belkacem_5131376_3236.html#iPpyQRlUR1eecMuB.99

Pégorier, C. (2016), “A Tale of Two Organs: Hate Speech Regulation in the European Context“, EU Law Analysis Online, URL: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.be/2016/10/a-tale-of-two-organs-hate-speech.html

Reuters Institute (2016), Reuters Institute Digital News Report, University of Oxford, URL : https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf

Sellars, A. (2016), Defining Hate Speech, Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20; Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-48. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2882244

Solway , D. (2016), “The Problem with Hate Speech“, PJ Media Online, URL: https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-problem-with-hate-speech/2/

Westerman, D.; Spence, P.; Van Der Heide, B. (2013), Social Media as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 19 (2), 171-183.

Zheng, C. (2017), Try Me: The Problem with Prosecuting Politicians for Hate Speech, Harvard Political review Online, URL: http://harvardpolitics.com/world/prosecuting-hate-speech/

Classé dans:#LaReplique, Face au populisme

A dix jours du premier tour des élections législatives, les affaires politico-judiciaires semblent repartir de plus belle. Le Parisien et Le Figaro ont révélé mardi 30 mai que 19 eurodéputés, dont la nouvelle ministre des Affaires européennes Marielle de Sarnez, font l'objet d'une enquête préliminaire du parquet de Paris pour "abus de confiance", après dénonciation d'une élue FN. Un nouveau rebondissement qui intervient alors que le Front national est lui-même visé par des soupçons d'emplois fictifs au Parlement européen et que Marine Le Pen refuse pour l'heure de répondre aux convocations des juges.

Durée de la vidéo : 70'
Vous pouvez télécharger manuellement cette vidéo au format WMV (713Mb)

Clause de non-responsabilité : L'interprétation des débats facilite la communication mais ne constitue en aucun cas un enregistrement authentifié des débats. Seuls le discours original ou la traduction écrite révisée du discours original peuvent être considérés authentiques.
Source : © Union européenne, 2017 - PE

Source : © Union européenne, 2017 - PE

The NATO members got together during a meeting at the headquarters of the organisation in Brussels. This meeting was a good opportunity for the European leaders to meet and talk to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish President, to clarify the relations between the European Union, its member states and Turkey.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took the opportunity to meet European leaders during his visit in Brussels the 25th May 2017. He exchanged his wishes with Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, Antonio Tajani, the President of the European Parliament, Emmanuel Macron, the French President and Angela Merkel, the German Chancelor, amongst others.

Relations between the European leaders and Turkey are tense since the unaccomplished coup d’état last July lead to a state of repression. In Turkey, journalists’ and medias’ work in the opposition is hindered, many people considered as opponents or close enough to Fetullah Gülen’s ideas have been imprisonned since then. These relations are even more strained because of the successful referendum campaign that lead to a concentration of powers in the hands of the Turkish President. The European leaders were afraid of such an outcome and remained expecially silent after the announcement of the results.

On the 2nd of May 2017, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan demanded that the European Union resumes its membership talks with Turkey. To date, only 16 out of 35 chapters have been opened, while the negociations officially started in 2005. Its speech was particularly hard: “You have no choice but to open the [negociations of membership] chapters that are not into discussion yet. If you open them, very well. On the contrary, good bye”. He wants the European leaders to make a decision as soon as possible, suspecting them to wait for Turkey to remove its candidacy by itself.

Inside the European Union, opinions are diverge on this issue. Austria is calling for a withdrawal from membership negociations with Turkey while the European Union leaders call for the continuance of the talks. The Turkish President, facing such heterogeneity, threatened to consult its fellow citizens according to know what would be the procedure he has to follow. He also declared that he would ask the Turkish people to know if they want to reestablish death penalty. Such a reestablishment would mean the cessation of membership negotiations.

The European leaders tried to calm the situation by talking with Mr Erdoğan. First, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker proposed to revive the EU-Turkey relations thanks to a 12-months schedule. The Turkish President wants visa liberalisation to be scheduled, which was one of the counterparts of the agreement between the EU and Turkey more than one year ago. The Europeans are not against this proposition, but they have asked Turkey to modify its dispositions to fight terrorism. These disposition are, indeed, broad and give a wide margin of appreciation to the Turkish authorities. For his part, the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, mentioned the freedom of the press and the state of human rights in the country.

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, supported the release of the French journalist, Mathias Depardon who has been imprisonned in Turkey since the 8th May. The incarceration looks like “hostage-taking” according to Christophe Deloire, Secretary General of the organisation Reporters without Borders.

