CoE Information Society Director Kleijssen to EF: Journalism Definition Extends in Web for Pluralism
*Strasbourg/CoE/Angelo Marcopolo/- Experienced CoE's Director for Information Society and Fight against Crime, Jan Kleijssen, from the Netherlands, Speaking to "Eurofora" on the occasion of a 2 Days Conference on Medias and Pluralism, particularly in the Modern Digital landscape, organized by the CoE together with "Reporters without Borders' NGO for Press Freedom, observed that the Legal Protection of Journalists would have to be Extended also to certain New Media Actors, (as the CoE has already started to officialy acknowledge : See Infra), in order to become able to succesfuly Face the Challenges for Pluralist Democracy Nowadays.
-------------------------
- My main "Message" to this 2019 Conference is that, while, "Still, the Old Challenges on Regulators, to ensure Medias Ownership's Transparency, and about Finances, on Concentration, etc, they stay", nevertheless, "there are also New Challenges, with the Digital Media Platforms", Kleijssen told "Eurofora" from the outset.
- Particularly "when they are acting whether with Less and less Human Editing, but More and more Automated Editing, (i.e. Artificial Intelligence), because there is a lot of Algorithms in it, a lot of Processes in it, (mainly on Web News Distributed via Artificial Intelligence : "that's an Issue"). => "So, it's important to make sure that Regulators (i.e. States, European/International Organisations, etc) can face these Challenges too".
+ And, "f course, a Challenge that underlies it all, at the Moment, is also about the Physical Safety of Journalists", as it's noted in "the (CoE's) Secretary General's (Thornbjoirn Jagland's) Latest Report (2018), with very Worrying Results of the Surveys carried out in Europe", which show how Many Journalists" faced such serious problems, he reminded.
- "F.ex., Everybody knows the case of Daphne Caruana Galicia in Malta, (a brutal Murder, where investigations still Delay in lots of things), followed by another one in Slovakia, (with investigation apparently Advancing much faster), as very High-Profile cases (of Killings of Journalists), where, what happened is, of course, Absolutely UnAcceptable", Kleijssen denounced.
+ "But, in addition to that, there is a Lot of "Low Intensity" Intimidation, Harassment, etc., of Journalists. And this is something on which we (CoE+) have to be Alert too, for Medias' Pluralism, as it's part of it", Jan Kleijssen concluded, as far as the 2019 "Cornerstones" are concerned.
----------------------
- In relation to that, "Eurofora" Questioned the CoE's Director for Information Society, about the Controversial Views of "Some (who) Persist to abuse of an Old kind of "Fiscal" Definition of Journalism, claiming that it would Merely mean ...+51% of Revenues paid by any Media Business, regardless of the Content of the Work provided. Thus, f.ex., even a lazy and passive, simple Radio-TV Presenter might have much More Rights and Protection, than a Creative Writer who Risks even his/her LIfe to Investigate "Hot" Issues, Help Discover all the Truth, and reveal to the People the full Findings, when he believes that they affect the General Interest in our Society, as we denounced.
- "No !", reacted Kleijssen. In fact, "there are Texts of CoE's Committee of Ministers which have already said that the Definition of "Medias", and their (Legal) Protection, should be "Extended".
- This includes, f.ex., also certain Bloggers, and Other New Media Actors, who Publish News Regularly, and, may be More Read than Traditional Newspapers, also, sometimes highly Succesfully".
- He said that in Reply to "Eurofora"'s reminder of the case of Daphne Caruana-Galicia, brutaly Murdered in Malta, who had been Hindered, by a Chief Editor, to Publish Critical News in her Traditional "Weekly" Newspaper, (as her Family had revealed to "Eurofora"), and was obliged to create a WebNews Site where she Published Alone, Dangerously Exposed,(See, among others, also: http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/webjournalistmurder.html, http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/euparliamentpresidentoncoeandjournalistmurder.html, http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/daphnewebjournalistmurderenquiry.html, http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/daphnepressfreedomandcorruption.html, http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/rsfleaderondaphnemurderandjournalism.html, http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/eucoenewsondaphnemurder.html, etc).
- Concerning Daphne's Husband's recent Denonciation, at another event, previously in Strasbourg, that "the (official) Investigation its Stuck !" (See: ..., etc), Freedom of Speech NGO "Reporters wihout Borders"' International Director, Dr. Michael Rediske, replied to an "Eurofora" Question with a Bitter Denonciation of the fact that "those who have the means to act, do Not want to do so ! But, unfortunately, we can't send them to the Haye International Criminal Court"...
