Annual Report on Hate Speech in Romania 2014

Proiect derulat de

ProiectProject by derulat de

NetRangers AGAINST INTOLERANCE

Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015 Află mai multe pe Aflăwww.rangers.wbd.ro mai multe pe www.rangers.wbd.rowww.cyberhate-watch.ro www.cyberhate-watch.ro

ProjectProiect founded finanţat through prin granturile the EEA SEE grants 2009 2009– 2014, – 2014, în cadrul within Fondului the NGO ONG fundîn România. in Romania For official information on EEA and Norway grants please access www.eeagrants.org. Pentru informațiile oficiale despre granturile SEE și norvegiene accesați www.eeagrants.org. TheProiect content finanţat of this prin publication granturile SEE does 2009 not – necessarily2014, în cadrul represent Fondului the ONG oficial în România. positionConţinutul of EEAacestui grants material 2009 nu – reprezintă2014 în mod necesar poziţia oficială a granturilor SEE 2009 – 2014. Pentru informațiile oficiale despre granturile SEE și norvegiene accesați www.eeagrants.org.

Conţinutul acestui material nu reprezintă în mod necesar poziţia oficială a granturilor SEE 2009 – 2014. www.cyberhate-watch.ro ActiveWatch is a human rights organization advocating for free communication in the public interest. The antidiscrimination program is one of the four programs of ActiveWatch (Antidiscrimination, FreeEx, Good Governance and Media Education and Research). Because we do not feel comfortable in a society divided by racial sentiments and discriminatory actions: we periodically measure the degree of tolerance in the media discourse on minorities and vulnerable groups; we permanently inform the public about the importance of tolerance and diversity in a civically healthy society; we directly support and facilitate access to an acceptable life for the minority or vulnerable groups members; we represent the interests of minority and vulnerable groups in Romania before national public authorities and policy makers.

Roma Center for Social Intervention and Studies - Romani CRISS is a nongovernmental organization established on 4th April 1993. Its mission is to defend the Roma’s rights in Romania. Romani CRISS provides legal assistance in cases of abuse and works for combating and preventing racial discrimination against the Roma in all the areas of public life, including education, housing and health. Since its establishment in 1993, Romani CRISS has developed long term relationships with Roma communities and with authorities across the country, intergovernmental organizations, civil society partners in the country or abroad and with donors, all these relations sustained through close communication, institutional transparency and advocacy. Romani CRISS combines domestic civic militancy with influencing and monitoring public policy programs addressing the Roma in terms of human rights and minority rights.

Authors: Radu Răileanu, Oana Tabă, Adrian Szelmenczi, Ionuț Codreanu, Loredana Diaconescu Răzvan Martin

Contributed: Cristina Belc

Guidance and feedback: Mircea Toma, Marian Mandache Thanks for the support of the net-rangers team coordinated by Larisa Poșircă: Andrei Fetcu, Eduard Alexandru Prisecaru, Ioana Popescu, Anişoara Diaconu, Mara Nedelcu, Maria Cojocaru, Teofil Ene, Samuel Ene, Tabita Ene, Emanuela Oancea, Alexandra Oancea, Ana Maria Ion, Alexandru Călin, Ștefan Donea, Flori-Nicoleta Șerban, Oana-Cristina Guță, Andrei Stoica, Mihai Dobrotă, Cristian Sovar, Nicoleta Toma, Mihaela Constantin, Ana Stan, Tea Nicolae, Doina Golea, Valentina Stan, Marius Chiriac

Layout and design: Dan Ichimescu Editing and sound: Alex Gheorghe

CC BY 3.0 ActiveWatch Calea Plevnei nr. 98, bl. 10C, sector 1, București, Romania +4021 313 40 47 021 637 37 67 [email protected] www.activewatch.ro blog.activewatch.ro www.facebook.com/ActiveWatch

Romani CRISS Str. Răspântiilor nr.11, sector 2, București, cod poștal 020547 Tel: 021.310.70.70 Mobil: 0740.19.46.46 Fax:031.815.76.23 Email: [email protected] NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Table of contents

Methodology / 7 1. National law / 8 The Romanian Constitution / 8 The Government Ordinance 137/2000 on preventing and sanctioning all and any forms of discrimination / 9 The new Criminal Code / 10 Other legislation related to hate speech / 12 The legislative initiative of Deputy Bogdan Diaconu, to change the name of the Roma minority from “Roma” into “Gypsy” / 13 The initiative of the Deputy Liviu Dragnea - Law on the promotion of human dignity / 14 2. ECHR case law and the analysis of the activities sanctioning hate speech carried by the public institutions with competence in this area / 16 2.1. European Court of Human Rights case law related to hate speech / 16 Handyside v Great Britain / 16 Otto Preminger-Institute v Austria / 16 Wingrove v Great Britain / 17 Féret v Belgium / 17 Vejdeland and others v Sweden / 17 Norwood v Great Britain / 18 Gündüz v Turkey / 18 Garaudy v France / 18 Delfi As v Estonia / 19 Aksu v Turkey / 19 2.2. Cases of incitement to hatred or discrimination and cases related to offenses provided for by the Ordinance 31/2002 pending before the public prosecutors/national courts / 20 2.3. Analysis of judgments issued by the National Council for Combating Discrimination / 22 Conclusions / 24 2.4. Analysis of the sanction decisions issued by the National Audiovisual Council / 24 Conclusions / 26 3. Self-regulations / 27 3.1. Self-regulations of the political parties / 27 The National Liberal Party (PNL) / 28 The Social Democratic Party (PSD) / 28 The National Union for the Progress of Romania / 29 The Liberals and Democrats Alliance (ALDE) / 29 The People’s Movement Party (PMP) / 30 United Romania Party / 31 The Humanist Power Party / 31

3 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The Romanian Social Party / 32 The Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania / 33 3.2. Self-regulations of the media organizations / 33 The Romanian Press Club / 33 The Media Organizations Convention / 33 The Romanian Association of Audiovisual Communications / 34 Other self-regulatory documents issued by organizations or projects outside the media professionals/industry / 35 Conclusions / 37 Recommendations / 37 3.3. Self-regulations of the advertising industry / 37 3.4. Self-regulations of media outlets / 38 Adevărul / 39 Evenimentul Zilei / 40 Gândul / 40 Hotnews / 41 Mediafax / 41 Ziare.com / 42 3.5. Self-regulations of the sport federations / 42 The Romanian Football Federation (RFF) / 43 Romanian Handball Federation / 45 National League Male-Female Regulations / 45 Romanian Ice Hockey Federation (RIHF) / 46 4. Manifestations of hate speech in public space / 47 4.1. Hate speech in the public area / 47 On TVR1, Gheorghe Funar called Hungarian the “language of horses” / 47 Corneliu Vadim Tudor and Miron Cozma, offensive remarks towards diaspora on România TV / 47 Article against Roma published in the newspaper Graiul Sălajului / 48 The Minister of Transport Ioan Rus, insulting statements towards the families of those who left the country to work abroad, on Digi 24 / 48 Mihaela Rădulescu called the persons belonging to the LGBT community “abnormal people” / 48 Dinamo supporters, racist banner against Roma / 48 Dumitru Dragomir, anti-Semitic statements on a sports television / 49 Daniel Predoiu, leader PSD Olt, admirative post for Adolf Hitler on his Facebook page / 49 Cheloo, Nazi symbols in a photo posted on Facebook / 49 Romanian Ambassador to Armenia, jokes about Hebrew, inappropriate remarks about the LGBT community members / 49 Mădălin Voicu, statements with anti-Semitic character / 50 Radu Bacau, Islamophobic tirades in the context of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. / 50 Traian Băsescu, islamophobic statements amid the building of a large mosque in Bucharest and the refugee crisis. / 50

4 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

4.2 Calendar of Hatred / 51 The presidential campaign in 2014 / 51 Romanians are coming – the documentary that divided Romania / 52 Legislative initiative to replace the official name “Roma” with “Gypsy” / 52 March for normality v Gay Pride 2015 / 53 “The biggest mosque in Europe”, the biggest controversy of the summer 2015 / 53 The fake scandal related to a police car with bilingual inscriptions / 54 Refugee crisis and the quotas imposed by the European Commission / 55 4.3. Public manifestations of intolerance / 56 Protest to the change the name of the Roma minority to “Gypsy” / 56 Online petition “Stop the cultural confusion with Gypsies/Roma. Stop discrimination!” / 56 The march against the real estate mafia - October 2014 / 57 March against the real estate mafia - August 2015 / 57 The book “The unseen face of homosexuality” / 57 Distribution of a homophobic booklet during the religion class at a high school in Brasov / 58 “The March for Normality” / 58 Conference “Homosexuality – What the Bible tells us”, organized at the Students Culture House, Cluj / 58 Rappers Dragonu and Cedry2k publicly condemn homosexuality and abortion and promotes the legionnaires as heroes of the nation / 59 Avram Iancu memorial march held in Cluj by the New Right On March 15th 2015 / 59 The counter-demonstration organized by the New Right against commemorating the 13 generals of the Hungarian revolution of 1848-1849 and the vandalism acts against the monument to their memory / 60 Raising black flags at Târgu Secuiesc on the National Day of Romania / 60 Protests against the construction of a mosque in Bucharest / 60 Protest Anti-refugees in Câmpulung Muscel / 61 Anti-refugee protest in October, in Bucharest / 61 5. Public manifestations pro-tolerance / 62 March against racism on July 17th in Cluj / 62 The March for Diversity, tenth edition / 62 Bucharest Pride 2015 / 62 Romani Kultura Festival / 62 Solidarity Pakivalo Festival / 63 The unveiling of the first monument commemorating the Holocaust against the Roma / 63 The praying of the Roma children, the nineteenth edition / 63 Festival-contest in memory of the best Roma violinist in Sălaj / 63 Nomad International Film Festival / 63 Anti-discrimination march in Satu Mare / 63 Aferim! / 64 Gay Film Nights / 64

5 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

LGBT Section at NexT Film Festival / 64 The theatre play: American Trilogy - Part One “Anything for you” / 64 LGBT History Month / 64 Hungarian Cultural Days in Brasov / 64 Flash mob in Cluj against the refusal to install bilingual signs in the Hungarian language / 65 Action Hug a Hungarian / Hug a Romanian / 65 General conclusions / 66

6 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Methodology

The reference period for the research was October 2014 - October 2015. Exception is made by the chapters on the analysis of how the public authorities with responsibilities for punishing hate speech fulfilled their duties. For the chapter regarding the legislation, we followed two directions: (a) changes in the existing legislation pertaining to hate speech and (b) new legislative initiatives that may have implications with regards to the way in which the subject is treated or that may generate an environment favorable to hate speech. Regarding the first direction, we started from the articles of law included in the research conducted by the Foundation for Civil Society Development in 2014, “Hate speech in Romania.” After a basic overview of the topics that have already been approached by that research, we verified if there were any changes to the law articles and discussed the implications of these changes. For the second direction, we have monitored and studied the projects of law published on the websites of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate and monitored the press information on these projects. In drafting the chapter regarding the analysis of how the public authorities responsible for punishing hate speech fulfilled their duties, we monitored the decisions of the National Council for the Audiovisual (NCA), the National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) and the Romanian courts, and also the ECHR jurispru- dence concerning hate speech. Firstly, we analyzed the consistency of the decisions and the number of handled cases. In the chapter on self-regulations, we looked at the self-regulations on sanctioning hate speech, or the lack of them, at the level of: political parties (either parliamentary or newly established with at least one member in Parliament, or having a possibility to enter the Parliament in the next elections); media outlets; press associations and journalists associations (e.g. the Romanian Press Club, COM, etc.); sports associations frequently facing issues of hate speech, as a result of the behavior of the supporters of the Romanian teams (Romanian Football Federation, Professional Football League, Romanian Ice Hockey Federation). For conducting this research, we sought for information on these regulations on the websites of these entities. Where this information was not available, we requested it via email. We also asked for information on how these provisions are being implemented. Those entities for which we have not found the information online and that did not respond to our requests have been presented as such in the report. For the chapter on monitoring hate speech in the public space, we were interested in monitoring the most important cases during the reference period in which politicians and various public figures expressed this type of discourse. In addition, we were interested in rallies, campaigns and events aiming to disseminate messages that can be considered hate speech. Last but not least, we have monitored the prominent cases in the media, meaning those topics manifested in the public space by waves of articles with discriminatory or hateful content that generated hate speech in the chat rooms. One of these cases was presented in video format. In the last chapter, regarding the public manifestations pro-tolerance, we have applied the same methods as those mentioned in Chapter 4, and monitored those campaigns, events or demonstrations aiming to combat hate speech or that could have this effect and that were held during the reference period of the project.

7 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

1. National law

Hate speech gives birth to lots of controversies, including ones of a legislative nature. Using hate speech may lead to the infringement of the rights of those who are targeted by such a speech. Restricting speech, by legally framing it as an offense or a crime, constitutes a restriction on freedom of expression, which in some cases may be a violation of that right in itself. Thus, the right to freedom of expression sometimes comes into conflict with other rights, such as the right to human dignity and the right to be free from discrimination. This chapter aims to analyze the national legislation which governs hate speech, directly or indirectly. The chapter also aims to analyze legislative proposals from last year that might have an impact on hate speech regulation, if ever adopted.

