In 2020, the EP installed the Special Committee on Foreign Interference and Disinformation (INGE) which was tasked with the examination of interference in the EU’s and EU countries democratic processes by foreign states such as Russia and China. Sandra Kalniete (EPP, Latvia) was appointed as the Committee’s rapporteur and drew up a report on the matter. She assessed the topic from different angles such as media and education, online platforms and cybersecurity. The report concluded that foreign interference happens and most of the time we are unaware of it . The report calls for EU action on the topic. One of the sources of information gathering for the report was through public hearings and consultation of experts.
Pro-life movement attacked
It was surprising that the INGE Committee together with the FEMM Committee (Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality) organized a hearing ‘foreign interference on the financing of anti-choice organizations in the EU’ in March 2021. However, the issue of ‘foreign interference’ was not touched upon during the event. The hearing turned out to be an one-sided attack on organizations that promote pro-life and family values by pro-abortion activists who were invited to speak as ‘experts’. The event was used by the speakers to discredit and harm ideological opponents in front of European politicians and policymakers. Pro-life and family values organizations were shamed and accused of providing and spreading of disinformation without a chance to defend themselves. The event itself turned out to be harmful[i]. Besides, we should bear in mind that abortion is not an EU competence.
Further on in this article, we elaborate on some concerning and problematic passages in the resolution that need to be addressed.
Disinformation or different opinion?
The first problematic issue is the section that stipulates that the democratic processes on fundamental rights topics such as gender, LGBTIQ+, sexual reproductive health and rights are being targeted with disinformation campaigns which might harm human rights. The problem with this section in the resolution is that the term disinformation on gender and LGBTIQ+ topics is used for different viewpoints and opinions on these issues. The narrative is that pro-life and family values advocacy is disinformation, hate speech (see below) and a threat to human rights and democracy. This could have the consequence that statements such as ‘abortion is undesirable’ or ‘abortion is not a human right’ could be deemed as disinformation. The efforts to silence other opinions is incompatible with the EU’s motto ‘Unity in diversity’ and with democratic values. Moreover, this exceeds the mission of the INGE Committee as it does not have the competence to deal with the substance of issues.
The resolution states that perpetrators of the disinformation campaigns promote themselves as advocates of traditional and conservative values and pushes them into a ‘shady funded’ frame. The European Parliament calls on the European Commission to implement strategies to hinder the financing of people and organizations that spread disinformation on the above-mentioned topics, and the creation of early warning systems for the reporting and identification of such opinions is asked.
Hate speech, but what does it mean?
Secondly, the term ‘hate speech’ is used in the resolution. Recently, an article on hate speech was published on this blog addressing the difficulties with the term. The bottom-line problem with hate speech is that the term is vague and subjective in its nature. Therefore, what can be considered hate speech or not is disputable and largely victim to the person deciding on the case. This can result in a process highly likable to be characterized by randomness – everything can be hate speech or disinformation – which is of course incompatible with the decent rule of law.
The Special Committee’s report mentions hate speech several times and connects it with the freedom of expression: “There is a fine line between the freedom of expression and the promotion of disinformation and hate speech which should not be abused”. It is true that there is a fine line between the freedom of expression and the promotion of hate speech and disinformation but without a clear-cut, objective definition of the term the drawers of that fine line rather than the exercisers of freedom of expression can be considered abusers as they can censure speech. It is dangerous to democracy and fundamental rights to draw a line between free speech and hate speech if there is no definition of the latter. Everything can be hate speech then and possibly be censured, or worse, be punished. In the resolution, the European Parliament calls for action within a harmonized EU legal framework against the spread of disinformation and hate speech, particularly hate speech targeting minorities. The lightness by which this issue is promoted in the resolution is highly worrying.
Measures against religious institutions only if evidence is irrefutable
Finally, the resolution calls for action against religious institutions used as instruments by state or non-state actor seeking to interfere in European societies. The MEPs call for close monitoring of religious institutions and “where appropriate and supported by evidence” actions against the institutions such as the denial of funding. The resolution explicitly mentions the Russian Orthodox Church and Salafi mosques as instruments of Russian and Saudi interference in the EU and EU member states. It is true that religious institutions can be misused by regimes or other actors to promote their interests. It is sad and regrettable to see the Russian Orthodox Church promoting the “Russian World” theory as justification for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the radical Islam promotion by Saudi Salafi mosques.
We stand for the principle of separation of church and state. The European Union is built on this principle. Since the vast majority of European citizens are religious – mostly Christians – the separation between state and church is of major importance. The States should not misuse church or other religious institutions for their political agendas. This equally counts for Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the EU Member States or whatever country for that matter. However, it should be guaranteed that before measures are taken, evidence of interference through religious institutions is irrefutable. The separation of church and state also means that the state is not interfering in the church or other religious institutions. Therefore, actions based on suspicion or rumours and without proper proof of interference must be always avoided. Moreover, churches and other religious institutions, as full part of society and expression of citizens in society, have the right to speak out on social and other issues in society and raise their voice towards any government. This right is also a European right as enshrined in Article 17.3 TFEU and it is important that this right continues to be respected.
Conclusion
Foreign interference and disinformation are issues deserving to be addressed. Certainly, in current times of war at the border of the European Union, and where unsound and false information is spread by Russia. The resolution adopted by the European Parliament addresses the issue and raises several important points on the topic such as the importance of media, journalism and education, cybersecurity, and online platforms. However, there are problematic issues in the resolution. The Committee and its report have a negative approach aiming to prevent and restrict pro-life and family value advocacy instead of looking to protect freedoms to the largest extent as possible. This approach is harmful to democracy. Opposing opinions on gender and LGBTIQ+ issues can potentially be framed as disinformation; the term ‘hate speech’ is used without a proper definition; and evidence against religious institutions should be irrefutable. Awareness is needed on these issues, so that freedom of expression and freedom of religion can prevail.
Click here to read the European Parliament’s resolution on Foreign Interference
and Disinformation.
[i] Despite the attacks and
accusations towards several Christian organisations, the final report did not
draw any conclusions from the hearing
Comments
Post a Comment