They claimed they would introduce legislation to protect victims of fake news, the scourge of the internet, but instead, they found a way to indirectly control journalists.
Legislators, prosecutors, and MPs drafted a law that turns the civil offence of libel into a criminal one.
Suddenly, they introduced provisions that essentially criminalise free speech—even satire cartoons. Under the guise of protecting us from false online news, they slipped in articles that impose prison sentences on anyone prosecutors, ministers, or MPs decide to target.
In other words, anyone who becomes inconvenient to them, and they want to silence.
We wrote about this back in July when these matters were being discussed in the House Legal Affairs Committee.
The committee’s chairman, Nicos Tornaritis, held press conferences to explain that, “We will present a comprehensive text to the plenary session that will defend freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, the journalistic profession, and journalistic confidentiality.”
But, he added, “It will also protect our vulnerable fellow citizens from those who threaten and insult them. (…) No one will stop me personally or DISY from defending these citizens.”
The intoxication of power keeps them from staying grounded. They believe they can feed everyone lies because they feel smarter than everyone else.
We read what they wrote in the laws they prepared, but they tried to convince us that we don’t know how to read. They claim they mean something else, that it’s all for our good, for the good of society, and that “no one can stop them.”
Fortunately, Irene Charalambidou, as Vice-President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, didn’t settle for their promises.
She requested a legal opinion from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media.
Kudos to her, because now we have more thorough opinions—not only from ourselves but also from MPs, ministers, and prosecutors. We now have perspectives that extend beyond our little village to other countries as well.
Ireni received the OSCE’s response yesterday, and we hope our officials study it carefully. The findings are damning regarding what they are trying to do.
The OSCE urges them to review all the relevant articles being proposed (Tornaritis said in September it would go to the plenary, but it hasn’t yet), and explains that international humanitarian organisations, including the OSCE representative on media freedom and the ODIHR, “taking into account the negative impact that defamation laws can have on freedom of expression,” call on states to abolish laws that impose criminal sanctions for defamation.
However, our state (the government and the parliament), instead of abolishing such laws, is ready to introduce new ones with criminal penalties.
“There is a risk,” says the OSCE, “that laws criminalising defamation could be used against journalists, political opponents, human rights defenders, and others who criticise government officials and policies”.
Here, there isn’t merely a “risk”—it’s a certainty, because that is precisely the aim of these laws: to be used against journalists, political opponents, and others who criticise.
Moreover, do you know who will decide who gets prosecuted? The Attorney General.
It’s stipulated (99H) that: “Prosecution for an offence under Articles 99ST and 99Z is initiated only by the Attorney General or with his approval.” These are the very articles the OSCE says must be withdrawn or fully reconsidered.
The legal opinion further explains that “inaccurate information is not always harmful, and only damage reaching a certain level of seriousness can justify some forms of state intervention”.
It also states that “state responses to such phenomena must respect the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
I hope they study the 38 pages of the OSCE’s opinion carefully and stop pretending they don’t understand.