The Romanian Constitution During the analyzed period, there were no changes to the Romanian Constitution. The following provisions are directly or indirectly related to hate speech or to adjacent principles: - The Constitution states the principle of equality between the citizens - Article 4 (2) Romania is the common and indivisible homeland of all its citizens, irrespective of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, gender, opinion, political affiliation, wealth or social origin; - Article 16 contains the principle of non-discrimination - Article 16 (2) All citizens are equal before the law and the public authorities, without any privilege or discrimination; - Article 20 contains the principle of prevalence of the treaties and pacts relating to fundamental human rights - Article 20 (2) In case of any inconsistencies between the conventions and treaties on fundamental human rights to which Romania is a party and the national laws, the international regulations shall prevail, unless the Constitution or the national laws contain more favorable provisions; - Freedom of expression is provided for by the Article 30, which also includes limitations, such as those provided for in paragraphs 6 and 7 - Article 30 (6) Freedom of expression shall not bring prejudice to the dignity, honor, privacy and the right to one’s own image; Article 30 (7) There are legally forbidden any defamation of the country and the nation, any incitement to war of aggression, to national, racial, class or religious hatred, to discrimination, territorial separatism or public violence, as well as any obscene behaviors, contrary to the accepted principles of morality. ECRI recommended, in the third report on Romania, the amendment of the Romanian Constitution as to include a provision restricting the freedom of expression, assembly and association in order to combat racism, as detailed by ECRI in the 7th General Policy Recommendation regarding the domestic legislation on combating racism and racial discrimination. In the fourth report on Romania, ECRI reiterates this recommendation, considering that the current provisions are not sufficient as they are formulated, a clearer message being required: “The Constitution should therefore provide that the exercise of freedom of expression, assembly and association may be restricted in order to combat racism, according to the ECHR and consistent with RPG No 7 “1.

1 Par.8, ECRI Report on Romania (fourth monitoring cycle), adopted on 19th March 2014, published on 3rd Juin 2014.

8 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The Government Ordinance 137/2000 on preventing and sanctioning all and any forms of discrimination The Ordinance 137/2000 transposed the Council Directive 2000/43/EC on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin and the Council Directive 2000/78/ EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and working conditions. The Ordinance 137/2000 includes regulations on hate speech within Article 15:It is an offense under this Ordinance, unless the act is subject to criminal law, any public behavior, having the nature of nationalist-chauvinist propaganda, of incitement to racial or national hatred or any conduct having the purpose of or aiming to harm the dignity or to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive atmosphere against a person, a group of persons or a community and related to their belonging to a certain race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, social category or to a disadvantaged category or related to the beliefs, gender or sexual orientation thereof. In 2013, changes were made to the Ordinance 137/2000, in order to bring the national anti-discrimination legislation in line with the provisions of the Council Directive 2000/43/EC. Although these changes do not concern Article 15, which regulates hate speech, they will nevertheless be described in the following paragraphs, taking into account that any change in the anti-discrimination legal framework has indirect implications on hate speech. Prior to the changes introduced in 2013, the Ordinance 137/2000 provided for cases of discrimination that were viewed as special exceptions, falling outside the Ordinance. Moreover, the Ordinance 137/2000 did not provide for a general principle of exception from direct discrimination as defined in the Directive 2000/43/EC: In very few cases a different treatment may be justified, when a characteristic related to racial or ethnic origin constitutes a special case and determines an occupational requirement, if the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate. Therefore, the changes in 2013 included the exception of direct discrimination, by inserting Article 4¹. Articles 9 and 13 (2) of the Ordinance 137/2000 were repealed, because they provided exceptions of a particular nature: • (Former) Art. 9: The provisions of Art. 5-8 may not be interpreted as restricting the right of the employer to refuse hiring of a person which does not meet the usual requirements and standards in the field, as long as the refusal is not an act of discrimination under this Ordinance. • (Former) Art. 13 (2): The provision of par. (1) shall not be construed as restricting the right of the authorities to implement the rationalization and land-use plans, as long as the movement is made according to the law, and the measure taken is not determined by the belonging of the concerned person or group of persons to a certain race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, social category or to a disadvantaged category, respectively because of their beliefs, gender or sexual orientation. For the same purpose of eliminating those provisions that included particular exceptions, Article 10, points c) - g) were amended. In the previous version to the amendments of 2013, the refusal to grant various services was not considered discrimination when the restriction was “objectively justified by a legitimate purpose and the means of achieving that purpose” were “appropriate and necessary”. The Ordinance no. 2/2001 on the legal regime of contraventions, provides as a limitation period of imposition of the fine for minor offenses 6 months from the date of the deed, in case of simple misdemeanors, and 6 months from the finding of the deed, in case of continuous offences. This provision was also applied to acts of discrimination, prior to the amendment of the Ordinance 137/2000 in 2013: Article 26 par. 2¹: Imposition of the fines provided in par (1) shall be subject to a limitation period of 6 months from the date of its referral to the National Council for Combating Discrimination. Before the amendments in 2013, there was a conflict between the Directive 2000/43/EC and the national law, relating to the burden of proof. Before the amendment, the Ordinance 137/2000 imposed a duty on the

9 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

applicant to prove “the existence of certain facts which may lead to presume the existence of a direct or indirect discrimination and on the person against whom the complaint was filed”, a duty “to prove that the facts are not discrimination “. Article 20 par. (6) was amended so that the plaintiff has onlysubmit to the “facts based on which the existence of a direct or indirect discrimination might be presumed”, after which the burden of proof is reversed, in the sense that the person against whom the complaint was filed has “the burden of proving that there had been no violation of the principle of equal treatment”.

The new Criminal Code On 1st of February 2014, the new Criminal Code entered into force, stipulating changes that are, directly or indirectly, related to hate speech regulation. The new Criminal Code regulates hate speech in Article 369, the offense being referred to as Incitement to hatred or discrimination: “The public incitement, by any means, to hatred or discrimination against a class of persons shall be punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or with a fine “. Article 317 of the Crim- inal Code criminalized the incitement to discrimination, considering that incitement to hatred is a constitutive act of the incitement to discrimination. The new Criminal Code explicitly criminalizes the incitement to hatred, the offense being referred to asincitement to hatred or discrimination. Compared to Article 317 of the Criminal Code, the only change is the renouncement to the listing of discrimination criteria, considering that these are already regulated by the special law – the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on preventing and sanctioning all forms of discrimination. Another offence taken up from the previous Criminal Code is the one provided by Art. 368 -Public provoca- tion: The act of exhorting the public, orally, in writing or by any other means, to commit offenses [...]. The new Criminal Code brings together in one article the abuse of office against personal interests, against the public interest and by restricting certain rights. Paragraph 2 specifically provides the restriction of a personal right or creating an inferiority situation based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, gender, -sex ual orientation, political affiliation, wealth, age, disability, non-contagious chronic illness or HIV / AIDS infection. Article 405 - War propaganda was taken up from the previous Criminal Code. The amendment consists in that the offense was included in the category of crimes against national security, while previously it was included in the Criminal Code under crimes against peace and humanity. The Emergency Government Ordinance no. 31/2002 on prohibiting organizations and symbols of fascist, racist or xenophobic character and prohibiting the worship of persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity. The Ordinance no. 31/2002 was modified in 2013, respectively in 2015. The amendments from 2015 trig- gered many debates in the public space. The amendment in 2013 provides the repealing of Article 7, which established the public prosecutor as the mandatory prosecuting authority for offenses under Art. 3-6. There were several reasons for the amendment proposals in 2015. In the explanatory note of the legislative project containing the changes from 2015, its promoters point out that the cases coming before the public prosecutor under the Ordinance 31/2002, ended with closure of the file. The promoters of the amendments to the Ordinance 31/2002 underline that the majority of cases were closed based on interpretations of the law concerning the Holocaust. The interpretation of the phrase “The Holocaust in Romania” was made, according to the promoters of the law, by exploiting the fact that Romania’s current territories “do not correspond to those managed in that period by the historical governments”2. The second reason for initiating the amending law was

2 Explanatory memorandum, available here : http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2014/100/90/3/em288.pdf

10 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

that the previous version of the ordinance did not cover the Legionary Movement, but only fascism, racism, xenophobia and the persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity. The initiators of the law use two arguments to support their hypothesis, namely that the legionary movement is part of the fascist movements. The first argument is represented by the Act 51/1991 on the national security of Romania, which considers the legionary actions, along with the totalitarian, extremist, fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, revisionist, separatist actions, as actions that “may jeopardize in any way the unity and the territorial integrity of Romania”. The second argument invoked by the initiators of the law is a decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice - Department I Civilian, stating: “The legionary movement was essentially a terrorist paramilitary organization, nationalist-fascist, with a religious-mystical nature, violently anticommunist, but, among others, anti-Semitic “3. In the legislative proposal, the introduction of the phrase “combating crimes” in the title was wanted, but the current version of the title of the ordinance is: “Emergency ordinance on prohibiting fascist, legionary, racist or xenophobic organizations and symbols, and on prohibiting the worship of persons guilty of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” Article 1 which states the regulatory scope of the ordinance added the legionary character, along with the fascist, racist or xenophobic ones. The same was implemented with regards to Art. 4 paragraph (1), (2) and Art. 5. Article 2 defines the terms used in the ordinance. The definition of “the Holocaust in Romania” was amended, this being seen now as “systematic persecution and annihilation of the Jews and the Roma, with the support of the Romanian authorities and public institutions in the areas administered by these during 1940-1944”, unlike the previous version, which referred to the annihilation of European Jews by the Nazi Germany and its collab- orators and allies. In the previous version, reference was made to the annihilation of Roma as follows: “During the Second World War, part of the Roma population has been subjected to deportation and annihilation.” The current definition is clear in terms of time and space as well as in terms of the role of the Romanian state in implementing the Nazi policy. It is worth mentioning that the initiators have proposed an alternative definition that did not included Roma as victims of the Holocaust, this being noticed by the Government’s opinion on the legislative project. A definition of the Legionary Movement is also included in Article 2: “a fascist organization from Romania, active during 1927-1941 under the names of “The Legion of Archangel Michael”, “The Iron Guard” and the “Ev- erything for the Country Party “. Article 6 of the previous version of the Ordinance stipulated the prohibition and punishment of the denial of the Holocaust and its effects. The amended version of Article 6 extends the ways of pro Holocaust expression. Article 6 (1): “Denial, contesting, approving, justifying or minimizing in an obvious manner, by any means, in public, the Holocaust or its effects shall be punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine “. In addition, a new paragraph is added to Article 6, prohibiting and punishing denial, contesting, approving, justifying or minimizing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Charter of the Military International Tribunal. To fall under Art. 6 (2), genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes if denied, contested, approved, justified or minimized should be recognized as such by a decision of the “International Criminal Court, the International Military Tribunal established by the London Agreement, on August 8th 1945, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or any other international criminal court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognized by the Romanian state”.

3 Decision no.1.709 from 9th March 2012 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice

11 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

There were contestants of the amendments introduced by the Law no. 217/2015 for the amendment and supplementation of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 31/2002 on prohibiting organizations and symbols with fascist, racist or xenophobic character and the worship of persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity, referred to in the public space as the “anti-legionary law”. Among the criticisms brought to the law, we mention the ones stating that these amendments would limit the freedom of expression and conscience. It was also criticized the fact that among the ideologies falling under the law, communism was not included. In addition, as an argument against the amendments brought by the Law no. 217/2015, it was mentioned the existence of other regulations ensuring the discrimination prohibition and the protection of human rights.

Other legislation related to hate speech • Law no. 4/2008 on preventing and combating violence at sport games and competitions, which states that “Incitement, in public or through the media, to acts of violence in connection with sport games or competitions, by the managers of the clubs, by the officials or the athletes constitutes an offense.” The law also criminalizes two other facts, namely “The use in the sports arena of fascist, racist or xenophobic symbols, the dissemination or possession for spreading of such symbols in the sports arena” and “Promoting the worship of persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity or promoting fascist, racist or xenophobic ideology by propaganda, committed by any means inside the sports arena”, making reference to the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 31/2002 on prohibiting organizations and symbols with fascist, racist or xenophobic character and the worship of persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity, approved with amendments by Law no. 107/2006, as subsequently amended and supplemented4. • Law no. 60/1991 on the organization and conduct of public gatherings prohibits, under Art. 9, any public meetings seeking the: a) propagation of totalitarian ideas of fascist, communist, racist, chauvinist nature or any terrorist-diversionist organization, the defamation of the country and nation, the instigation to national or religious hatred, the incitement to discrimination, public violence and obscene conducts, contrary to morality. • Law no. 504/2002 on the audiovisual.5 • Law no. 489 of 28 December 2006 on religious freedom and the general regime of religious cults6.

4 The stipulations related to hate speech have not been recently amended. The Study of the Foundation for the Develop- ment of the Civil Society, “Hate speech”, from 2014, contains a chapter related to the legal framework relevant in this matter. 5 See FDCS Study, ”Hate speech” , 2014, available here: http://www.fdsc.ro/library/files/studiul_diu_integral.pdf 6 See FDCS Study, ”Hate speech” , 2014, available here: http://www.fdsc.ro/library/files/studiul_diu_integral.pdf

12 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The legislative initiative of Deputy Bogdan Diaconu, to change the name of the Roma minority from “Roma” into “Gypsy” During the previous years, similar initiatives have been promoted by several authorities and public figures7. Since 2008, three legislative initiatives tried to change the name of the Roma minority from “Roma” into “Gypsies”. Two of them were definitively rejected in 2008 and in 2011. The initiative of the deputies Bogdan Di- aconu and Virgil Guran received negative opinions from the Legislative Council, from the Commission for Equal Opportunities, from the Commission for Human Rights, Cults and Minorities, and it was rejected by the Senate. In the explanatory note, the Deputy argues that such a law is needed to “restore the correct name and to avoid the confusion occurring abroad between “Romanians” and the “Roma”. It brings as example the documentary “The Romanians are coming”, broadcasted by the British Channel 4, whose title refers to the Roma- nians who come to Britain, the documentary referring to the “Gypsy behavior and life in Great Britain”. The initiator states that the term “Roma” is a recent invention, explaining how it was incorrectly accepted by the Romanian state in 2000, by a memorandum of the foreign minister at the time, Petre Roman.