The interview between Angela Merkel and the Turkish President was certainly the most awaited one. Relations between these two states worsened when Germany gave right of asylum to military men who are accused by Ankara of having played a role in the coup last July. Germany also did not permit the AKP to hold a meeting in favour of the strenghtening of the Turkish President powers in its territory. More recently, the Turkish authorities forbidded some German members of parliament from entering the Incirlik’s military base, NATO and German soldiers are situated. Despite this vindictive tone towards Europe, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan explained that the German members of parliament will be allowed to enter the base if the list of the people present is sent to the Turkish authorities before the trip.

The speeches of each of the leaders in front of the cameras were generally controlled and civil. This implies that the relations between the EU, its member states and Turkey may improve in the next few months. The membership negotiations between the EU and Turkey are, however, more difficult to revive in the foreseeable future. The membership of Turkey to the EU is a matter of debate among the EU member states. To date, it seems difficult for the European Union to clearly express its feeling towards the integration of Turkey, one of the powers on the rise.

Pierre Angelloz-Pessey

Sources:

AFP, « Erdogan appelle l’UE à se décider sur l’adhésion de la Turquie », lexpress.fr, 24 may 2017. Available at : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/monde/erdogan-appelle-l-ue-a-se-decider-sur-l-adhesion-de-la-turquie_1911457.html.

AFP, « Erdogan somme l’UE de relancer les négociations, « sinon au revoir » », nouvelobs.fr, 02 may 2017. Available at: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20170502.AFP2523/turquie-l- akp-se-reunit-pour-reintegrer-le-president-erdogan.html.

AFP, « UE-Turquie : Juncker et Tusk recevront Trump et Erdogan jeudi à Bruxelles »,

nouvelsobs.fr, 19 may 2017. Available at: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20170519.AFP3612/ue-turquie-juncker-et-tusk- recevront-erdogan-jeudi-a-bruxelles.html.

 

Ph. R., « Rencontres avec le président turc Erdogan », ladepeche.fr, 26 may 2017. Available at : http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/05/26/2582031-rencontres-avec-le-president-turc- erdogan.html.

Tuvan Gumrucku and Pierre Sérisier, « L’UE propose un cadre pour relancer les relations avec la Turquie », challenges.fr, 27 may 2017. Available at: https://www.challenges.fr/monde/l-ue- propose-un-cadre-pour-relancer-les-relations-avec-la-turquie_476297 .

Classé dans:Fact of the day

Depuis 1994, le 3 mai est consacré à la liberté de la presse. C’est l’occasion pour l’organisation Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) et les institutions de l’Union européenne, au premier chef desquels le Parlement européen, de sensibiliser et de faire le point sur l’état de la liberté de la presse dans le monde.

Afin de sensibiliser les individus et les pouvoirs publics sur les questions de la liberté de la presse et son état dans le monde, Reporters Sans Frontières classe depuis 2002 les États selon la possibilité pour les journalistes d’exercer leur travail librement sans craindre de pressions, de menaces et sans craindre pour leur vie.

Ce classement se base sur le calcul d’un indice qui est attribué à chaque pays. Plus un pays obtient un indice faible, plus le journalisme peut s’exercer librement. La méthodologie utilisée a évolué au cours des 16 années, permettant d’améliorer les méthodes de calculs et de rendre compte plus fidèlement des réalités sur place. Cependant, elles viennent rendre plus difficiles les comparaisons précises sur une longue période.

Aujourd’hui, la méthodologie utilisée par l’organisation repose à la fois sur des éléments subjectifs et des éléments objectifs. Des éléments subjectifs d’abord, puisqu’un questionnaire traduit dans plus de vingt langues est envoyé à différents experts autour du globe. Ces experts et journalistes doivent alors s’exprimer sur l’état du pluralisme, de l’indépendance des médias, de l’environnement et de l’autocensure, du cadre légal, de la transparence et qualité des infrastructures soutenant la production de l’information. Des éléments objectifs, ensuite, car chaque année les exactions et menaces subies par les journalistes sont recensées.

Une situation inégale selon les régions du globe

Toutes les éditions font ressortir les très fortes inégalités qu’il y a entre les régions du monde. Si l’on prend des parties du monde dans leur ensemble l’on remarque aisément que l’Europe mène et reste en 2017 le meilleur endroit pour exercer le journalisme en toute indépendance et liberté. À l’inverse, l’Asie est à la traîne, avec de nombreux pays classés en queue de liste (Corée du Nord, Chine, Vietnam, Laos, Iran, Arabie Saoudite, Yémen, etc.).