---------------------------
+ Such a Topic (as Journalists' Protection Status being Extended also to New Medias Actors at the Web), "might also be discussed", during this Conference, later Today, and/or in various other Events on Medias' "Pluralism", where "there will be a lot of Angles", Kleijssen guessed.
-------------------------------
>>> In this regard, 2 landmark CoE's Books, about "Journalism at RISK : Threats, Challenges and Perspectives", and "Journalists under PRESSURE : Unwarranted Interference, Fear and Self-Censorship in Europe", Published on 2015 and 2016, respectively, had been rightfully Chosen by the PanEuropean Organisation for Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law of Strasbourg, in order to be Displayed on the spot and Offered to the Participants in this Conference.
+ Between them, had Also been Published a Relevant "Eurofora"s Article, with an Interview of the New Secretary General of the European Federation of Journalists, Ricardo Gutierrez, and the mention made by a representative of CoE's Committee of Ministers, during an International Conference on "Freedom of Expression", to certain Important Decisions taken by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, precisely on that Question of "Journalist"s Definition, (Comp. Supra) :
(1) In the First CoE's Book "Journalists at Risk", 2015), Aidan White (Long Time former Secretary General of the Internationonal/European Federation of Journalists, and Nowadays of the "Journalists' Ethical Network", in an Exceptionaly Long Article, basically Urges to Extend most of Traditional Journalists' Legal Protection also to some "Other Actors" of Medias in our Digital Society, on the Condition that they will Accept to Practice the main Principles of Press Deontology, (See: http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/iachrcoebookandefjsgonjournalismdefinition.html . An Idea that "Eurofora" had Initially suggested to White as Early as since 2009-2010 : See http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/digitalpress.html, http://www.eurofora.net/brief/brief/webmedia.html , etc).
(2) In the relevant "Eurofora"s Article" (November 2015 : http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/iachrcoebookandefjsgonjournalismdefinition.html), we refer to 2 Decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (cited by a CoE's CM Representative : Comp. Supra), which stressed mainly that : "Journalism canNot be equated to a Profession", i.e. Not "Only through those who are Enrolled in a certain Professional "Colegio" (Corporation)", "because", in fact, "Journalism is the Primary and Principal Manifestation of Freedom of Expression of Thought, .... which is an Inherent Right" of a Person, "and has a Double Dimension : Individual and Collective", including Both "the Right of an Individual to Express himself Freely, AND that of Society as a whole to Receive Information", so that any "Violation" of that, Threatens also "to Deprive Society of possible Sources of Information", affecting "a CornerStone upon which the very Existence of a Democratic Society rests", since "it's Indispensable for the Formation of Public Opinion", and "a Condition sine qua non for the Development of Political Parties, Trade Unions", etc., and "the Means that Enable the Community, when Exercising its Options, to be Sufficiently Informed", given the Fact that "a Society that is Not Well Informed, is Not a Society that is Truly Free". + That's why, the very "concept of Public Order in a Democratic Society, requires the Guarantee of the Widest possible Circulation of News, Ideas and Opinions, as well as the Widest Access to Information by Society as a Whole", and "is not conceivable without Free Debate, and the possibility for Dissenting Voices to be Heard".
<< => In consequence, "Journalism is the Primary and Principal Manifestation of Freedom of Expression", and "the Thing that Journalists do, involves, precisely, the Seeking, Receiving and Imparting of Information", since "the PRACTICE OF JOURNALISM ...Requires a Person to ENGAGE (Him/Herself) in Activities that define or embrace the Freedom of Expression", so that "the Professional Journalist is not, nor can he be, anything else, but Someone who has Decided to Exercice Freedom of Expression in a Continuous, Regular" way. As for "the Circumstance, Whether, or Not, that Right is Exercised as a Paid Profession, canNot be deemed Legitimate in Determining whether (a) Restriction" might be acceptable, since "that's Not a good enough Reason to Deprive Society of possible Sources of Information". "Unlike Journalism", "the practice of Law or Medicine, that is to say, the Things that Lawyers or Physicians do, is Not an Activity Specifically Guaranteed by the Convention" on Human Rights, and, therefore, it could be Restricted, for "Reasons ... that May... Justify Compulsory Licencing of Other Professions", but canNot be invoked in the case of Journalism, because .... this could Violate the Basic Principles of a Democratic Public Order", (Comp. Supra), IACHR Distinguished.>>
(3) Shortly Afterwards,the Second CoE's Book, cited above, ("Journalists under Pressure": 2016), clearly Adopts a Similar "Definition" : "Journalist = A Person who is Regularly Engaged in Collecting or Disseminating Information to the Public, with a Journalistic (Public Interest) Purpose". (P. 11).