The bill initiated by deputies and Virgil Diaconu and Bogdan Guran.

7 Among such initiatives, we mention: • Memorandum no. H (03)/169 of 31 January 1995 “Issues on the name of an ethnic group living in Romania”, addressed by the Foreign Affairs Minister to the President of Romania; • Memorandum D2 /1094 of 29 February 2000 addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister of Roma- nia; • The legislative proposal submitted by letter no. 621 of Octoberrd 23 2007 by PRM Senator Gheorghe Funar and PRM deputies Ioan Aurel Rus and Mircea Costache; • The motion for a European Parliament Resolution on replacing the term ‘Roma’ (B7-0537/2010), initiated by MEP Sebas- tian Bodu; • The legislative proposal submitted by letter no. BPI 668/06.09.2010 by the deputy Silviu Prigoana.

13 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The Opinion of the Legislative Council, the Commission for Equal Opportunities and the Commission for Human Rights, Cults and Minorities

The document brings to attention the fact that the project is not accompanied by a prior assessment of the impact of proposed regulations on fundamental human rights and freedoms. The two legislative proposals with identical topics are mentioned, stating that these have received a negative opinion from the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council limits itself to listing the provisions of European Union laws that contradict the bill and to indicating the incompatibility thereof with the provisions of the Council of Europe or the United Nations on the protection of human rights, without detailing them. The same type of argument is echoed by the Committees for equal opportunities and human rights, cults and minorities. On November 3rd 2015, the Romanian Senate rejected the proposal, sending it to the Chamber of Deputies for debates. The name “Roma” is not a new term. It comes from the Romani language and it means human, man. The term has been used uninterruptedly in the Romani language for centuries and was mentioned in the works of well-known authors such as Mihail Kogălniceanu (1837) or Barbu Constantinescu (1878). No institution should impose a minority how to be called, or how to identify or define itself. Whenever it is aimed, thorough such initiatives, to avoid confusion between Roma and Romanians, it is omitted the fact that Romanian law takes effect in Romania, and may not change the existing perception at the level of foreign societies nor “educate” foreigners. The only concrete result of such populist and discriminatory initiatives is the stigmatization and violation of fundamental rights of the Roma. Moreover, the simple argument that such initiatives are aimed at avoiding confusion between the “Roma” and “Romanian” shows that Roma are not considered Romanians by those who support such initiatives.

The initiative of the Deputy Liviu Dragnea - Law on the promotion of human dignity The initiative was filed at the Senate on Septemberst 21 2015. The purpose of the bill is, as shown in the initiator’s draft, to promote human dignity and tolerance in society, to ensure tolerance towards any social group as well as the prevention and combating of social defamation, the incitement to hatred and social discrimination. In the first article, the concepts approached by the bill are defined, including the concept of “social -def amation”: the fact or allegation placing a person in a position of inferiority on the grounds of belonging to a particular social group.It also defines the concept of “incitement to social hatred and discrimination” as:public incitement by any means to hatred or discrimination against a social group”. According to the bill, the promotion of human dignity and tolerance will be attained by a number of measures in the area of teaching activities, starting with the initial training of teachers, to the introduction of- per formance criteria related to the promotion of human dignity and tolerance for the assessment of the teachers. The promotion of human dignity and tolerance will also be accomplished by a series of measures related to public administration and public officials as well as through the media. The bill proposes the establishment of a Department for the Promotion of Human Dignity and Tolerance within the National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD). The bill qualifies “social defamation” as a contravention, punishable with a fine. The final provisions of the bill include deadlines for achieving certain activities by the Department for the Promotion of Human Dignity and Tolerance, by the National Agency of Civil Servants and the Romanian Televi- sion Company, respectively Romanian Radio Broadcasting Company.

14 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The proposal received a favorable opinion from the Legislative Council. In the Government’s opinion, it is noted that most of the concepts introduced by the bill are already included in other legal acts, in some way or another. Regarding the concept of “social defamation”, the Government points out that such concept is not to be found in the Community law. The Government also emphasizes that the definition of “incitement to social hatred and discrimination” should be deleted, since it comes in conflict with the offense of incitement to hatred or discrimination as defined by Art. 369 of the new Criminal Code. The National Council for Combating Discrimination is also a supporter of this bill. The comments submitted by the Government, as well as those made by the National Council for Combating Discrimination are not to be found in the version adopted by the Senate and sent to the Chamber of Deputies - decisional Chamber for debate. Several NGOs have criticized the bill8. Among the aspects criticized, which we reiterate here, there are9: • The establishment of collective responsibility; • Allowing sanctioning the autonomy requests of the minority communities; • “Duplication and worsening” of the provisions in the current anti-discrimination legislation; • Vague definition of concepts, leading also to limitations of the freedom of expression; • The creation of the NCCD’s department is considered “inappropriate for the discrimination area”, under- lining that it “does not comply with the standards of independence, transparency and minimum procedural warranties”. This point of view of the NGOs was also undertaken by ActiveWatch and Romani CRISS organizations, authors of this publication.

8 The Centre for Legal Resources, Romani CRISS, The Convention of Media Organizations, ActiveWatch, The Center for Independent Journalism, the Association for Human Rights in Romania, the Romanian Centre for Investigative Journalism, the Academic Society. 9 All the comments and observations of the mentioned organizations can be consulted here: http://www.crj.ro/initiati- va-legislativa-a-domnului-dragnea-aprobata-de-senat-o-lipsa-cronica-de-intelegere-a-fenomenului-discriminarii/

15 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

2. ECHR case law and the analysis of the activities sanctioning hate speech carried by the public institutions with competence in this area

2.1. European Court of Human Rights case law related to hate speech

Hate speech has been subject to a significant number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Hate speech does not appear as such in any of the rights provided by the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 of the Convention provides the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treat- ments. Using hate speech in some contexts may infringe human dignity of individuals or groups, which can be interpreted as a violation of Art. 3 of the Convention. ECHR cases related to hate speech are discussed, most often, in the context of limiting the freedom of expression as provided for by Article 10 of the Convention.

Handyside v Great Britain With regards to the importance of freedom of expression, the Court established since the judgment rendered in the case Handyside v Great Britain10, that this is one of the “essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for progress and development for all”. The Court also found, in Handyside, that Article 10 protects not only “ideas that are regarded positively and deemed harmless [...] but also those that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population”. This Section aims to point out the various positions held by the ECHR concerning the tension between freedom of expression and other rights relevant for the subject of hate speech - freedom of religion (Art. 9 of the Convention), right to privacy (Art. 8 of the Conven- tion), human dignity ( Article 3 of the Convention).

Otto Preminger-Institute v Austria For example, in a case where freedom of expression came into conflict with freedom of religion, Ot- to-Preminger-Institute against Austria, ECHR emphasized the special protection which is enjoyed by freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The applicant, Otto-Preminger-Institute, tried to broadcast a film that- of fended the Catholic religion and the religious feelings of the people of Tyrol, a region where most of the population is Catholic. The authorities banned the broadcasting of this movie in a public hall and confiscated the film. The applicant alleged a violation of freedom of expression. Given that it would have been too controversial to rule on the meaning of “respect” for freedom of reli- gion11, the Court has decided to exclude from the types of protected speech the “gratuitous offense”12, affecting the rights of others and that do not help the public debates in any way13. The Court held that freedom of expression of the applicant was not violated, indicating that three of the judges issued a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion points out that the restriction imposed by the state had the purpose of respect of Catholic population’s religious feelings, and ensuring the religious peace. On the other hand, the dissenting opinion argues

10 Decision from 7th December 1976 11 Malcom D. Evans, ”From Cartoons to Crucifixes: Current Controversies Concerning the Freedom of Religion and the Free- dom of Expression before the European Court of Human Rights”, Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. XXVI, 2010 12 ”Gratuitous offence” 13 Otto-Preminger-Institute v Austria, Decision from 20th September 1994,§49

16 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

that Art. 9 does not protect religious feelings and that the applicant has taken sufficient precautions, by public notice, to warn those who would feel offended at seeing the film.

Wingrove v Great Britain In another case regarding the conflict between the freedom of expression and freedom of religion, Win- grove v Great Britain14, the ECHR held that the laws prohibiting religious blasphemy may be necessary in a democratic society and are compatible with the Convention only if there is proportionality between how the anti-religious feeling is expressed and the penalties imposed by the state. ECHR states that one can not considered blasphemy the expression and publishing of opinions hostile to Christian religion, provided that the publication is “fair and moderate”. ECHR reaffirms the principle that the desecrating and “gratuitous insults” are not protected by the Convention, principle held in Otto-Preminger-Institute v Austria.

Féret v Belgium In what regards hate speech, the ECHR borrowed the “bad tendency” test from the doctrine of the US Supreme Court,a test that allows the restriction of freedom of expression by the state when a speech is only intended to incite for, or determine an illegal action.The US Supreme Court has abandoned this doctrine, now protecting hate speech, inclusive, unlike the ECHR, which tends not to protect hate speech, by applying the “bad tendency” test. Although favorable to the combat against hate speech, there were voices criticizing the doctrine of the Court, including some of the ECHR judges, who have issued separate opinions in cases such as Féret v Bel- gium. In Féret v Belgium, the ECHR stated that freedom of expression was not infringed by the fact that a member of the extreme-right party, The National Front, was sentenced for incitement to hatred on racial grounds. Three judges argued in a separate opinion that the brochures distributed by The National Front member did not incite to violence or to any particular act of discrimination, and that the penalties imposed by the Belgian State were disproportionate. It is obvious that the judges signing the separate opinion prefer the American doctrine that protects all types of speech, including hate speech. Most ECHR judges, in this case and not only, are nevertheless reluctant to granting protection to hate speech, which is understandable, given the European history.

Vejdeland and others v Sweden In Vejdeland and others v Sweden15, the applicants have distributed 100 pamphlets, leaving them in students’ lockers. The booklets were made by an organization - National Youth and contained phrases such as ho- mosexual propaganda, considering homosexuality as having a “morally destructive effect on the essence of society” and causing HIV and AIDS. Applicants were convicted of incitement against a group, which they considered as a violation of the right to freedom of expression. The ECHR unanimously held that no violation of Art. 10 of the Convention could be found. Two judges issued a separate opinion. Noting that they were very close to consider that freedom of expression was violated, the two judges argue that what led them to believe the opposite was especially the phenomenon of harassment and discrimination which is faced by LGBT pupils and students.

14 Decision from 25th November, 1996 15 Decision from 9th February 2012

17 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Norwood v Great Britain Another ECHR case addressing hate speech is Norwood v Great Britain16. The applicant, a member of the extreme-right political party, British National Party, displayed a large poster in the window of his apartment, depicting the twin towers in flames, along with the following message: “Islam, out of Britain - Protect the English people”. The applicant was convicted for displaying this message and such an image, considered hostile, threatening and abusive against a racial or religious group. The applicant addressed the ECHR for violation of Art. 10 of the Convention. The ECHR made reference to Article 17 of the Convention, which prohibits the abuse of law: “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”Thus, it was stated that the applicant has invoked his right to freedom of expression in a way that abuses the rights of the others, contrary to the provisions of Art. 17. Displaying the poster was “the public expression of an attack against all Muslims in Britain” falling outside the protection provided by Art. 10 of the Convention. By invoking Art. 17 of the Convention, the complaint is rejected as inadmissible.

Gündüz v Turkey In Gündüz v Turkey17, the applicant addressed the ECHR regarding the alleged violation of his right to freedom of expression. The applicant, leader of an Islamist sect, made statements during a televised debate, on his dissatisfaction related to the Turkey contemporary secular and democratic institutions, describing them as profane. He openly asked for the adoption of Sharia Law. The Turkish courts condemned the applicant to 2 years imprisonment, for incitement to hatred and hostility on grounds of religious differences. In this case, the ECHR held that Article 10 of the Convention was violated. The Court stated that the applicant was invited on the show just to express his nonconformist vision, including in terms of criticizing the democratic values, which are not compatible with his conception of Islam. The Court underlines that these topics are largely debated in the Turkish media and are a matter of general interest. Once again, the ECHR states that Art. 10 protects information and ideas that shock, offend or disturb. The ECHR did not consider that the applicant’s allegations incited to violence or hatred, holding that, by the measures taken by the Turkish state against the applicant, the right to freedom of speech was violated.

Garaudy v France Another aspect on which the ECHR ruled in several cases is the issue of Holocaust denial. In Garaudy v France18, the applicant was convicted by the French courts for denying crimes against humanity, for publishing defamatory statements and for incitement to racial hatred. The applicant, a former politician, published a controversial book which, among other things, called in question the nature and conditions of the Holocaust, the number of Jews killed, the existence of gas chambers and the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Tribunal. The ECHR rejected the complaint, on the grounds of Art. 17 - Abuse of Law – stating that:“Denial and rewriting of this type of historical facts undermines the values on which the combat against racism and anti-Semitism are founded and constitutes a serious threat to the public order”. The ECHR established the practice of use of Art. 17, taking into consideration that certain types of speech are incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention, such as: denial of the Holo- caust, justification of the pro-Nazi policy, connection of any Muslims with serious acts of terrorism, or portrayal

16 Decision from 16th November 2004 17 Decision from December 4th 2003 18 Decision from Juin 24th 2003

18 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

of the Jews as being the source of evil in Russia19.

