“Proclamations
about freedom of expression are a bit like the word ‘democratic’ in the
title of a state. It appears most prominently in the titles of states
in which it is suppressed most obviously,” Andrew Brons MEP said last
week in the European Parliament.
Speaking during a debate on the EU’s
Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Brons said that
“both the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on
Human Rights provide that people have or should have freedom of
expression.
“In several EU countries and signatories
of the Convention, people can be, and are, gaoled for heretical
opinions on academic subjects and for political opinions that are
disapproved of by the Political Class.
“Perhaps the worst example is the country in which we are now, France,” he continued.
“France, only this year, passed a law
prescribing a description of the killing of Armenians in 1915 backed up
by criminal penalties.
“Furthermore, people have been
prosecuted for the careless use of a word such as ‘debate’ to refer to
an historical event,” Mr Brons added, referring to a leading French
Front National figure, Bruno Gollnisch, who made that remark about the
Holocaust.
“It really doesn’t matter whether or not
one dishonest document is judged by the standards of another dishonest
document,” Mr Brons continued, referring to the European Union with its
document, the Charter of Fundamental Rights: and the Council of Europe
with its document, the European Convention on Human Rights.
Speaking later, Mr Brons explained
further: “The issue here is whether or not one organisation, the
European Union, complies with its obligation under Article 6 of the
Lisbon Treaty, and becomes a member of the second organisation, the
Council of Europe, and thereby signs up to the Council of Europe’s
document, the European Convention on Human Rights.
“When the European Union signs up to the
Council of Europe and to its European Convention on Human Rights, there
might be a succession of ‘compatibility’ court rulings.
“It might have to be decided whether the
national law of a member country is consistent with EU law (if the
national law is within an area of EU competence); or it might have to be
decided (ultimately by the EU’s Court of Justice) whether the EU law is
consistent with the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
“It might hen have to be decided whether
the judgment of the EU’s Court of Justice and the (EU’s) Charter of
Fundamental Rights are consistent with the Council of Europe’s European
Convention on Human Rights,” Mr Brons said, pointing out that it was all
very confusing.
