Basic freedoms wiped out by counter-terrorism, denounced Amnesty International
by Emanuele Bonini
In name of security forget about basic freedoms. In name of security Europe has been selling off civil rights. It's happening now, and nothing suggests the process neither will stop nor will be reversed. Terrorism gave carte blanche to national governments, which are responding with authoritarianism, according to the latest report published by Amnesty International. «Individual EU states and regional bodies have responded to the attacks by proposing, adopting and implementing wave after wave of counter-terrorism measures that have eroded the rule of law, enhanced executive powers, peeled away judicial controls, restricted freedom of expression and exposed everyone to government surveillance». That is true for all the 14 countries assessed (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Overall, the situation is deteriorated. The answer to the terrorist threat has been «dangerously disproportionate», as read the title of the report. There Amnesty International found that instead of strengthening the European human rights system, the measures adopted «have been steadily dismantling it, putting hard won rights at risk». John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Director for Europe, has no doubts: «Taken alone these individual counter-terrorism measures are worrying enough, but when seen together, a disturbing picture emerges in which unchecked powers are trampling freedoms that have long been taken for granted».
Introduction of martial law. According to Amnesty International, «one of the most alarming» developments across the EU is the effort by states to make it easier to invoke and prolong a “state of emergency” as a response to terrorism or the threat of violent attacks. In a number of states, emergency measures that are supposed to be temporary have become embedded in ordinary criminal law. In name of national security, the threshold for the triggering and extension of emergency measures has been lowered – and runs the risk of being reduced even further in coming years. While international human rights law is clear that exceptional measures should only be applied in genuinely exceptional circumstances - namely «in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation» - the disturbing idea that Europe faces a perpetual emergency is beginning to take hold.
Police States. More and more, national governments are assuming authoritarian and coercive character, turning into real police States. In front of threats, security is provided «by the extension of sweeping new powers concentrated in the hands of the executive - and implemented by the security and intelligence apparatus, with little or no role for the judiciary or other independent oversight». Suspension of rights because of emergency turns into arbitrary justice, with all the risk related. Anti-terror forces are replacing terrorists in generating terror.
Big brother is watching you. Forget about privacy. Always in name of protection and security, mass surveillance powers have been granted or otherwise expanded in the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands, among others, allowing the mass interception of and possible access to the data of millions of people. The European Passengers Name Record (PNR) is perhaps the immediate example of that. Collection and storage of personal data was the first EU answer to the terroristic attacks in Brussels. Once again, a measure taken in name of security.
The presumption of non-innocence. According to the rule of law nobody is found guilty of crimes until it has been proved. That is the principle of presumption of innocence. In front of terrorism, people suspected to be linked with terrorists or terror organizations, are considered as potentially dangerous. Restrictions are put in place even without trials. «With counter-terror measures focusing ever more on prevention, governments have invested in “pre-crime” initiatives and become increasingly reliant on administrative control orders to restrict people’s freedom of movement and other rights», pointed out Amnesty International. This has led to many people being placed under curfew, given travel bans or electronically tagged without ever being charged with or convicted of any crime.
Silencing society. One of the main preventive strategies of national governments when it comes to terrorism, is the fight of propaganda and hate speeches. If it can appears a smart move in principle, it is more controversial in practice. As underlined by Amnesty International report, although international treaties on the prevention of terrorism may require states to criminalize incitement to commit a terrorism-related offence, «vaguely defined offences such as “apology of terrorism” risk criminalizing statements or other forms of expression which, even if deeply offensive to many, fall well short of incitement». The NGO is concerned that arrests and prosecutions – and pending proposals for such criminalization – on the basis of such vaguely defined offences as “apology of terrorism” (in France), “glorification of terrorism” (in Spain and the United Kingdom), or “promoting terrorism” (proposed in Germany) risk violating people’s right to freedom of expression. In name of security, keep silence.
In name of security forget about basic freedoms. In name of security Europe has been selling off civil rights. It's happening now, and nothing suggests the process neither will stop nor will be reversed. Terrorism gave carte blanche to national governments, which are responding with authoritarianism, according to the latest report published by Amnesty International. «Individual EU states and regional bodies have responded to the attacks by proposing, adopting and implementing wave after wave of counter-terrorism measures that have eroded the rule of law, enhanced executive powers, peeled away judicial controls, restricted freedom of expression and exposed everyone to government surveillance». That is true for all the 14 countries assessed (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Overall, the situation is deteriorated. The answer to the terrorist threat has been «dangerously disproportionate», as read the title of the report. There Amnesty International found that instead of strengthening the European human rights system, the measures adopted «have been steadily dismantling it, putting hard won rights at risk». John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Director for Europe, has no doubts: «Taken alone these individual counter-terrorism measures are worrying enough, but when seen together, a disturbing picture emerges in which unchecked powers are trampling freedoms that have long been taken for granted».
Introduction of martial law. According to Amnesty International, «one of the most alarming» developments across the EU is the effort by states to make it easier to invoke and prolong a “state of emergency” as a response to terrorism or the threat of violent attacks. In a number of states, emergency measures that are supposed to be temporary have become embedded in ordinary criminal law. In name of national security, the threshold for the triggering and extension of emergency measures has been lowered – and runs the risk of being reduced even further in coming years. While international human rights law is clear that exceptional measures should only be applied in genuinely exceptional circumstances - namely «in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation» - the disturbing idea that Europe faces a perpetual emergency is beginning to take hold.
Police States. More and more, national governments are assuming authoritarian and coercive character, turning into real police States. In front of threats, security is provided «by the extension of sweeping new powers concentrated in the hands of the executive - and implemented by the security and intelligence apparatus, with little or no role for the judiciary or other independent oversight». Suspension of rights because of emergency turns into arbitrary justice, with all the risk related. Anti-terror forces are replacing terrorists in generating terror.
Big brother is watching you. Forget about privacy. Always in name of protection and security, mass surveillance powers have been granted or otherwise expanded in the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands, among others, allowing the mass interception of and possible access to the data of millions of people. The European Passengers Name Record (PNR) is perhaps the immediate example of that. Collection and storage of personal data was the first EU answer to the terroristic attacks in Brussels. Once again, a measure taken in name of security.
The presumption of non-innocence. According to the rule of law nobody is found guilty of crimes until it has been proved. That is the principle of presumption of innocence. In front of terrorism, people suspected to be linked with terrorists or terror organizations, are considered as potentially dangerous. Restrictions are put in place even without trials. «With counter-terror measures focusing ever more on prevention, governments have invested in “pre-crime” initiatives and become increasingly reliant on administrative control orders to restrict people’s freedom of movement and other rights», pointed out Amnesty International. This has led to many people being placed under curfew, given travel bans or electronically tagged without ever being charged with or convicted of any crime.
Silencing society. One of the main preventive strategies of national governments when it comes to terrorism, is the fight of propaganda and hate speeches. If it can appears a smart move in principle, it is more controversial in practice. As underlined by Amnesty International report, although international treaties on the prevention of terrorism may require states to criminalize incitement to commit a terrorism-related offence, «vaguely defined offences such as “apology of terrorism” risk criminalizing statements or other forms of expression which, even if deeply offensive to many, fall well short of incitement». The NGO is concerned that arrests and prosecutions – and pending proposals for such criminalization – on the basis of such vaguely defined offences as “apology of terrorism” (in France), “glorification of terrorism” (in Spain and the United Kingdom), or “promoting terrorism” (proposed in Germany) risk violating people’s right to freedom of expression. In name of security, keep silence.
No comments:
Post a Comment