Delfi As v Estonia With regards to hate speech the in online environment, the ECHR ruled a judgment in the case Delfi Ace v Estonia20. Estonian online news agency Delfi published an article on a controversial decision of a ferry company. Among the 185 comments of the readers, 20 comments contained insults and/or language threatening the ferry company’s main shareholder. The shareholder’s lawyer requested the deletion of the insulting comments and the allowance of damages. The news agency deleted the comments the same day it was asked, but refused to grant the requested damages. The Estonian national courts decided to make liable the news agency for the payment of damages, whilst ruling that the news agency should have prevented the publication of the insulting comments and delete them from the website on its own initiative. The national courts held that the news agency also benefited from an economical point of view, because the comments have attracted more visitors to the site, which resulted in earnings from advertising. The ECHR held that the freedom of expression was not violated by the measures taken by the Estonian state, including by the Grand Chamber’s judgment. It was stated by the ECHR, that it should not be requested to the plaintiffs to identify the authors of anonymous comments. The news agency had assumed a certain responsibility for the readers’ comments, allowing them to publish anonymous comments.

Aksu v Turkey The case Aksu v Turkey21 deals with the promotion of stereotypical, offensive images, in state-sponsored publications. The applicant, of Roma origin, addressed the ECHR on two publications - a dictionary, partly fi- nanced by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and a book written by a professor and published by the Ministry of Culture. Both publications contain ideas related to the fact that Roma are thieves. The applicant considered that, taking into account his Roma identity, both publications offended him, by violating Art. 14 – on prohibiting discrimination, in conjunction with Art. 8. The Court held: not to examine the complaint under the terms of breach of Art. 14; to examine the complaint under the terms of breach of Art. 8 – the right to privacy; to analyze the conflict between freedom of expression and right to privacy. Unfortunately, the ECHR decided not to examine the complaint in terms of discrimination, considering that an unequal treatment element is missing, given that the applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence so as to create a presumption that the publications had a discriminatory effect or intention. Criticism on this argument of the Court appeared, since usually prima facie22 proofs are required only in indirect discrimination cases, and not in direct discrimination cases. Moreover, the fact that the applicant felt offended by the content of both publications, his/her reputation being damaged, constitutesprima a facie evidence in itself. A positive aspect of the decision in Aksu v Turkey is that it held: “Every negative stereotype related to a group, if reaches a certain level, may affect the sense of identity of the group, as well as the feelings of self-ap- preciation and self-confidence of the group members. In this regard, it might be considered that the private life of the group members is affected “(§58).

19 See the Decision Lehideux and Isorni v France, the cases Garaudy v France, Norwood vs Britain, Witzsch v Germany and Pavel Ivanov v Russia. 20 The decision from October 10th 2013 and the decision of the Great Chamber from Juin 16th 2015. 21 Decision from March 15th 2012 22 Sufficient evidence establishing, at first analyze, a presumption of discrimination, in the indirect discrimination cases

19 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The Court held that sponsoring the two publications containing negative stereotypes against Roma by the state was not a violation of the Convention. The cases related to hate speech are inevitably analyzed by the ECHR in terms of breach of freedom of expression. Since for each individual case the Court examines the proportionality of the implementation of the measures restricting the freedom of expression, the solutions given by the ECHR in this matter cannot be -pre dicted, except for those rejected as inadmissible on the grounds of Art. 17 as, e.g. those related to Holocaust denial.

2.2. Cases of incitement to hatred or discrimination and cases related to offenses provided for by the Ordinance 31/2002 pending before the public prosecutors/national courts

Statistics related to the year 2014 were requested under the Law 544/2001 on the free access to information of public interest, with regards to the following information: 1. Statistics on the number of cases handled by public prosecutors in Romania regarding the crime provided by Art. 369, New Criminal Code - Incitement to hatred or discrimination, for which were filed complaints/ denouncements, or on which the public prosecutors referred the matter ex officio, during the reference period; 2. Status of the cases referred to in paragraph 1: a. How many of these have been resolved; b. How many cases were brought to justice by the public prosecutor; c. For how many cases the acquittal was decided; d. How many acquittal decisions have been set as attributable to the prosecutor; e. How many cases with unknown author have been resolved; f. For how many cases the courts decided their conviction; 3. The number of defendants indicted in the cases mentioned inparagraph 1 and the number of provisional detentions ordered in these cases; 4. Statistics for the year 2014 on the number of files pending before the Romanian public prosecutors- re garding the crime provided by Art. 369 New Criminal Code - Incitement to hatred or discrimination, regardless of when the complaint/denunciation was registered or the moment when the prosecutors referred the matter ex officio; 5. Status of cases referred to in paragraph 4: a. How many of these have been resolved; b. How many cases were brought to justice by the public prosecutor; c. For how many cases the acquittal was decided; d. How many acquittal decisions have been set as attributable to the prosecutor; e. How many cases with unknown author have been resolved; f. For how many cases the courts decided their conviction;

20 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

6. The number of defendants indicted in the cases mentioned inparagraph 4 and the number of provisional detentions ordered in these cases; The same information was also required in cases regarding the offenses under the Ordinance no. 31/2002 on prohibiting organizations and symbols of fascist, racist or xenophobic character and the worship of persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity, renamed, following the amendments made by Law no. 217/2015, as the Emergency Ordinance on banning the organizations and symbols of fascist, legionary, racist or xenophobic character and worship of persons guilty of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The Public Ministry announced that during the reference period 59 cases were to be solved with regards to the crime of incitement to hatred or discrimination, provided by Art. 369, Criminal Code. Out of these,19 cases were settled so far. None of the settled cases was brought to judgment, each of them being solved by waiving the criminal proceedings or by deciding to take no further action. There still have to be settled 29 cases, out of which 5 cases with unknown author. No defendant was indicted. There is no record of a provisional detention. With regards to the offenses covered by Ordinance 31/2002, there were 64 cases to be solved. So far, 20 cases have been resolved, all of them with non-indictment (either by waiving the criminal proceedings or by deciding to take no further action). There still have to be settled36 cases, out of which 10 cases with unknown author. There is no record of a provisional detention. According to the 2014 annual report of the Public Ministry, on a national level, for any kinds of crimes, “by the end of 2014, in the public prosecutors recordings, there are still a number of 598.019 unresolved cases with unknown authors, representing 31.8 percent of the total number of cases to be solved”, higher than the percentage of cases with unknown author remaining to be solved, concerning the offenses of incitement to hatred or discrimination and provided by the Ordinance 31/2002 (17.2 percent, respectively 27.77 percent). On a national level, all crimes included, there were brought to justice 5.4 percent out of the settled cases,

21 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

as opposed to 0 (zero), in the case of the offenses of incitement to hatred or discrimination and those set forth by the Ordinance 31/2002 (17.2 percent, respectively 27.77 percent). In 23.1 percent of the cases settled at a national level regarding all crimes, the defendants were brought to justice, as opposed to 0, in the case of the offenses of incitement to hatred or discrimination, respectively 0.05 percent, in the case of the offenses under the Ordinance 31/2002. The data received suggest that the cases relating to the above mentioned offenses arequite difficult to deal with. 32 percent of the cases relating to incitement to hatred or discrimination and approximately 31 percent of the cases relating to the offenses set forth by the Ordinance 31/2002 were settled during the first year as of the notification. Given that the Public Prosecutor did not order the bringing to trial in any of the settled cases, we might speak about a lack of firmness regarding the offenses of incitement to hatred or discrimination, respectively those set forth by the Ordinance 31/2002. Such a lack of firmness is also indicated by the almost zero percentage of defendants in detention, in cases related to the types of crimes mentioned above.

2.3. Analysis of judgments issued by the National Council for Combating Discrimination

During the monitoring period, the National Council for Combating Discrimination registered 53 petitions relevant for the “human dignity” criteria. These covered issues relating to hate speech against a social class and/ or vulnerable group. Thus, during the monitoring period, considering the criteria represented by the total number of registered petitions, we found out that the categories mostly exposed to hate speech have been: Roma, Hungarians and people with disabilities (8 petitions each), and Jews (7 petitions). In what regards the Roma minority, the National Council for Combating Discrimination imposed fines in 5 cases, their total value reaching 11,000 lei. In this respect, the Hungarian portal Szekelyfold.ma was fined with the highest amount (5,000 lei) for the article „Miért jó cigánynak lenni Háromszéken?” (“Why is it good to be gypsy in Three Chairs?”). The article contains the following statement: “most of the gypsies from Three Chairs do not work. Most of the community members live their days in theft, robbery and crime and social support. [...] THE GYPSIES’ AGRICULTURAL SEASON starts very late, in August. This is when the gypsies proceed to the farm work: night picking of potatoes, dawn grazing on the land of somebody else, the theft of somebody else’s hay before dusk. [...] I cannot do anything else for the Gypsies than TO BECOME A RACIST, NEO-NAZI, GYPSOPHOBE, STARTING FROM TOMORROW and try to defend my family and my properties from the Gypsies. “(Cf. Decision no. 236/13th May 2015). The politician Theodor Baconschi was also imposed a fine of 1,000 lei for a statement made during his mandate of Foreign Minister: “We have some physiological, natural, criminality issues within some of the Romanian communities, especially among the communities of Romanian Roma”. At the same time, a common person domiciled in Bucharest was fined the same amount for statements such as “I do not want any Roma administrator” (cf. Decision no. 85 / 02.11.2015). With regards to the Hungarian minority, the most resonant case was the one when the Presidential candidate, Gheorghe Funar, during election debates, summoned one of the guests to say no more word “in horses’ language”, referring to the Hungarian language. On the same occasion, Gheorghe Funar said that, should he became president of Romania, no one would speak Hungarian on the Romanian television anylonger. In this regard, the Council decided to impose the defendant a fine of 2,000 lei.

22 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Another serious incident brought to the Council’s attention was related to a basketball game. On this occasion, Atlassib CSU Sibiu team’s fans displayed a banner with the inscription “S--k the d--k, Hungarians” and they wore T-shirts with the message “B--w j-b Hungarians”. During the match, they also cried several times “Hungar- ians, out of the country”. Following this incident, both CSU Sibiu Atlassib and Romanian Basketball Federation were imposed fines of 3,000 lei each. The launching of the debates regarding the law project on regional autonomy of the Székely Land also generated hate speech. Radu Banciu stated in a broadcast on B1 TV station the following: “If the bill were approved, it would be a slaughter. Romanian citizens would not have the slightest right in their daily lives. It is an absolute tragedy that those people (the Romanian ethnics from Székely Land) suddenly become vassals of the Hungarian government and the Székely government... In these counties (Harghita, Covasna and Mureș), cohabitation is not possible. It is like putting deer in the lion cage. Such is, in fact, the Székely Land. I know that in this country there will be attacks on the street. The people will not be able to speak Romanian anymore, they will be attacked on the street, and they will be mocked of.” ActiveWatch filed a petition before the Council, but the Council held, in the Decision no. 353/12.08.2015, that since a criminal complaint against Radu Banciu had already been registered in relation to this case, the Council may not rule in this case. Three of the petitions related to the Hungarian minority were resolved by giving a warning, while in one of the cases the applicant’s lack of standing was invoked. The total amount of the fines imposed for discrimination against the Hungarian minority amounts to 8,000 lei. Out of the 8 petitions related to the discrimination against persons with disabilities, in three of them the Council established the existence of discrimination facts and decided to impose sanctions. The Council decided, in one of the cases, to give a warning, while in the other two it imposed fines of 1,000 lei and 2,000 lei. In five other cases, the Council found either the lack of any acts of discrimination, or the applicant’s lack of standing. People with disabilities were victims of hate speech in particular in teaching institutions, children being most often the target. The anti-Semitic manifestations were the subject of 7 petitions submitted before the Council during the- ref erence period. In two cases, the Council imposed penalties to the defendants: either a fine in amount of 1,000 lei, or warning. In one case, the Council decided to decline jurisdiction; the petition was related to the deed of a Public Prosecutor having addressed the nickname “stingy Jew” to an indicted person when the latter requested for an interpreter paid from the funds of the Public Ministry. In this case, the Council’s reasoning was: “After examining the contents of the petition, the issues raised fall ipso facto under the judicial process, through the procedural handling of a criminal investigation by the public prosecutor of the case. The Council raised ex officio the objection of lack of material jurisdiction regarding the correlative issues of judicial process, in particular with regards to the conduct of the investigators during the course of a criminal investigation, which are an attribute of the Superior Council of Magistracy. “ As a particular characteristic of this period, especially in the context of the presidential election campaign in 2014, an increase of the messages against the ethnic German people could be observed, given that one of the main candidates was part of this ethnic group. Subsequently, people belonging to other religions than the majority were also targeted, as well as people without children. Klaus Johannis, the actual President of Romania was the direct target of these attacks, some of which having been sanctioned by the Council. Regarding the promoters of the message, the most important targets of the politicians and journalists, as the main public communicators, were analyzed. On behalf of politicians 19 petitions were filed before the Coun- cil during the monitoring period. In 10 cases the existence of an act of discrimination was found. Three fines in a total amount of 5,000 lei were imposed. The main targets of the politicians during the analyzed period were the Hungarian and the German minorities. With regards to the journalists, 10 complaints were registered against them in the reporting period. Overall,

23 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

sanctioning was decided in four cases; in two cases fines up to an amount of 9,000 lei were imposed, while in another one it was decided that the defendant would be sanctioned by a warning. The favorite target of the journalists were the Hungarian minority (3 cases) and the Roma minority (2 cases).

