 |
| AP photo |
With the specter of populism looming over a critical election year in Europe, the European Parliament has taken an unusual step to crack down on racism and hate speech in its own house.
In an unprecedented move, lawmakers have granted special powers to the president to pull the plug on live broadcasts of parliamentary debate in cases of racist speech or acts and the ability to purge any offending video or audio material from the system.
Trouble is, the rules on what is considered offensive are none too clear. Some are concerned about manipulation. Others are crying censorship.
โThis undermines the reliability of the Parliamentโs archives at a moment where the suspicion of โfake newsโ and manipulation threatens the credibility of the media and the politicians,โ said Tom Weingaertner, president of the Brussels-based International Press Association.
After Britainโs decision to leave the European Union, the rising popularity of anti-immigrant candidates like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands or far-right Marine Le Pen in France is worrying Europeโs political mainstream. Le Pen, who is running for the French presidency this spring, has promised to follow Britainโs lead.
At the European Parliament, where elections are due in 2019, many say the need for action against hate speech, and strong sanctions for offenders, is long overdue.
The assembly- with its two seats; one in the Belgian capital of Brussels, and the other in Strasbourg in northeast France – is often the stage for political and sometimes nationalist theater. Beyond routine shouting matches, members occasionally wear T-shirts splashed with slogans or unfurl banners. Flags adorn some lawmakersโ desks.
Yet more and more in recent years, lawmakers have gone too far. โThere have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate,โ said British EU parliamentarian Richard Corbett, who chaperoned the new rule through the assembly.
โWhat if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: โHey, this is a fantastic platform. Itโs broad, itโs live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Letโs use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,โโ he told The Associated Press.
In a nutshell, rule 165 of the parliamentโs rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast โin the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member.โ The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).
Under the rule, offending material could be โdeleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings,โ meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room. Weingaertner said the IPA was never consulted on that.
During a debate in December, Gerolf Annemans, from Belgiumโs Flemish independence party Vlaams Belang, expressed concern that the rule โcan be abused by those who have hysterical reactions to things that they qualify as racist, xenophobic, when people are just expressing politically incorrect views.โ
Even those involved in the move acknowledge that itโs a sensitive issue.
Helmut Scholz, from Germanyโs left-wing Die Linke party, said EU lawmakers are elected – indeed the EU parliament is the blocโs only popularly elected institution – and must be able to express their views about how Europe should work.
โYou canโt limit or deny this right,โ he said.
He worries about fake news too, but of the kind made from selective extracts of debates.
โIf you are following the whole debate that is one thing, but if you have certain media who are taking out individual sentences you could falsify the whole issue,โ he said.
Still, Nazi rallying cries and racist obscenities are relatively rare but not unheard of.
โWe need an instrument against that, to take it out of the record, to stop distribution of such slogans, such ideas,โ Scholz said.