Le classement permet aussi de mettre à mal certains préjugés. Ainsi, il est possible de se rendre compte que, si les démocraties occidentales, d’une manière globale, sont en tête du classement, elles ont aussi à apprendre de pays moins riches. Cette remarque est présente dès la première édition du classement dans laquelle l’Italie se trouvait derrière le Bénin par exemple. Cette année, le Costa Rica et la Jamaïque se classent parmi les dix premiers pays ; loin devant la France (39e) ou encore l’Italie (52e).

À partir du moment où les pays les plus riches ne sont pas systématiquement situés aux premières places de ce classement, il est aussi possible d’affirmer que la liberté de la presse n’est pas entièrement dépendante du niveau de richesse d’un pays. Par exemple, le Royaume-Uni est à la 40e place et les États-Unis d’Amérique n’arrivent qu’à la 43e position.

La liberté de la presse est l’une des caractéristiques et est nécessaire dans un régime démocratique. Le classement de RSF vient aussi nous rappeler que la création de richesse et l’enrichissement d’un peuple ou d’un État ne s’accompagne pas systématiquement d’une démocratisation du régime en place. Singapour, cité-État d’une richesse inouïe, ne se classe qu’à la 151e place (mais 8e PIB par tête). Les pays considérés comme des puissances émergentes en donnent aussi la preuve. Par exemple, le Brésil (103e), le Nigeria (122e), l’Indonésie (124e), l’Inde (136e) et la Chine (176e) ne font pas partie des bons élèves alors même que certains de ces pays sont considérés comme démocratiques.

Une liberté de la presse en recul sur le continent européen

Dès le départ, l’organisation Reporters Sans Frontières constatait que la liberté de la presse était menacée de partout. Même en Europe qui est une région du globe qui a toujours connu de fortes disparités sur la question de la liberté de la presse. Néanmoins, depuis ces dernières années, RSF montre que la situation en Europe et au sein même de l’Union européenne ne cesse de se dégrader. La Pologne, par exemple, voit sa position s’aggraver en l’espace de deux années, en passant de la 17e place en 2015 à la 54e actuellement. Cela est dû notamment à l’emprise qu’a prise le parti Liberté et Justice (PiS), au pouvoir depuis le deuxième semestre de 2015, sur les médias du service public.

La Pologne n’est cependant pas le seul pays à régresser dans le classement RSF. Chaque année, certains pays de l’Union européenne régressent plus ou moins fortement. Ceci accompagne aussi une tendance qui est mondiale. D’une année à l’autre, la position d’un pays dans le classement peut sembler s’améliorer. En réalité, cette amélioration peut aussi avoir pour cause un effet mécanique : la situation dans des États peut tellement empirer qu’un autre État peut gagner quelques places sans même que la situation réelle de la liberté de la presse au sein dudit pays ne s’améliore réellement. Ainsi, l’année 2017 intègre moins de pays avec un indice en dessous de 15. Le nombre de pays avec un indice considéré comme bon ou plutôt bon a diminué de 2,3 % depuis 2016. En Europe, l’indice global s’est dégradé de 17,5 % en 5 ans, soit la plus forte hausse comparée à toutes les autres régions du monde. Ce chiffre est aussi mécanique ; si cette dégradation est inquiétante, il faut noter qu’il est aussi plus facile de chuter lorsque son indice est bon que lorsqu’il est déjà bien élevé.

L’Union européenne est loin d’être un ensemble homogène quant à la liberté de la presse. On aperçoit ainsi un nord bien mieux classé par rapport aux autres pays de l’ouest, du sud et de l’est. Cette homogénéité s’explique par des particularités nationales, voire locales. Ainsi l’Italie, qui est l’un des plus mauvais élève de l’Union européenne, est mal classée à cause notamment de la mafia qui peut menacer le travail des journalistes. En 2015, par exemple, la France a vu sa place dégradée à cause de l’attentat contre les journalistes de Charlie Hebdo.

Malgré tout, force est de constater aujourd’hui que les bons élèves de l’Union ne viennent pas nécessairement tirer les autres pays européens vers le haut. Eux-mêmes ne sont pas exempts de critiques. La Finlande, par exemple, perd la première place qu’elle occupait depuis 6 années, des journalistes ayant subi des pressions de la part du Premier Ministre Juha Sipilä (Parti du centre, ALDE).