Conclusions Taking into account the number of the petitions filed, the main targets of hate speech were the Hungarians and the Roma. In terms of the sanctions applied, the highest amount of the fines was imposed for hate speech against Roma. In one case related to the Hungarian minority, the National Council for Combating Discrimination has declined jurisdiction, finding that the acts have a criminal nature. As far as the petitions are concerned, the persons with disabilities are exposed to hate speech especially in schools. Most often, hate speech takes the form of harassment acts committed by teachers. Regarding the public communicators (journalists and politicians), their favorite target were the Hungarians and the Roma. Journalists were penalized with the highest fines in this regard: a fine of 5,000 lei was imposed to a Hungarian-language portal for publishing a discriminating article against Roma. With regards to politicians, we noticed a low level of sanctioning (most often, limited to warnings): an example in this respect could be that, for similar acts (discriminating statements against the Roma minority), Teodor Baconschi (former Foreign Minister) was fined the same amount (1,000 lei) as a private person.

2.4. Analysis of the sanction decisions issued by the National Audiovisual Council

In order to analyze the decisions issued by the National Audiovisual Council (NAC), ActiveWatch filed a- re quest under the Law on free access to information of public interest. As a result thereof the NAC sent information on all the sanctioning decisions, issued according to the articles of the Regulation Code for the Audiovisual Content: ART. 30 The providers of audiovisual media services must respect the fundamental human rights and freedoms, the privacy, honor and reputation as well as the right to one’s own image. ART. 40 (3) Moderators, news anchors and program producers are required not to use and allow the guests to use insulting language or to instigate to violence. (5) Any pejorative reference to elderly or disabled persons, as well as placing these in ridiculous or humiliating situations during the audiovisual programs are prohibited. Art. 47 (1) Broadcasting during the audiovisual programs of any anti-Semitic or xenophobic expressions is forbidden. (2) Any discrimination on grounds of race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity during the audiovisual programs is forbidden. ART. 48 Any apologetic presentation of totalitarian regimes, such as the Nazi and communist regimes, of the authors of the crimes and abuses of these regimes, including the denigration of their victims during the audiovisual programs is forbidden.

24 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

ART. 70 During the news and debates on issues of public interest concerning ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, a point of view thereof shall be presented. After analyzing the received information, it was found that the NAC rendered four sanction decisions for hate speech against vulnerable groups, anti-Semitic or xenophobic behaviors. These decisions were imposed against B1 TV (two penalties), TVR and Romania TV.

Decision no. 1 dated 13th January 2015 This decision dealt with the monitoring report on several shows broadcasted by B1 TV during December 2014 - January 2015. This report found that during the show Banciu’s World from 8th January, 2015 several discriminatory and hate speech remarks against Muslims and people from the Middle East were expressed in the context of the Paris attacks: “Everyone knows what an Arab represents in the capitalist society. He does not know anything else than to open a shop where he may steal from you. But they are sly, of course, unlike the population from the black Africa who do not have the tricks in their blood. Arabs open boutiques, open Kebab or shawarma fast-foods, where they falsify, steal, attack, that’s a fact. All over Europe it is the same. Moreover, with very few exceptions, again I say, they have failed for generations to make good.” In this sense, the NAC imposed the broadcast a fine of a total amount of 20,000 lei.

Decision no. 192 dated April 7th 2015 This decision dealt with several broadcasts during February-March 2015. In this case, the main target was the Muslim community in Romania. In the show Banciu’s World from February 4th 2015, Banciu commented on an article published in the local press in Constanța about a Muslim protest against the decision that religion should be taught in schools on request and whose headline was: “Dobrogea will be a powder keg if the Muslim religion will not be taught in schools “. Analyzing this article, the journalist Radu Banciu said about the Muslim community in Romania “Then, you should execute us, because I saw that in your community, things are very clear. Once stepped on your toes, you act immediately. But you know this is not bad, because this way we may identify you quite well. We know very well who you are, even when you do not express yourselves.” In this case, the Council noted that the “presenter’s attitude has exceeded the limits of public communication established by the regulations in force, during an audiovisual show available to viewers”, which led to a fine of 30,000 lei imposed to the broadcast.

Decision no. 340 dated June 30th 2015 This decision dealt with two shows broadcasted by the national television, TVR 1. In the show “The World of Faith” the book “The unseen face of homosexuality” was discussed. The Council members found that this show affects the free shaping of the general public opinions and the objectivity of the information brought to the public’s attention. This lack of neutrality “is likely to influence the viewers’ opinions on gay people.” For these reasons it was decided to impose on TVR a fine of 10,000 lei.

Decision no. 224 dated April 28th 2015 This decision was related to several TV shows broadcasted by Romania TV in November 2014 - January 2015. The main targets of hate speech promoted during these shows are the Germans (in the context of the

25 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

presidential elections from 2014) and the Roma people. In order to establish the facts of discrimination, the NAC members have also used the case law of the National Council for Combating Discrimination. Other facts held by the NAC are: In the first Special Edition from January 23rd, 2015 “starting at 21:13 o’clock, on the screen, the breaking news bar displayed the title announcing the topic of discussion of the show to start at 22:00: 22:00 O’CLOCK EXCLUSIVE: HOW THE MASONS AND GYPSIES DECIDE FOR ROMANIA; THE LIST OF MANIPULATED POLITICIANS. On the bar on top of the screen, it also run, throughout an entire hour, the following message: TO FOLLOW: HOW THE MASONS AND GYPSIES DECIDE FOR ROMANIA; IN EXCLUSIVITY: THE LIST OF THE POLITICIANS MANIP- ULATED BY THE UNDERWORLD; IN EXCLUSIVITY: BASESCU HUMILIATED BY JOHANNIS; 22:00 O’CLOCK SPECIAL EDITION WITH VIOLETA ROMANESCU. Some of the titles displayed during the show, starting at 22:26 o’clock: THE MASONNIC AND GYPSIES NET- WORK DECIDING THE FATE OF ROMANIA. THE DIRTY SECRETS OF CERTAIN POLITICIANS RELATED TO THE UN- DERWORLD.” Holding these violations, the National Audiovisual Council of Romania decided to impose a fine on the TV station Romania TV in amount of 20,000 lei.

Conclusions The Roma minority and the Muslim community were the preferred targets of the audiovisual media. This was also encouraged in the context of the attacks in Paris. B1 TV was the broadcast channel the most sanctioned for hate speech, more precisely, the TV show of Radu Banciu, broadcasted on this channel. Because of the internal working procedures of the National Audiovisual Council according to which the institution publishes on its website only the sanctioning decisions, we were unable to track all the complaints related to any potential situations where the audiovisual media promoted hate speech. The meeting reports published on the website www.cna.ro do not indicate the subject of the complaints rejected by the Council. For this reason, this research could not analyze the decision making process within the NAC.

26 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

3. Self-regulations

This chapter of the report analyzes the main self-regulations on hate speech at the organizational level of the social actors most frequently in the position to express such speeches or over which hovers a greater responsibility to stay away from expressing such messages, due to their quality as opinion leaders, representatives of citizens or users of communication channels reaching a large number of people. In view of the fact that the gray area between freedom of expression and hate speech is a very broad one (the seriousness of a hate speech situation depends on many variables and an “algorithm” to compile a limited ranking between different situations of hate speech is impossible), we believe that self-regulations are the ideal way to ensure the respect of both the right to freedom of expression and the right to personal dignity. For the purposes of this report, we looked at the existing self-regulations of political parties, media organizations, advertising organizations, sports federations and media outlets. After analyzing the specific documents, we concluded that, in Romania, things look good on paper: there are ample and accurate enough provisions as to have a clean public space in terms of hate speech. Unfortunately, however, with very few exceptions, these provisions are not applied and the codes of conduct, the codes of ethics, the statutes of the political parties and the terms and conditions of use of the news websites are almost completely ignored with regards to hate speech by those who have undertaken to respect them.

3.1. Self-regulations of the political parties

The political parties’ documents that contain self-regulations on hate speech are the statutes thereof and, where they exist, the codes of ethics. In Romania, dozens of political parties are currently registered (the Bu- charest Tribunal website mentions 86 registered political parties). However, it may be said that only a relatively small number of parties might represent a social force. Therefore, the present study analyzed only those parties having formed parliamentary groups or the newly formed ones that, following the departure of some of the members of parliament from certain parties, have come to have at least one member of parliament in the Senate or in the Chamber of Deputies. We have excluded, however, the parties having MPs elected on the seats reserved for the national minorities. Most parties whose documents were analyzed in this research have not included in their statutes and codes of ethics any direct references to hate speech. However, the documents reviewed contain provisions covering the principles and situations subsuming the combat of this form of speech (an example is the respect of personal dignity, which also refers to avoiding discriminatory discourses). None of the parties whose documents were included in this research provided the authors with information on the sanctions imposed on their members with regards to hate speech. Among the most interesting results of our analysis we mention the absolute lack of transparency of the National Union for the Progress of Romania, whose statutes and code of ethics are not public and who did not answer to our requests for consultation of such documents; the situation of the Democratic Union of Hungar- ians in Romania (UDMR), whose documents do not contain any provisions which regulate hate speech; the situation of the United Romania Party, whose statutes contain provisions indirectly related to hate speech, even though the party positions itself, concerning the vulnerable groups to hate speech, in the area of populism and the extreme-right; the election of Traian Băsescu, a politician who reinvents himself as euro-skeptical and intolerant towards the migrants, as the president of the People’s Movement Party, while the party statute contain provisions that may be used for penalizing hate speech among its members.

27 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The National Liberal Party (PNL) The National Liberal Party is one of the strongest parliamentary parties in Romania and it appeared after the merger of the National Liberal Party with the Liberal Democratic Party. Its political orientation is center-right. The National Liberal Party Statute sets forth, in Article 5, paragraph 1, that human dignity is a universal value, the observance of which is aimed at by the Party. Same article, paragraph 4, sets forth that the National Liberal Party “shall ensure the promotion of the democracy principles and the consolidation of the rule of law, acting with priority “for the achievement of the Party’s political goals, including “guaranteeing, promoting and unconditional respect for human dignity” (point b) (concept subsuming the protection of the individuals from discriminatory or hate speech), and also “combating all forms of discrimination in political, economic and social life” (point c). A person promoting or having promoted racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or intolerance ideas or actions shall not become a member of the Liberal Party (Article 15, paragraph 2, point d). The way of verifying that the conditions under which a person may become a member are satisfied is, however, the mere submission by the applicant of a declaration issued on honor (Article 16). Once a member of the Liberal Party, a person shall have the right “to freely express their opinions outside the party, to the extent that such expressions are not in conflict with the Party’s political principles, assumed by the political agenda and by Statutes” (Article 24). Therefore, the opinions that bring prejudice to the human dignity are considered unacceptable. This is reinforced by Article 25, point a), under which the Party’s members must comply with the Statute and Party’s regulations. In case of “serious and repeated violations of the Statute and the Code of Ethics provisions, affecting the values and principles established by the party’s political agenda” a member may be sanctioned by exclusion from the Party. However, the sanctioning of the members with responsibilities at a national level (which are also the most visible members), including those with an office elected in the National Convention, is decided by vote in the National Council (Article 30, Article 31), a body composed of more than 40 people and that, due to its high number of members has vulnerabilities regarding the knowledge or the political will to sanction discriminatory speech issues. The Arbitration Commission also “decides in cases of breach of the Statute, it imposes sanctions and -re solves the complaints aimed at the sanctions” (Art. 105, paragraph 5). The party does have a Code of Ethics, but did not respond to the authors’ requests for its consultation.

The Social Democratic Party (PSD) The Social Democratic Party was, until recently, the leader of the governing coalition, along with the Nation- al Union for the Progress of Romania (UNPR), the Liberals and Democrats Alliance (ALDE) and the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR). In the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, the party includes the UNPR members in its parliamentary group. The party’s orientation is center-left. One of the party members is Cătălin Cherecheş, Mayor of Baia Mare, who gained popularity following his actions of moving the Roma population from the city, including by moving several families in 2011 in the building of a chemical plant without prior complete decontamination of the facility. According to Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Social Democratic Party “promotes and supports the rule of law, the social and democratic state, where the human dignity, the citizens’ rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism are supreme values in the spirit of Romanian people’s democratic traditions and of the ideals of the Revolution of December 1989”. The promotion of such forms of speech that does not discriminate or incite to hatred is indirectly mentioned in Article 10, point d) under the expression “promoting [...] the respect of the person and the family in order to increase the social

28 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

cohesion and the relations based on respect between the citizen and the state institutions “. Direct references to combating hate speech are also set forth in Article 10, point i): “[...] combats extremism and condemns any manifestations of racism, chauvinism, ethnic or territorial separatism”. Interesting here is the joining within the same subsection of the Statute of such concepts as extremism and racism with chauvinism and ethnic or territorial separatism (concepts often associated in the collective mind with the Hungarian minority). This might can lead to interpretations that, in the effort to combat hate speech, this Party will pay more attention to events of this kind coming from members of the Hungarian minority. The combination is reiterated in the exclusion criteria of candidates to the membership of the party “Those who promote violence, fascist ideology, anarchism, racism, chauvinism, ethnic and territorial separatism and any other extremist ideas or actions, or contrary to national interests, fundamental human rights and freedoms may not be party members” (Article 23, point e). Using the present tense of the verb “to promote” may be interpreted as allowing a person who has found itself, in the distant or recent past, in a situation of non-fulfilment of these criteria to become a member. Among the Party members’ responsibilities there is a duty to act for the “achievement of the objectives and the Party’s Political Agenda” (Article 30, point c), which may also be interpreted as a duty to combat hate speech. For failure to comply with the Statutes, the Party members may be sanctioned by warning, temporary suspension from their functions held within a governing body of the Party, the political support thereof may be permanently or temporarily withdrawn, they may be excluded from the party or suspended for a period of 6 up to 12 months. The Statute of the Social Democratic Party is supplemented by the Party’s Code of Ethics, which states, in Chapter III - General values and principles, Section 2 - Respect of the fundamental civil rights, that the party members undertake to “combat intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, discriminations of any kind”, and in Section 3 - Integrity and respect in the political, administrative and professional activity – it is stated that the members undertake to avoid any gestures, messages and actions affecting human dignity and democratic values.