+ "Definition of Key Terms : ... Journalist = ... The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, in 2000, Defined a Journalist as "any ...Person who is Regularly (Or professionally) Engaged in the Collection and Dissemination of Information to the Public, via Any Means of Mass Communication". (Appendix to Recommendation No. R (2000) 7..." + "Recommendation CM/Rec (2011) 7, on a New Notion of Media, Recognized that the New Media, Created by both Technological and Social Change, has seen the Entry into scene of a New Breed of Reporters : Bloggers, Citizen Journalists, and Others, who Create user-generated Content. The Adoption of this New Notion of Media, Necessitates the Recognition that "the Scope of Media Actors has Enlarged, as a result of New forms of Media in the Digital Age". CoE 2014". (P. 24).
-------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, CoE's 2019 Conference on Medias and Pluralism Today, (Comp. Supra), advanced by stressing the Growing Importance of New, Digital Medias, Both in Quantitative and Qualitative terms, i.e. as being also, potentially More Efficient than Traditional Newspapers, particularly in Stimulating Pluralist public Debates in Nowadays Democratic Societies, i.e. to meet the main Purpose of Journalists' Freedom of Expression (Comp. Supra):
- "Often, Web Medias Bypass Traditional Medias", observed, f.ex., Nouri Lazmi, President of Tunisia's Independent High Authority for AudioVisual Communication.
- Already, "for Young People aged 16 - 24 y.o.", the "Web has become the 1st main Source of News", noted Maria Donde, "Ofcom"s Expert for International Content Policy, (even if Radio-TV still remains "the Most viewed", according to a recent Poll on "Web Medias' Consumption", at least in the UK).
+ Moreover, their "Real Consumption is "Under-Reported", Donde found. Perhaps, it's also because "Most On-Line News" are read through "Smart-Phones", and "when Passively Strolling".
------------------------------------
- But they are bringing Both "Good and Bad Journalism", or "Risks of Fake News", Lazmi warned.
+ Most of such Medias use to "Behave as Political Opponents in an Arena", with "Strong Political polarisation". On the Contrary, "Neutral Medias are Marginalized", f.ex. in Libya, etc., regretted Professor Carola Richter, from Berlin's Freie University.
- The "Bad" aspects are the Excessive Role of "Interest Groups", and the InSufficient dimension of "Deliberation" and/or "Consent-Building" functions, he Criticized.
=> But the "Good" aspects, are that Web Medias "Allow People to Speak out", with a "Diversity of Perspectives in Public space", Professor Richter stressed.
+ This Importance of this Key point was particularly underlined by Tarlach McGonagle, Senior Researcher/Lecturer at the Information Law Institute of Amsterdam University, "as part of a Wider Participation in Public Debate".
- Indeed, ECHR has already underlined (f.ex. since "2010") "States' Obligation" to support structural "Pluralism", for which "States must be Guarantors", he observed.
>>> And, those New, Web Medias, precisely, help boost a kind of "ReConfiguration of Public Debate".
- This is achieved now Both with Traditional "Journalists", but "also with Oher Actors" at the Web, such as various "Bloggers", "Corporations", etc., he reminded, on this Focal point, (Comp. Supra).
- Indeed, a "Pluralist" debate for Democracy, notoriously is the main Ideological Legitimation and the Political "Raison d'être" of "Freedom of Expression", on which is Based ECHR's overall "System for Protection of Authors", (as McGonagle noted)
=> I.e., Nowadays, including that necessary "Extension" of Traditional Journalists' Legal Status, also to certain "Other Media Actors", (as CoE's Director for Information Society and Fight against Crime, Jan Kleijssen, has just Highlighted, in Reply to a relevant "Eurofora"s Question : Comp. Supra).
- In fact, "Europe seems to be in Transition" nowadays, concluded CoE's specialized Head of Information Society Department, Patrick Penninck, towards the End of the "Medias and Pluralism Regulation" Debate, (astonishingly using an Expression that French former EU Parliament's President, the famous Simone Veil, had previously used with "Eurofora" in Sorbonne, Paris, almost a Decade earlier, concerning the different, but also Topical Issue of Popular Participation to EU Elections, (See: ...).
(../..)