L’élection présidentielle française a aussi mis en avant le comportement de certaines personnalités politiques.C’est le cas de François Fillon (Les Républicains, PPE) qui n’a pas hésité à s’en prendre avec véhémence aux journalistes lorsqu’il se trouvait empêtré dans des affaires le mettant en cause et nuisant de ce fait à sa campagne. C’est le cas, aussi, de Marine le Pen (Front National, ENL) qui refusait l’accès à ses meetings et réunions publiques à certains journalistes. Plus récemment encore, le nouveau Président de la République française, Emmanuel Macron, n’a pas hésité à sélectionner les journalistes pouvant le suivre lors de son déplacement au Mali.

Les temps sont donc plus difficiles pour les journalistes européens ! La campagne menant au vote du Brexit et l’élection de Donald Trump marquent de nouvelles étapes dans la création d’un climat délétère pour la liberté de la presse avec une manipulation éhontée des faits. D’autres personnalités politiques telles que Beppe Grillo en Italie souhaitent contrôler la presse en proposant la mise en place d’un jury populaire chargé de vérifier le travail des journalistes. Le chemin que prend la lutte contre le terrorisme peut aussi s’avérer inquiétant pour la liberté de la presse. Aussi, depuis 2016, en Allemagne, la loi autorise les services de renseignement à mener une surveillance de masse sans exception concernant les journalistes non-ressortissants d’un des pays de l’Union européenne.

Outre les pressions verbales, les pressions économiques se font de plus en plus ressentir dans certains pays de l’Union. En France et en Italie, la concentration des médias au sein de quelques mains inquiète l’organisation Reporters Sans Frontières. En Pologne et en Hongrie, il y a la volonté de tarir les sources de revenus des journaux d’opposition. Les administrations publiques polonaises ne peuvent plus s’abonner ou publier de la publicité dans les journaux d’opposition. En Hongrie, un quotidien d’opposition a cessé de publier, son propriétaire – autrichien et proche de Viktor Orbán – prétextant des difficultés économiques. Toutes ces pratiques peuvent conduire en retour à l’auto-censure des journalistes et donc porter toujours plus atteinte à la liberté de la presse.

Une focalisation des discussions au Parlement européen sur la question des fake news

Le Parlement européen a toujours été très présent sur la question de la liberté de la presse, même si l’institution n’est pas exempte de critiques. En 2010, par exemple, les députés européens avaient refusé, lors d’un vote en plénière, de traiter de l’état de la liberté de la presse en Italie.

Cette année a été l’occasion pour le Parlement de sensibiliser les citoyens européens sur les fake news. La sous-commission en charge des droits de l’Homme a profité de cet événement afin de convier, le 4 mai 2017, trois invités dont Christophe Deloire, secrétaire général de Reporters sans frontières.

La question de la désinformation est celle qui a préoccupé le plus les députés de la sous- commission. La discussion a notamment rappelé le rôle que jouait la Russie avec deux des médias qu’elle finance (Russia Today et Sputnik). La réponse la plus évidente à de telles campagnes de désinformation est de pratiquer le fact-checking. Toutefois, comme le rappelle Christophe Deloire, cela revient aussi à « labourer la mer ». Il propose donc aux responsables politiques et à la société civile de réfléchir à des mécanismes permettant aux informations vérifiées de mieux circuler.

Après un échange de points de vue qui a duré prês d’une heure, il est intéressant de noter que ce qui préoccupe les députés européens est la situation à l’extérieur de l’Union européenne et l’influence que certains États tiers peuvent avoir sur l’opinion publique européenne. Ces questions sont certes essentielles, mais très peu de remarques ont été consacrées à l’état de la liberté de la presse au sein même de l’Union européenne où l’écart entre les « bons élèves » et les « moins bons » se creuse d’année en année. Il est important pour l’Union européenne de porter attention à la liberté de la presse ailleurs dans le monde. Cependant, elle devrait aussi veiller de manière plus visible à celle au sein de ses États membres. Au final, il en va de sa crédibilité lorsqu’elle agit sur la scène extérieure. Il en va de sa crédibilité de rappeler à certains de ses États membres que la liberté de la presse innerve bon nombre des valeurs que les Européens partagent et défendent.

Pierre Angelloz-Pessey

Sources :

« Classement – Les données du classement de la liberté de la presse 2017 », rsf.org, 2017. Disponible sur : https://rsf.org/fr/donnees-classement.

« Classement mondial de la liberté de la presse 2017 : le grand basculement », rsf.org, 2017. Disponible sur : https://rsf.org/fr/classement-mondial-de-la-liberte-de-la-presse- 2017-le-grand-basculement.