The National Union for the Progress of Romania This Party has not published its Statute, nor any information on its Codes of Ethics. UNPR also failed to respond to the authors’ requests for consultation of these documents.

The Liberals and Democrats Alliance (ALDE) The Liberals and Democrats Alliance is a new party composed of MPs and party members that split from the National Liberal Party thus forming the Liberal Reformist Party and that later merged with the Conservative Party. Călin Popescu Tăriceanu, co-chairman of ALDE, is the president of the Senate. The party has a center-right orientation. The Statute of the Alliance have several provisions with an impact in combating hate speech. According to Article 6, paragraph 2, among the political priority objectives of the party one can find: • “ensuring, promoting and respecting the human dignity, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens (point a) • combating all forms of discrimination such as the discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, social class, gender, beliefs or belonging to a disadvantaged category (point m)

29 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

• educating the society members in a spirit of respect for man and nature, dignity and spiritual liberty (the point s)” We consider interesting, on the one hand, the presence of an extensive list of groups vulnerable to discrimination, which are, however, mentioned only as examples, without limitations of the Alliance’s endeavors to fight discrimination against such groups only. On the other hand, we welcome their intention of educating the society regarding human respect. Nevertheless, among the criteria for candidates’ exclusion from the party membership, no mention regarding xenophobia, racism, extremism and intolerance may be found. The nonobservance of the Alliance’s Statute may result in sanctions such as the exclusion of the member (Article 18, point a). However, the infringements of the Code of Ethics are considered minor violations (Article 21) and may be sanctioned with: “written warning, the temporary suspension from office, temporary suspension – for maximum one year - from the rights deriving from the membership or the political support withdrawal in case of the members in the public service who benefited from such political support “(Article 20, paragraph 1, points a-d). The Territorial Ethics and Arbitration Councils (Article 75, paragraph 4) as well as the Court of Ethics and Arbitration – the latter also competent in the settlement of the appeals against disciplinary sanctions (Article 75, paragraph 1, point b) - are both responsible for ensuring the compliance with the Code of Ethics and with the Alliance’s Statute. The Alliance has a Code of Ethics, but it has not responded to the authors’ requests for consultation.

The People’s Movement Party (PMP) The People’s Movement Party is a center-right party formed after the separation of a group of members from the Liberal Democratic Party (PDL) after the parliamentary elections of 2012, when the president of Roma- nia at that time, Traian Băsescu announced the withdrawal of his support for the PDL. In present, Traian Băsescu is the president of the People’s Movement Party. He was sanctioned by the National Council for Combating Discrimination for his racist statements and, during the last year, he had explicit anti-Muslim speeches during the refugee crisis. According to its Statute, PMP “aims at the respect of the universal values of freedom and human dignity, the respect for the traditional values of the Romanian people, the respect for the rule of law and judicial independence” (Article 6, paragraph 1). Combating discrimination is an objective that aims at the “general economic development and social progress” (Article 7, paragraph 2). The party’s Statute shall not allow any person that has promoted or promotes “extremist ideas or actions (racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism etc.)” to join the party (Article 10, paragraph 1, point g). The PMP members are obliged to “promote the values and the principles of the People’s Movement Party and to contribute to the achievement of the party’s objectives” (Article 17, paragraph 1, point b). Moreover, -ac cording to the Statute, a candidate for president of the party must submit a political agenda called motion which shall also include “measures promoting the purpose, values and objectives of the People’s Movement Party in accordance with the Party’s Statute” (Article 78) thus including the measures for respect and promotion of human dignity. However, given that human dignity is a term with wide coverage, this provision does not signify that a candidate for the position of president of the party must explicitly undertake to combat discriminatory or hate speech. As regards the penalties applicable to members of the party, these are: the exclusion, for serious and repeated violations of the Statutes, “bringing prejudice to the values and principles laid down by the Party Agen-

30 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

da” (Article 22), or for minor violations, the “written warning, temporary suspension from the office, for- max imum six months, the suspension of the membership of the People’s Movement Party for a maximum period of one year, revocation of the position in the party or the position to which he was appointed or elected due to his membership, or withdrawal of political support for the public service office obtained through the People’s Movement Party’s political support.”

United Romania Party United Romania Party was founded around the deputy Bogdan Diaconu after his separation from the Social Democratic Party because of its association with UDMR at the government. During the previous year, Bogdan Diaconu, the main vector image of the party and also its leader, had a series of legislative initiatives on the restriction of the rights of the Hungarian minority, the change of the name Roma in “Gypsy”, or criminal sanctions for those who bring prejudice to the national symbols. The Facebook page of Mr. Diaconu, lacking of any moderation from his part, frequently attracts extremist comments against the Hungarian and Roma minorities, including references to historical figures convicted of war crimes, such as Marshal Ion Antonescu. Romania Unit- ed Party is a populist party that has a “national democratic” doctrine. According to its Statute, the party is acting “against the defamation of the Country and the Nation, against the incitement to war of aggression, to ethnic, racial, class or religious hatred, against violent and obscene conducts, contrary to morality” (Article 7, paragraph 2). The party’s agenda principles also indicate “the combat against any kind of extremism” (Article 10, paragraph 6). According to Article 14, the persons “promoting violence and any form of extremism” may not become members of United Romania Party (Article 5). It is worth mentioning that under the same article, the party shall not grant membership to any persons “suffering from mental disorders” (Article 14, paragraph 4). Such provision, as part of the political party Statute, may be considered a form of discriminatory speech in itself. If a person “no longer fulfills the conditions required for holding the membership of the party”, she or he shall be excluded (Article 23, paragraph 5, point 3). The sanctions that may apply to the party members “who fail to respect the country’s laws, the Statute, the party Doctrine and Agenda, the Internal Rules, the party instructions, the General Secretary’s circulars, the party’s governing bodies’ decisions and resolutions as well as the members deviating from the party line with prejudice thereof “, thus including any person who might have engaged in speech affecting human dignity, are represented by: “reprimand or written warning; temporary suspension from the leading position; dismissal from the leading position; withdrawal of political support – this sanction is applied by the National Permanent Office, along with the request for the honorific resignation from the public office or dignitary position”(Article 30). The exclusion from the party constitutes a sanction requiring verifications by the General Assembly of the main organization that the party member is a part of, or in the case of the members in leading positions, it can be decided by a “resolution or decision of the governing bodies hierarchically superior or of the National Per- manent Bureau “(article 31). The party has a Code of Ethics, but has not responded to authors’ requests for consultation.

The Humanist Power Party The Humanist Power Party emerged after the separation of the Conservative Party from its honorary chairman, Dan Voiculescu, following his conviction to imprisonment. The Humanist Power Party is a social-liberal party.

31 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The party assumes as a fundamental value, in Article 3, point a) from the Statutes, “the free expression of human personality by the full exercise of fundamental human rights and freedoms”. Such reference may be deemed to indirectly protect against discriminatory or hate speech, as contrary to human rights. A direct reference to human dignity is found in Article 4 of the Statute: “The Humanist Power Party (social-liberal) is the party engaged in politically representation of all those who believe in democracy and value, in the necessity of the fulfillment of one’s personality and affirmation of human dignity.” However, further in the article, the text suggests an understanding of the concept of human dignity more likely in terms of quality of life and less likely in terms of protection granted at the discourse level for the individuals belonging to the groups vulnerable to hate speech: “Since personality and human dignity may be sustained only in the conditions of a certain level of welfare, The Humanist Power Party (social-liberal) supports the interests of the private entrepreneurs and the private initiative, advocating for social solidarity in the benefit of the disadvantaged categories”. Regarding the criteria for exclusion of candidates to membership of the Humanist Power Party, the Statute indicates the promotion of extremism, fascism, anarchism, racism, chauvinism and any “other extremist or contrary to human rights and fundamental freedoms ideas or actions “ (Article 12, point c). The use of the present tense of the verb “to promote” may be noticed, suggesting that this restriction applies only to those who continue to promote these types of ideologies or those who did so recently, while creating a “loophole” allowing to become party members to those who are guilty of historical records. For committing any acts that contravene the Statute, the members may be sanctioned with: “verbal warning, written warning, dismissal from the leading position, withdrawal of the political support and expulsion from the party” (Article 16, paragraph 1).

The Romanian Social Party The Romanian Social Party was founded following the separation from the Social Democratic Party of a group of members, the most famous of which being Mircea Geoană and Marian Vanghelie. The party has a center-left orientation. According to its Statute, The Romanian Social Party undertakes to place “in the center of society: work, honesty and the dignity of the human being” (Article 5, paragraph 1). Another concept referred to in the intro- ductory articles of the Statute and that may be related to combating the discriminatory and hate speech is that of human rights: “The Romanian Social Party defends human rights and fundamental freedoms and respects the right to cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic identity of the Romanian citizens belonging to national minorities, in accordance with the international regulations “(Article 6). The persons “promoting violence or any form of extremism” may not become members of the party (Article 20, paragraph 1). Once again, the present tense of the verb is used, thus leaving a way of access within the party for those persons who have promoted different forms of extremism in the past. We find particularly interesting paragraph 2 of Article 20, which states that “should one of the incompatibility cases listed above (point 1) occur after becoming a member of The Romanian Social Party, the membership shall be revoked de jure “. This article provides the basis for the “cleansing” of the party of any extremist-minded members which are guilty of incitement to hate speech. On the other hand, however, the term “withdrawal of the membership” is not referred to elsewhere in the Statute, the conclusion being that there is no implementing procedure for this provision. Regarding the sanctions to be applied to party members, these are: reprimand, written warning, suspension from the leading position, removal from the leading position, temporary suspension from the party, exclusion from the party (Article 32, paragraph 1).

32 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania The Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania’s Statute contains no provision to be invoked in cases of hate speech committed by its members.

3.2. Self-regulations of the media organizations

The media in Romania has failed to develop during the period after 1989 strong associative structures that would be able to impose rules of conduct or professional values on the industry and among its professionals. These would have been and still are highly needed in an industry which is an essential component of democracy and whose main capital is given by the confidence of the public. In 2015, the best known associative structures of the media industry are the Romanian Press Club and the Media Organizations Convention. The codes of conduct of these two bodies contain rules relating to discrimination in the media and hate speech.

The Romanian Press Club Founded in 1998, the Romanian Press Club (CRP) is an organization representing rather the interests of -me dia owners, having adopted a Code of Ethics and updating it over the years. The CRP aims “to actively participate in improving the quality of the Romanian press and in creating a business environment favorable for media companies.” Although it has the resources and infrastructure required to disseminate and impose this Code among its professionals, the CRP failed to make from this document a landmark even among its member media outlets. The institution has created an implementing department for this Code, The Ethics Council of the CRP, but this department exists only on paper, and its reactions to the violations of the Code are sporadic. The CRP Code of Ethics contains no specific provisions regarding hate speech or discrimination. However, the document contains an article providing for the limitation of references to race, nationality or religion in the cases when “the published information refers to a fact in strict connection with that problem.” In other words, reference to race or nationality in a news report about an offence is irrelevant and incorrect. In general, we notice that ethnicity of the offenders is specified almost exclusively when the offenders belong to the national minorities. Instead, it is never mentioned the ethnicity of the offenders belonging to the majority ethnicity. The reference to ethnicity is relevant when intrinsically related to a deed – e.g. when a person refuses a transplant of organs on grounds of religion, such case being worth mentioning, since the religious beliefs led to a certain situation. “Art. 4 - The race, nationality, belonging to a particular minority (of religion, language, gender) shall be mentioned only in such cases where the information published refers to a fact strictly related to that problem. The journalist will avoid detailing any vices or morbid elements related to crimes. “

The Media Organizations Convention The Media Organizations Convention (COM) is an “informal coalition of journalist associations, other professionals in the media, trade unions and employers” established in 2002, with “the desire to give more visibility and negotiating power to the professionals in the media”. COM coordination and technical secretariat have been provided by the Center for Independent Journalism and by ActiveWatch. COM adopted in 2004 two self-regulatory documents: the Journalist’s Statutes and the COM Code of Ethics. Later, in 2009, COM coordinated the drafting and adoption of the Unified Code of Ethics, which summarizes the provisions of over 15 different

33 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

self-regulatory documents. COM does not have an implementing body for the Code, leaving to each member to define its own implementing machinery. The Unified Code of Ethics adopted by the Media Organizations Convention explicitly prohibits the discrimination and speech inciting to hatred and violence. The Code also includes an article similar to the one from the CRP Code, stating that race, nationality and belonging to a particular community shall be mentioned only if relevant to the subject under discussion. 13.1. The journalist has a duty not to discriminate or incite to hatred and violence. The race, nationality or belonging to a particular community (religious, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, etc.) shall be mentioned only if the information is relevant to the subject under discussion. The only professional organization having a functional implementing mechanism of the Code is the Associ- ation of Hungarian Language Journalists in Romania (AJMR).