----------------------------
Main Menu
Home Press Deontology/Ethics 2009 Innovation Year EU endorses EuroFora's idea Multi-Lingual FORUM Subscribers/Donors FAQs Advanced search EuroFora supports Seabird newsitems In Brief European Headquarters' MAPs CoE Journalists Protection PlatformBRIEF NEWS
- 00:00 - 02.06.2021
- 00:00 - 18.10.2020
- 00:00 - 19.06.2020
- 00:00 - 18.05.2020
- 00:00 - 20.04.2020
- 00:00 - 02.02.2020
- 00:00 - 09.12.2019
- 00:00 - 27.11.2019
- 00:00 - 16.11.2019
Popular
- Yes, we could have prevented Ferguson riots says World Democracy Forum's Young American NGO to ERFRA
- Spanish People Elect CenterRIGHT Majority with 1st Party and Total of 178 MPs (6 More than the Left)
- Pflimlin's vision
- The European Athletic "Dream Team", after Barcelona 2010 Sport Championship Results
- Source Conseil d'Europe à ERFRA: Debatre Liberté d'Opposants à Loi livrant Mariage+Enfants à Homos ?
- Head of BioEthics InterGroup, MEP Peter Liese : "Embryonic stem cell research reaching its END" !?
- Spain: Jailed Turkish Terror suspect with Explosive,Drones,Chechen accomplices stirs Merah+ Burgas ?
- UN Head Ban Ki Moon at CoE World Democracy Forum : - "Listen to the People !"
Latest News
- EUOmbudsmen Conference 2022: Digital Gaps affect People's Trust threaten EF Project on EU Future ?
- French Election : Black Out on Virus, but Obligation for Fake 'Vaccines" Challenged
- Both French Presidential Candidates point at "Humanism" in crucial times...
- France : Zemmour = Outsider may become Game Changer in Presidential + Parliamentary Elections 2022
- PACE President Cox skips Turkey Worst (Occupation) case compared to Russia (DeMilitarisation) query
Statistics
Visitors: 59139099Archive
Login Form
Other Menu
An "Eugenic" loophole Amendment, which might expose to Dangers reminiscent of "3rd Reich's" notorious Genetic Abuses, hidden at the last minute inside an otherwise Good, larger Health policy Package scheduled to be voted on Thursday, was strongly denounced by a coalition of MEPs from various Political Groups and Countries, in a Press Conference held this afternoon at EU Parliament in Strasbourg.
Mainly calling to "Select Human Embryos", via "Genetic Counselling" and "pre-implantation" Techniques including "Genetic Tests", in order to "Eradicate Hereditary rare Diseases", it might open ways to Dangerous Practices in Future, they denounced in substance.
But they also made it clear that a much larger Report inside which this Controversial Amendment "No 15" was added in dubious circumstances, officialy destinated to struggle against "Rare Diseases", and drafted by Professor Antonios Trakatellis, was otherwise "an Excellent Report", aiming at a "completely Uncontroversial target" of Health policy on which "all MEPs and Experts are united, believing that Europe should act" to protect People's Health (See "EuroFora"'s earlier News).
The controversy came at a particularly delicate moment for the EU in relation to Citizens, at the eve of June 2009 EU Elections, and shortly before Ireland re-votes for "Lisbon Treaty"..
- Denouncing risks of "an Eugenic demand, very similar to what we had during the 3rd Reich in Germany, but now coming from some Scientisists themselves", German ChristianDemocrat/EPP MEP Dr. Peter Liese stressed that critical MEPs were against "Eugenic" engineering with "Selection of Human Embryos", and anything which might ultimately lead up to to a "Selection of Human Race". It doesn't help to "eradicate" Human Lives, he added.
Several Experts and NGOs expressed "Deep Concern", as f;ex. DR M.C. Cornel of the "European Society of Human Genetics", which stressed, on this occasion, that "the importance of Non-Directiveness in Reproductive issues is a Central characteristic of Human Genetics, after the Atrocities committed in the name of Genetics in the first half or the 20th Century".
- "This is completely Unacceptable", stressed Italian Liberal MEP Vittorio Prodi, on the Controversial Amendment, also because pushes to "eliminate early Human Life", as he noted.
- "This opens a Dangerous Road, rather a Motorway", denounced Danish MEP Mrs Margrette Auken, from the "Greens", observing that various similar attempts were made in the Past "not only in Germany, but also in several other Countries, "even at the 1970ies", "f.ex. on forced Sterilisation of Roma" People, and other criticisable situations f.ex. in the UK, in Sweden, etc. as she said.
+ Other NGOs, as f.ex. "LebenHilfe" from Berlin, added that, among various other Risks, could also be that, by exploiting the pre-implantation Genetic Diagnostics and the Selection of "healthy" Embryos, some may "propagate" several "Eugenic" aims, starting f.ex. by pushing to eradicate Human Livies which might "Cost too much" to preserve, ultimately exposing to dangers reminiscent of the "3rd Reich"'s atrocious abuses.