« Le journalisme fragilisé par l’érosion démocratique », rsf.org, 2017. Disponible sur : https://rsf.org/fr/le-journalisme-fragilise-par-lerosion-democratique.

« La méthodologie du Classement mondial de la liberté de la presse », rsf.org, 2017. Disponible sur : https://rsf.org/fr/la-methodologie-du-classement-mondial-de-la-liberte-de- la-presse-0.

« Classement mondial de la liberté de la presse 2015 », rsf.org, 2015. Disponible sur : https://rsf.org/fr/ranking/2015.

« Classement mondial 2013 », rsf.org, 2013. Disponible sur : https://rsf.org/fr/classement- mondial-2013.

« Classement mondial 2002 », rsf.org, 2002. Disponible sur : https://rsf.org/fr/actualites/le- classement-2002.

« European Parliament President Statement on World Press Freedom Day », europarl.europa.eu, 02 mai 2017. Disponible sur [EN] : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the-president/fr/newsroom/european-parliament- president-statement-on-world-press-freedom-day.

« Journée de la liberté de la presse : comment lutter contre les « fake news » », europarl.europa.eu, 03 mai 2017. Disponible sur : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/headlines/society/20170502STO73019/journee- de-la-liberte-de-la-presse-comment-lutter-contre-les-fake-news.

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Liberté d'expression et droit à l'information

The report on addressing human rights violations in the context of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide (2016/2239(INI)) by Cristian Dan Preda (EPP, RO) was approved in the AFET Committee today by 50 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions. It will be put to a vote by Parliament as a whole at the July plenary session in Strasbourg.
Further information
Press release
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

The report on addressing human rights violations in the context of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide (2016/2239(INI)) by Cristian Dan Preda (EPP, RO) was approved in the AFET Committee today by 50 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions. It will be put to a vote by Parliament as a whole at the July plenary session in Strasbourg.

Press statement
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

During the first quarter DROI held exchanges on Syria, Angola, Belarus, Drones and International Women's Day. Find out more in Issue 29.
Issue 29
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

A deux semaines des élections législatives anticipées au Royaume-Uni, les deux leaders des principaux partis britanniques ont participé lundi 29 juin à un débat télévisé. L'occasion pour eux de préciser, entre autres, leur position sur le Brexit. Confiants sur leur large victoire il y a encore quelques semaines, les conservateurs de Theresa May semblent aujourd'hui plus incertains, face à un parti travailliste qui remonte dans les enquêtes d'opinion.

Lounes
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon l’avocat général Bot, un ressortissant d'un État non UE, membre de la famille d’un citoyen de l’Union, peut bénéficier d’un droit de séjour dans l’État membre dans lequel ce citoyen a séjourné avant d’en acquérir la nationalité et de développer une vie de famille

Le 25 mai 2017, les 28 chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement membres de l’OTAN se sont réunis à Bruxelles pour inaugurer le nouveau siège de l'organisation internationale. Premier déplacement du président américain Donald Trump en Europe depuis son élection, cette rencontre avec les dirigeants européens a marqué une nouvelle étape dans la lutte contre le terrorisme. Mais malgré des avancées significatives sur le plan de la coopération interalliée, l’attitude du nouveau président américain à l’égard de l’Alliance atlantique demeure source d’inquiétude.

Emmanuel Macron reçoit aujourd'hui son homologue russe Vladimir Poutine à Versailles, dans le cadre d'une exposition consacrée au tsar Pierre le Grand. Une visite sur fond de crise ukrainienne et de conflit en Syrie, qui devrait marquer une nouvelle ère dans les relations franco-russes après deux années de net refroidissement.

Après les rencontres du G7 et de l'Otan, en Bavière, Angela Merkel a critiqué dimanche 28 mai le manque de fiabilité de l'administration américaine. La chancelière allemande a plaidé pour une Europe prenant son destin en main et une intégration plus importante.

Quinze suspects sont désormais détenus cinq jours après l’attentat qui a coûté la vie à 22 personnes à Manchester, dans le nord de l’Angleterre. La police britannique estime avoir procédé à l'arrestation d'une grande partie du réseau derrière cette attaque terroriste. Treize personnes sont en garde à vue au Royaume-Uni et deux en Libye, le père et l’un des frères du kamikaze. Dimanche 28 mai, un homme de 25 ans et un autre de 19 ans ont encore été interpelés à Manchester, et les opérations policières se poursuivent.

En moins de 48 heures, six assassinats ont lieu à Naples, dans le sud de l'Italie. La tension monte et le maire de la ville lance un avertissement au gouvernement. Les Napolitains sont inquiets.