The Romanian Association of Audiovisual Communications Another self-regulatory document that has circulated in the media market since 2011, was assumed, at least declaratively, by the newsrooms with the highest audience, meaning the major national television broadcasters and radio stations. The Code belongs to the Romanian Association of Audiovisual Communications (ARCA), an employers’ association that brings together the main companies of radio and television in Romania and whose aim is to “maintain and develop a legislative, regulatory and administrative environment, favorable to invest- ments in the audiovisual field, as well as a competitive context favorable to the development, both in public and private interest in this area”. The ARCA Code of Ethics gained visibility due to the 2011 decision of the National Broadcasting Council to impose the broadcasters to assume a code of ethics. Thus, most of the major broadcasters have accepted this Code. Despite the fact that it has the greatest implementing possibilities, being institutionally undertaken by the most influential media outlets in the market, the ARCA Code of Ethics has the same insignificant impact as the rest of the ethical codes in the market, due to the lack of any real interest of the broadcasters in applying the rules set forth by these documents. This lack of interest is exemplified by the final paragraph of the Code, setting forth the “Presumption of creativity”. We will quote this paragraph entirely: <>. This paragraph or “principle” actually gives the measure of the interest and willingness of the major players in broadcasting with regards to imposition of certain minimum ethical and editorial standards on the market. The ARCA has no implementing mechanism for this Code. The ARCA Code recommends broadcasters to “capitalize” “anti-discrimination principles in a proactive manner” through their broadcasted editorial content. Still, the next sentence limits the scope of this recommendation to “the principle of equality between women and men” and to “combating prejudgments contrary to this principle”, leaving out of this regulation other cases of discrimination. “For the construction of the civic values, the broadcasters may consider valuing the anti-discrimination principles in a proactive manner, by promoting such content as to lead to understanding the importance of the value heritage on human equality of rights. In this respect, attention shall be paid to the principle of equality between women and men and to combating the prejudgments that contradict this principle. “

34 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Other self-regulatory documents issued by organizations or projects outside the media professionals/industry A non-governmental organization, the Centre for Independent Journalism, drafted in 2002 a document exclusively designed on how the journalists should report about minorities, The Guide of Good Practices in Reporting on Minorities. The guide was developed within the program Minorities in the medialaunched by the IJC in 2001 - 2002 in cooperation with the MEDE European Consultancy and The National Office for Roma. We quote from the guide:

GUIDE OF GOOD PRACTICES IN REPORTING ON MINORITIES IN THE ROMANIAN PRESS 1. Respect your fellows regardless of the gender, education level, age, ethnic or religious belonging, sexual or political orientation; 2. Do not mention the level of education, age or ethnicity, religion, sexual or political orientation of the people you report of, unless it is relevant in the context; 3. Ask the people involved on how they desire to be identified and use this name in your report; 4. Avoid sensationalism based on stereotypes and prejudgments; 5. Identify your own stereotypes and prejudgments and make sure that this does not affect the account; 6. Impose a neutral tone when using news from other sources; 7. Show balance and eliminate negative or positive discrimination terms; 8. Do not mix personal experiences in the press reports about a minority, because they are irrelevant; 9. Pay equal attention to all parties in the subject reported; 10. Include among your sources representatives of minorities, for a wider reflection of the society; 11. Be aware that, between you and the minorities you report about, there may be cultural differences blocking the access to information; 12. Correct the grammar of the quotes if they put your sources in a negative light; 13. Report with the desire to build bridges of understanding between categories, groups of people or individual options. “

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE CYBERSPACE This Code of Ethics is the result of the debate “Virtual hate vs. real responsibility”, during which S.P.E.R. and its guests drew attention on the intolerant speech propagated through the Internet, and of a subsequent process of consultation with representatives of the online space. We quote from the code: “The Anti-Discrimination Code of Ethics is a set of aspirations aiming at the empowerment of the virtual message and the transformation of the online environment into a place where the fundamental human rights are respected. This code is not a unique product of the initiators, nor a set of mandatory rules, but a statement that any blogger may adopt to publicly express his commitment to nondiscriminatory ethical principles and his concern for eliminating the online racist, xenophobic or sexist contents. You are important for the success of this approach, so we invite you to read the code of ethics and adopt it on your websites / blogs together with the symbol-stamp of this initiative. Technical details can be found accessing the link: http://www.sper.org.ro/blog/?p=61

35 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

I. Preamble manifesto Every person has the right to freedom of expression as long as it does not bring prejudice to the fundamental rights of others. Online media is a tool that offers new possibilities of communication and new ways to serve the public. Like other means of mass communication, online media has to build its credibility, as does the traditional media. Such means by which online media may gain credibility and may enhance its quality is undertaking self-regulatory mechanisms similar to those applicable in the traditional media. The user-generated content is essential in building online communities and using the Internet interactivity potential. The user-generated content is also an element of the online media that contributes to the expansion of the market of ideas, providing the opportunity to deepen certain topics of interest and connecting people with similar interests. The balanced moderation in the chat-rooms helps improving the quality of the entire content, adding power and confidence to the online content and boosting the debates. By contrast, the lack of moderation in debates may lead to insults, personal attacks and comments of questionable quality, which put in a negative light the advertised product. The drafting of a code of ethics for the online media comes as an alternative to recent legislative initiatives which might seriously impact on freedom of expression. The existing legislation already contains regulations imposing criminal penalties for speech inciting to hatred, xenophobia, Holocaust denial or promoting fascist ideologies. This code of ethics must be perceived as a set of aspirations and not as a set of rules, a manifesto which publicly expresses the attachment towards ethical nondiscriminatory principles. The society is diversified both in terms of skin color, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender and in terms of opinions, political views and religion. The Code of Ethics is a guide of ethical principles which underline any open society in which people are not socially excluded on the basis of ethnicity, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. This code does not have a real implementing mechanism. The implementing of existing ethical principles herein is made by its undertaking by every actor involved, these applying to any forms of online content: text, audio, video, photos. Undertaking the ethical code represents a gesture of solidarity for the transformation of the online space in an environment in which human rights are respected. II. Rules When writing the materials and moderating the reviews that mention minorities and vulnerable groups, the authors and moderators of online content, responsibly will: • promote freedom of expression, encouraging debates and contradictory discussions, even when disagree- ing with their content; • respect dialogue partners, by combating the ideas, not by attacking the dialogue partners; • discourage discrimination through the Internet. Insults or racist, homophobic, sexist or discriminatory statements against minorities or disadvantaged groups and the incitement to hatred are intolerable; • avoid any incitement to violence and to committing illegalities through messages and comments; • respect the dignity of their fellows and avoid mentioning the belonging to a specific minority or vulnerable group where irrelevant, whether it is a national minority, ethnic, racial, religious, sexual, age or disability and any other criterion that could generate discrimination;

36 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

• avoid using stereotypes and prejudgments about race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, disability, HIV-positive status or any other criterion; they shall identify their own prejudgments and stereotypes and will ensure that these shall not affect communication; • respect the right of each person or group of people to self-identification / to be called as wanted. “

Conclusions • Self-regulation of the media exists only on paper. The codes of ethics are not enforced and there are no functional bodies to ensure the compliance thereof. • There is a generalized lack of interest of the professionals and the industry in undertaking and imposing minimum ethical and professional standards. • The fragmentation of the professionals fully contribute to this situation. This division may also be found at the level of professional associations, which have multiplied, without any significant impact for the industry or the public. • Unfortunately, we still have to wait many years for those documents to be implemented. A closer stake would be for them to become (re)known within the guild, to exist a critical mass of journalists who adopt them and fight for their observance.

Recommendations • The existing codes of ethics (as well as their provisions on discrimination / hate speech) should be dissem- inated in public. • The public has the opportunity to push the media industry towards its empowering referring to various ethical violations, including discriminatory ones and hate speech. • The media has a chance to stop the prominent discrediting which affects it, by undertaking and imposing minimum ethical and professional standards.

3.3. Self-regulations of the advertising industry

Unlike the media, the advertising industry has managed to undertake a unique self-regulatory code (The Code of Advertising Practice) and to create a functional mechanism for its implementation. The Code of Adver- tising Practice was drafted and adopted by the Romanian Advertising Council or RAC, a professional, non-governmental organization, established in 1999. RAC has 69 members: companies, advertising agencies, media and associations. According to its authors, “The Code represents a set of ethical rules to be observed by all those involved in advertising and in any form of commercial communication” whose aim is “to support the development of a decent and honest business environment in Romania by providing a guide of forms and content for a correct, honest and decent information of the consumers and industry.” The Code of Advertising Practice has several points exclusively dedicated to discrimination and incitement to violence. These points are referred to in the article on the social responsibility of the organizations from the advertising industry. It expressly prohibits any statements or representations inciting to verbal, physical or -men tal violence. Moreover, the organizations undertaking the Code must respect human dignity “in all respects”. The groups vulnerable to hate speech are explicitly indicated and cover the main targets of this type of discourse in Romania. However, at the end of the list of vulnerable groups the abbreviation “etc.” is also added, so that the

37 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Code may be also applied in cases which refer to less “traditional” targets of the discriminatory speech. “Article 6 - Social Responsibility 6.1 – Communication must not contain any form of discrimination or defamation based on social or political criteria, race, nationality, gender, age, religion, origin, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation etc. 6.2 – The communication must respect human dignity in all aspects. 6.3 – The communication must not contain claims or representations that incite to verbal, mental or physical violence. “

3.4. Self-regulations of media outlets

This report also includes an analysis of the main moderation tools used by the most read23 online information resources: Adevărul, Evenimentul Zilei, Gândul, Hotnews, Mediafax and Ziare.com. The analysis followed, especially, if the monitored websites publish special warnings regarding the users’ behavior in the chat room and if there are specific rules aimed at limiting hate speech or racist conducts. In our analysis we also sought for the visibility of the conditions (rules) of communication in the spaces allocated to readers’ interaction. Fi- nally, for each monitored website we identified the main strengths and weaknesses in terms of maintaining a balanced framework for debates. A novelty is brought by Gazeta Sporturilor (www.gsp.ro 24), the only online publication in Romania that has started, in the spring of 2015, a civic-educational project25 aimed at reducing the intensity of hateful and offensive speech among its own users. Thus, since April 6th 2015, Gazeta Sporturilor started a most ambitious process of monitoring and moderating the comments on the publication’s website. The moderation process was semi-automated, using both a moderation software and the interaction of the editorial team members with the readers, explaining certain decisions of moderation related to the inadequate comments. After seven weeks of testing this system, the experiment’s authors found that “out of the 80,000 posts from the users, 60,000 did not require moderation”, thus confirming the hypothesis that “the violent voices on the net are a minority, but they seem more because of their ubiquity 26”. Beyond its effort to monitor the flow of comments on the website, the team from Gazeta Sporturilor has developed a Regulation on rules for comments’ publication and moderation, entitled The Rules of the Game. This Regulation of www.gsp.ro is formulated in a personal and accessible style, centered on discouraging the intolerant online discourse and promoting the civilized and substantiated debates.

Strengths:  Creation of a detailed regulation regarding the site policy on moderation of comments, in an accessible language, that does not allow any abusive interpretations.

23 According to SATI audience data for the period November 2014 - October 2015. The ranking was made on the basis of the median audiences obtained by each site. 24 According to SATI, the website www.gsp.ro holds the third position in the ranking of the most read sports sites in Ro- mania, with monthly median audience of about 3.2 million unique visitors. Article “Only 1 in 4 posts of the site (Ed: Sports Gazette website) contains verbal violence - We do live in moderation ICEEFEST 2015,” published on the website www.tolo. ro on May 28, 2015. 25 The project LESS HATE, MORE SPEECH, funded by Norway Grants, in partnership with the Median Research Center (think tank in Romania), University of Bergen from Norway and the Central European University from Budapest. 26 Article “Only 1 in 4 posts of the site (Ed: the website of Gazeta Sporturilor) contains verbal violence – We’ll do a live moderation on ICEEFEST 2015,” published on the websitewww.tolo.ro on May 28th, 2015.

38 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

 Discouraging the anonymity, by imposing on the users to login either through their Face- book account, or through their account registered on the publication’s website.

Weaknesses:  The moderation Regulation is not visible on the website homepage, but only accessible before posting a comment.  In the comments section, the regulation has a poor visibility, being displayed as a general option like “I agree with the website terms and conditions”.

Adevărul The website www.adevarul.ro has the most consistent policy for comment moderation, focusing on the basic rules that users must observe when engaging in commenting/ discussing a topic. The website editorial team has developed specific regulations on the comments’s regime. The manual is published in the footer menu of the website and it benefits of a separate link to the document. The section Terms and Conditions also contains a number of details of the conditions imposed on users who want to comment on website of the journal. This Regulation is written in an accessible language, focusing on the goal of the newspaper to build a community and a space for debates as “agreeable” as possible, promoting freedom of expression but discouraging insults, obscene language and spam. Nevertheless, from the preamble, the editorial team announces its mod- erator’s role in the interactions on the publication’s website. The Regulation also contains an appeal to the community members to refer any situations when certain offensive messages have passed the moderation filter. Although the comments policy rules aim in particular to maintain a non-conflicting and free of insults framework for debates and arguments, the editorial team states that racist messages or those that incite to hate will not be approved for publication. However, users are warned that, for repeated violations of the rules and principles contained in the comments regulation, they risk the permanent banning on the Adevărul website. The section Terms and conditions reiterates the duties and responsibilities of www.adevarul.ro community members, directly related to the messages they promote on the website. The conditions are written in an -ac cessible language, with an emphasis on user empowerment. Thus, users are “recommended” not to promote messages that discriminate on criteria such as “religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, region, ethnicity or disability”. Although the document states that the language of hate speech is subject to “strict rules” of moderation, there is no reference to legislation in force, the only sanction invoked by the editorial team being the exclusion from the Adevărul community and its website.