In consequence, ChristianDemocrats/EPP and "Green" MEPs "decided by Majority to vote against" this Controversial Amendment, anounced to Journalists the 5 MEPs who participated in the Press Conference, representing a wide spectrum, from Liberals to "Greens" and ChristianDemocrats, and from Hungary, Italy, Germany and Danemark up to Ireland (Gay Mitchell), etc.
----------------------------------
Hungarian ChristianDemocrat MEP Laszlo Surjan said "that it was "Suddenly, at the End of the Procedure" in Committee, that "appeared this (Controversial) Amendment, which has nothing to do" with the main purpose of the Report, on which all agreed.
He denounced an "Unhonest" move, and called to "avoid this kind of unacceptable situations". Nobody should "Select People", Surjan stressed.
- "We (MEPs) had No Chance to Discuss" this last-minute Amendment earlier added at a Committee's level, said German MEP Peter Liese
Speaking to "EuroFora", Dr. Liese, the Spokesman of the ChristianDemocrat/EPP Group in EU Parliament, said that MEPs didn't oppose other references of the Report f.ex. on "Genetic Tests", because they were "no proposals" to impose them, while, on the contrary, there was "a Problem" if anyone attempted to "impose" f.ex. this or that Genetic Technique and "Genetic Counselling", etc. to the People on human reproduction.
-------------
The precise Text :
-----------------
Controversial parts of Amendment No 15 ask mainly "to lead finally to the Eradication" of "Hereditary" "rare diseases", "through Genetic Counselling .., and ..pre-Implantation Selection of healthy Embryos".
But EU Rapporteur Professor Trakatellis, said to "EuroFora" that fears should be alleviated by Guarantees that all this should be done only "where appropriate", when it's "not contrary to existing National Law", and "always on a Voluntary basis", according to other Parts of the Amendment.
He stressed that the main aim was to allow "a free and informed choice of persons involved", without imposing them anything : - "It's not an obligatory, but advisary" text, he said.
To make that point clear, he was ready, in agreement with many MEPs, to eventually drop at least that part of the controversial Amendment which initially called for "efforts to ..lead finally to the Eradication of those rare diseases" "which are Hereditary".
But, until late Wednesday evening, reportedly together with many other MEPs, he stood by all the rest of the controversial Amendment, (fex. on the "Genetic Counselling" and the "pre-implantation Selection of healthy Embryos"), so that critical MEPs, going from ChristianDemocrats as Dr. Liese, to "Greens" or "Ind/Dem", observed to "EuroFora" that "this was not enough" to close the dangerous loophole.
Particularly since, as Professor Trakatellis noted himself, "this is already allowed to the U.K.", and "other National Legislations would probably follow, sooner or later" in a similar direction. As for a general call to "Eradicate Hereditary rare Diseases", this "should happen, at any case, in practice, de facto", to protect public Health.
On the contrary, "our goal should be to help patients suffering from rare diseases, not to eradicate the patients. In case of genetic disease risk, the decision should not be guided by scenarios" made by politicians. "Perents who may decide to accept a child, even if handicapped or with genetic disease, must be respected and supported with solidarity", critical MEPs stated.
- "Any Pressure" to "a patient or couple (who "should be able to make an informed choice consistent with their own values"),"from health Professionals, Public Health Policies or Governemental Institutions, or Society at large, should be avoided", stresses the "European Society for Human Genetics".
----------------------------------
Each MEP's vote will be registered !
-----------------------------------
The Socialist Group requested a "Split vote" on the Amendment 15, first without, and afterwards with the words "lead finally to the Eradication" etc.
But the first "split vote" leaves intact all the other parts of the Controversial Amendment, (i.e. "Genetic Counselling", "Selection of healthy Embryos", etc).
That's why, 3 Groups of MEPs : ChristianDemocrats/EPP, "Greens/EFA", and "Ind/Dem", have asked for "Roll Call Votes", on everything regarding the Controversial Amendment No 15, and on the final outcome of the resulting Report as amended, which will register all the individual positions to be taken by each MEP.
Something which will obviously make each MEP think twice before voting for one or another choice, to be sure that he/she will make the right choice in front of EU Citizens, particularly at these pre-Election times...
Crucial Votes were scheduled between 12 Noon and 1 p.m. local Strasbourg time, in the middle of a long series of various other Reports, and after a long Public Debate on the larger Health policy package, from 9 to 11.50 am.
The specific Report inside which was hidden the controversial Amendment is due to be debated between 11 and 12 am.
So that more last-minute Surprises may not be excluded a priori...
Particularly at the present Historic moment, when even the Institutional Future of the EU depends on the result of a second Referendum on "Lisbon Treaty", later this year, in ...Ireland, a mainly Catholic country, where People are particularly sensitive in such kind of socio-cultural and values issues...