Without consulting the wider public, the coalition, led by the Minister of Justice Jānis Bordāns, has agreed in concept to the idea promoted by the European Commission and France to criminalize hate speech at the EU level. This poses a major threat to freedom of expression, as any dissenting opinion and any thought that differs from the generally accepted view could be criminalized and persecuted in any European country.
Initiatives to crack down more harshly on opposing opinions are already being promoted in the Latvian Parliament. Increased administrative fines and longer prison sentences for incorrect statements - Neatkarīgā has already reported that "the Bordāns/Golubeva amendments will deny freedom of expression. For all." Whether it's a post on Twitter or an analytical article in a newspaper. Now it has emerged that the situation is even more sinister. The coalition has given its conceptual consent to the European Union's criminalization of hate speech.
Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union defines certain types of particularly serious crimes as "EU-crimes", allowing criminals to be prosecuted wherever they are in Europe. These crimes are: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organized crime.
At the end of last year, the European Commission presented a conceptual proposal to include online hate speech and hate crimes in the list of "EU-crimes".
Věra Jourová, Vice-President for Values and Transparency, said that hate has no place in Europe and must be criminalized in a single way, anywhere in Europe. Didier Reynders, Commissioner for Justice, stated that hate speech threatens pluralism, inclusion and undermines democracy. But in general, this is an idea of the Commission's Chair, Ursula von der Leyen, personally. And now the French Presidency of the Council of the EU has taken over the baton. Article 83, already mentioned, states that "the Council may adopt a decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Latvia is also getting involved at this point, at the invitation of France. More precisely, not the whole of Latvia, but certain political figures, including comrade Bordāns, who want to restrict freedom of expression in Latvia, in the European Union and perhaps in the whole world.
A few weeks ago, the informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union was held in Lille, France, where the issue of adding hate speech and hate crimes to the list of EU crimes was discussed. On behalf of Latvia, comrade Bordāns took a conceptual agreement there.
"Latvia welcomes and supports the inclusion of hate speech and hate crimes in the list of crimes defined by the European Union in accordance with Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which would thus ensure an effective and comprehensive criminal justice approach at the level of the European Union and facilitate cooperation between the Member States in the fight against this type of crime and the protection of victims." This is a quote from the information report "On the issues to be discussed at the informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union on February 3-4, 2022", approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. Of course, no one noticed this report, which was not really advertised and is difficult to find on the internet. Who cares about comrade Bordāns' business trips? However, this trip will have far-reaching consequences.
Following the conceptual agreement reached in Lille, the follow-up to the criminalization of hate speech is expected in Brussels on March 4. If no Member State blocks the decision, and it is clear that Latvia certainly will not, the next step will be the drafting of a directive to ensure a supranational framework for the prosecution and punishment of hate speech throughout the European Union.
Of course, not everyone is happy about this, because hate speech is being turned into a tool of intimidation and extortion that can be used against any politician, journalist, artist. Every citizen of the European Union. Because there is no single internationally recognized definition of hate speech. Hate speech can be any statement about anything. The Council of Europe's definition, which has also been referred to by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments, is: "the term 'hate speech' shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin."
So, practically anything can be shoved under the fuzzy concept of hate speech and any process of public importance can be made a taboo subject for criticism. In some countries, this is already being done. For example, in the very same France, in January, the right-wing presidential candidate Éric Zemmour was punished by a court for his remarks on migrants. Zemmour has already been convicted twice for hate speech and has been investigated 16 times for offensive remarks on immigration and Islam.
Or, to take another example, Päivi Räsänen, a Member of the Finnish Parliament and former Minister of the Interior, is currently on trial in Finland. Her crime is quoting the Bible to argue her criticism of the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church's support for the Pride march. The prosecution sees hatred and incitement in the politician's remarks.
Neatkarīgā's attention was drawn to the threat to freedom of expression posed by the ongoing glorification of hate speech by MP Jūlija Stepaņenko:
"Like terrorists, child torturers and money launderers, hate speech will be persecuted in all countries. For example, publicly stating the 'homophobic' definition of family: the mother is a woman and the father is a man, could also be considered hate speech. If hate speech is criminalized at the EU level, the authors of the referendum initiative - the amendment to Article 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, which defines the natural family - would be heavily fined.
In future, quoting the Bible or expressing one's convictions may be very costly for everyone, but unfortunately, we are digging this hole for ourselves.
On our behalf, the Minister has expressed concrete support for the criminalization of hate speech at the European Union level, with all the consequences that this entails - including the persecution of Christians on an unprecedented scale. We can only hope that another courageous and sensible Member State might say 'No!' to this now undisguised fight against common sense in the modern world. Latvia may yet change its mind and join the brave countries in opposing the dictatorship of political correctness, but that is unlikely to happen with this Justice Minister in the Latvian delegation."