| Author (Person) | Cronin, David |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.8, 2.3.06 |
| Publication Date | 02/03/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 02/03/06 How serious are member states about tackling racism? It was back in November 2001 that the European Commission proposed an EU-wide law criminalising racist conduct. Governments have still not approved the law on combating racism and xenophobia. Franco Frattini, the commissioner for justice, freedom and security, said last month that it was "unacceptable that this has been on the agenda for so long". To MEPs he has suggested that the proposal amounts to the most serious effort to introduce "effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties" across all of the Union�s member states. The original aim of the proposal was to apply criminal law provisions to racist and xenophobic material, including what appears on the internet. For example, prison sentences of up to two years were proposed for "public incitement to violence or hatred" on racist or xenophobic grounds if the incitement could cause "substantial damage" to individuals or groups within society. The proposal would also make the denial and �trivialisation� of the Holocaust a criminal offence across the Union. Some of the issues that figure in the proposal have featured prominently in recent weeks. The controversy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad is still simmering. The UK government lost a vote on an incitement to religious hatred bill in the House of Commons. The author David Irving has been sentenced by an Austrian court to three years in prison for Holocaust denial. Against this backdrop, Austria as president of the Council of Ministers, has agreed to revive discussions about the framework decision. The fate of the proposal will be one of the main topics at a conference on racism and xenophobia it will host in Vienna in June. Before that, the outcome of Italy�s general election in April could be pivotal. The current government coalition in Rome includes the anti-immigration Northern League party, which had expressed some of the strongest reservations about the proposal during talks at the Council last year. Luxembourg, which was then chairing the talks, produced a draft that was substantially weaker than the original text. It would have allowed member states to opt out from its provisions if they were deemed to conflict with guarantees on free expression enshrined in national constitutions. Pascale Charhon from the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) said this could have led to "two-speed" protection for ethnic communities in the EU. A 2003 study by ENAR showed that while most of the then 15 EU countries had forbidden public incitement to hatred, "few expressly include certain forms of racist insult" into their laws. On the other hand, the 2005 annual report from the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia does point out "a positive response by a number of member states has been to legislate against hate crime", citing new legal provisions in France, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands. But it also identifies how reconciling such laws with freedom of speech could be tricky. In Hungary, for example, a constitutional court struck down an amendment to the civil code dealing with incitement to hatred because the judges considered it a restriction on free speech. Dimitrina Petrova of the European Roma Rights Centre in Budapest sees a lack of clarity in the proposal over the distinction between racism per se and racially motivated discrimination. Criminalising racial attitudes poses fundamental civil liberties issues, she says, although she accepts that the expression of views can lead to actual damage against certain communities. The UK Labour MEP Claude Moraes says: "The most decisive issue should be the day-to-day race attacks that people from ethnic minorities suffer from. The idea that member states are not willing to look at something that deals with race attacks gives the impression they do not take the issue seriously." Whatever happens to the proposal, it is certain that it will not provide the last word on the debate over where free speech ends and incitement begins. Even if the case for ensuring a more robust protection against racism is compelling, there are good reasons why Europe should be wary of restricting free speech. The London-based Indian writer Salil Tripathi recently observed: "Freedom of expression was not only the product of Western Enlightenment; it belonged to all of us. And it included the right to say something outrageous, something offensive and even something stupid." Article reports that there was little progress towards the adoption of a Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia, proposed by the European Commission in November 2001. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Values and Beliefs |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