Strengths:  The creation of special regulations which contain principles and rules for posting comments on the website  Language accessibility and the appeal to the involvement of Adevărul community members in the moderation process  The possibility to post comments only through the special account on the website or directly from the Facebook account (discouraging tendency to publish anonymously, increased trace- ability for content published by users)

39 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Weaknesses:  The users are not warned of the legal consequences of the messages inciting to hate or violence  The responsibility bears exclusively on the user, even though, legally, the responsibility is shared between the user and the website owner.

Evenimentul Zilei The website of Evenimentul Zilei does not contain a special set of rules on publishing comments and/or their contents, and in the section Terms and conditions only copyright limitations are mentioned. However, in the chat room, each user is warned about the minimum standards of communication and the mechanism of moderation. There are no specific provisions related to hate speech or racist conduct, but only a general statement on the use of a “civilized language” in an attempt to limit the concerted or targeted attacks from those users generic called “trolls”. The warning message states that only comments published directly on the website will be moderated, while the ones published through the Facebook platform are published instantly. Thus, users who provide a valid e-mail may post comments held for moderation, while comments of those who sign in directly from Facebook accounts may be published without moderation.

Strengths:  The visibility of the warning regarding the rules applicable to the comments prior to their publication;

Weaknesses:  High degree of generality and interpretability of the term “civilized language”;  Lack of warning of the users on the legal consequences entailed by the messages inciting to hate or violence  The exclusion by moderation of the comments posted through the Facebook platform;

Gândul The website www.gandul.info does not contain any special provisions relating to the quality of the comments and interactions. In the section Terms and conditions the website disclaims any responsibility for the opinions expressed by the users. The users are also invited to refer to an e-mail address any violation of copyright or any other rights, where the phrase “any other rights” provides a wide space for interpretation. Users are warned, before posting a comment, that any offensive comments containing obscene language or inciting to breach of the laws, to violence or hatred, will be removed. The users are also encouraged to report any abusive comments published on the website. For posting a comment on the website Gândul it is sufficient to provide a valid e-mail address.

Strengths:  Visibility of the warning regarding the rules applicable to the comments prior to their publication;

40 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Weaknesses:  Lack of warning of the users on the legal consequences entailed by the messages inciting to hate or violence  High degree of generality in defining the rights that could be harmed by posting the comments  The responsibility bears exclusively on the user, even though, legally, the responsibility is shared between the user and the website owner.

Hotnews The website www.hotnews.ro does not contain specific guidance related to comments moderation, however Article 9 of the Terms and Conditions section explicitly states the right to remove the messages deemed discriminatory by the website administrator without providing any classification of such cases. The same level of generality may be also identified in the chat room, where the users are warned on the legal responsibility entailed by the messages posted, without specifying the cases of deviation from the legal framework. In order to post a comment it is sufficient to provide a valid e-mail address. In lack of a specific account on the website Hotnews, the user will be visible as “Anonymous”.

Strengths:  Existence of the warning regarding the rules applicable to the comments prior to their publication;

Mediafax Only in the section Terms and conditions, the website www.mediafax.ro warns the users on its right to remove any message that may bring prejudice to a “legally protected right”, without providing for message classifications or types of discrimination. Moreover, the Mediafax team states that the interpretation of such situations is subject to Mediafax “discretion”. The publication of the comments is easy and requires only a valid e-mail without any further warnings relating to the rules of comments posting.

Weaknesses:  Lack of warning of the users on the legal consequences entailed by the messages inciting to hate or violence  High degree of generality in defining the protected legal rights and arbitrary interpretation

41 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

of the violation of such rights  The responsibility bears exclusively on the user, even though, legally, the responsibility is shared between the user and the website owner.

Ziare.com The website www.ziare.com informs its readers only in Article 2 of the Terms and Conditions section on the prohibition to post any messages which are “racist, chauvinist or that might discriminate any person in any way or that would violate any other human rights and freedoms according to the laws in force”. Although the website explicitly states that any acts of discrimination or actions that may harm individual rights and freedoms are “strictly prohibited”, it does not provide for more details about the “laws in force”. Before posting a comment, the user is not warned of the limitations presented in the Terms and Conditions section. Posting a comment is only possible when users have an account on www.ziare.com;

Strengths:  Existence of the provisions regarding the interdiction to post racist, chauvinistic and discriminatory contents

Weaknesses:  Unclear definition of the “laws in force”.  Absence of warning on the rules applicable to the comments prior their publication  The responsibility bears exclusively on the user, even though, legally, the responsibility is shared between the user and the website owner.

3.5. Self-regulations of the sport federations

The world of sport has been one of the social areas where hate speech, racism, xenophobia or violence were displayed most visibly. The spirit of fair-play was tarnished by often violent events, to which the sport authorities responded with rather too much delay. Subsequently, the regulations adopted, especially in the football world, have been successful and the frequency of such events decreased significantly. We selected for this study three sports areas - football, hockey and handball, areas where xenophobic or violent manifestations took place. We analyzed the internal documents which regulate these sports, seeking for specific rules on speech inciting to hatred or violence, on racist, xenophobic, violent conducts. We also sought for information on the real actions taken by the sport federations for the prevention of such behaviors. Regarding the regulations, concerning the Romanian Football Federation and the Handball Federation we have identified specific references to these behaviors, while in the case of the Romanian Federation of Ice -Hock ey we found only one document published on its website, consisting in the international rules of conduct for the ice hockey game. The Romanian Football Federation is the only one having published information on the concrete actions taken to prevent racism, violence and xenophobia behaviors. The other two federations have not displayed any information in this regard.

42 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

We directly contacted the three federations to ask for information on their regulations and on the specific actions taken in the areas covered by our study. None of the institutions responded to our request.

The Romanian Football Federation (RFF) A lot of internal regulations may be found in the football world. Some of them state forth prohibited behaviors, other indicate the penalties for such acts. There are regulations exclusively dedicated to speech inciting to hatred or violence. There are also a lot of sanctions against racist, discriminatory, xenophobic or offensive behavior. All are sanctioned with severe pun- ishments by the RFF regulations. These regulations are, in part, a necessary response to racist, xenophobic and violent behaviors that marked local football, especially over the past 20 years. The phenomenon escalated after 1995, together with the development of the ultras phenomenon, reaching alarming levels during the late 90s and early 2000s. Slogans, signs, banners with racist messages or worshipping persons guilty for crimes against humanity were often expressed by football firms. Fights between the supporters of different teams or violence between supporters and the police forces were frequent. The football officials were expressing, without any reserves, racist opinions, -en couraging the supporters’ behaviors. Initially, the football authorities have not recognized the seriousness of this problem that was affecting the Romanian football, preferring to ignore it. It took the penalties imposed by international bodies (UEFA) and its pressure to determine the RFF and LPF to react and intervene with regulatory measures or with concrete actions to combat such events. The last 4-5 years have witnessed a significant decrease of racist or xenophobic conduct in the Romanian stadiums, attesting that the football authorities’ intervention took effect. It should also be noticed the solution adopted in the legislation which complemented the internal rules of RFF. In 2008, the Parliament passed the Law no.4/2008 on preventing and combating violence at sport competitions and games, a controversial project containing lots of provisions that leave room for abuse. Another encouraging fact is that violent incidents occurred on the stadiums or around have also become more and more rare during the recent years. Elements of self-regulation The founding document of the Romanian Football Federation, the RFF Statute, announces in its preamble that the RFF shares the 11 UEFA fundamental principles, respect being one of them. Under Article 8, point n) of the same document, “combating violence and racism” is one of the aims and objectives of the RFF. Among the responsibilities of RFF, the Statute also mentiones undertaking the “measures to prevent and combat violence at football matches, and to promote the spirit of fair-play and tolerance in football activities” as well as conducting “activities of active citizenship, social responsibility and social inclusion “(Article 9). RFF adopts the political, ethnic and religious neutrality and expressly prohibits discrimination (Article 10 - Diversity and non-discrimination). “RFF is politically, religiously and ethnically neutral. Discrimination of any kind against a country, a person or groups of people based on ethnicity, gender, language, religion, political or any other reason is prohibited. Any kind of discrimination, direct or indirect, is sanctioned by the disciplinary regulations of FIFA / UEFA / RFF, as appropriate. “ From an institutional perspective, there is a committee dedicated to combating discrimination, “The Com- mittee for fair-play and combating discrimination”, responsible for developing “programs related to fair-play and combat of any form of discrimination” (Article 55).

43 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

According to the Statute, the local football associations responsible for organizing competitions in counties and towns also have duties in combating violence. These were delegated powers in regards to the application of measures to “(...) promote the spirit of fair-play, prevent and combat violence at football games (...)” The Organization and Functioning Regulations (ROF) oblige all the clubs to implement the UEFA 10 -mea sures program on combating racism. The organizing club also has to instruct the stadium announcer not to broadcast discriminating news against the visitor team. (Art. 56, ROF)

Acts prohibited by the RFF regulations Article 82 of the RFF Discipline Regulations sets forth the acts considered “wrongful conduct”. Among them are “the displaying in any form, of racist, xenophobic and offensive inscriptions, the chanting of insulting and obscene words/expressions or the expression of sounds for offensive purposes”. Article 83 treats with the non-observance of the duties in organizing the games by the organizers and includes “any form of displaying racist, xenophobic and offensive inscriptions, the chanting of insulting and obscene words/expressions or the expression of sounds for offensive purposes”. Hate speech is mentioned in the RFF organization and functioning regulation. It imposes on the organizing clubs an obligation to prohibit “displaying on any medium, in the sports arena, of symbols, slogans or texts with obscene content or inciting to country denigration, xenophobia, national, racial, class or religious hatred, discrimination of any kind and violence”(Art. 58 ROF)

Penalties The Discipline Regulations contain specific rules regarding the penalties imposed for racism, xenophobia or discrimination. The penalties are: suspension of the players, technical team, coaches, as well as of the officials; fines; games without spectators, up to prohibition of games on own stadium, losing the game by forfeit, penalty decrease of 2-6 points or exclusion from the competition. (Art. 50 and Art. 54 of the Discipline Regulations). The incitement to hatred or violence committed by the players, coaches or officials is severely punished with suspensions for longer periods of time. Article 50 - Incitement to hatred, violence and offensive behavior punishes the players or officials for publicly inciting / calling to an offensive or contemptuous behavior or- atti tude. The same article indicates the incitement to a violent behavior or to hatred, its penalty taking the form of suspension from 10 to 16 matches when the act was committed by a player or a coach and the suspension from 4 to 6 months when the act was committed by an official. The penalties are doubled if committed via the media or on the day of the game. Racist behavior inside the stadium may be sanctioned by the referees with extreme measures, including interruption, suspension or termination of the matches. (Art. 83, Discipline Regulation and Art. 58, ROF). The display by the spectators of inscriptions containing discriminatory/defamatory/racist/ xenophobic slogans leads to severe fines applicable to the clubs supported by those spectators, while the spectators who are responsible for such acts risk over two years of banning from access to the stadiums . Propaganda for extremist ideologies is also prohibited and severely punished, both during game and before or after. The fines in this case can reach up to 70,000 lei. (Art. 54 of the Discipline Regulations)

Actions carried out RFF is quite active in organizing social events, designed to promote football in society, most of them having

44 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

charity purposes and having as beneficiaries the disadvantaged children or youth. At the same time, these events are carried out in partnership with various NGOs. The RFF is also currently working on an antidiscrimination strategy, a document prepared in collaboration with NGOs and public institutions and which, in its present form, provides not only the actions the RFF may take to decrease the level of discrimination in football but also the actions and campaigns using the popularity of sports and athletes in order to help reducing discrimination in Romania.

Recommendations We consider that a more pro-active attitude on the side of the football authorities (RFF, LPF) and the clubs is required to prevent racist or violent incidents. The authorities may initiate programs for the clubs, to drawn attention of the leaders on the risks implied by such behaviors. An open dialogue with the supporters is also required, both on behalf of the football authorities and the clubs, to identify effective ways of preventing racist or violent incidents, even only to avoid the severe penalties that may be imposed on the club teams or the national team. Equally, the RFF may start educational programs for children and youth football lovers, both for those registered in various clubs, and those who love football.

Romanian Handball Federation RHF Statute Non-discrimination is mentioned as part of the main objective of the RHF. According to its Statute, the main objective of the RHF isthe development and promotion of handball in Romania, in all its forms and without any discrimination on political, religious, racial, nationality, gender or age grounds. Among the responsibilities of the RHF there is the responsibility to “take measures to prevent and combat violence, as well as to promote fair-play and tolerance in sport”.

National League Male-Female Regulations This document contains no specific provisions regarding the incidents which involve racist or discriminatory behavior. Instead, there is a standard form for the reports on the technical game meetings, mentioning such provisions.

RHF Discipline Regulations The Discipline Regulations sanctions match organizers for “chanting of racist slogans, acts of violence or vandalism.” The penalties may reach up to losing the match by the home team or the revocation of the right to organize certain official games at home. Conclusions The RHF has specific regulations sanctioning racist behavior and chanting. There are no direct references to hate speech. It is worth noticing that the main objective of the RHF, according to its Statute, mentions non-discrimination on political, religious, racial, nationality, gender or age grounds.

45 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Romanian Ice Hockey Federation (RIHF) Self-regulatory elements The RIHF has not posted any document on its functioning (Statutes, Regulations for Organization and Func- tioning, Discipline Regulations etc.) on its own website. The only document displayed is a document of the International Ice Hockey Federation – The Official Rules thereof. This document contains a rule sanctioning with penalty the threats and insults that are racial or ethnic oriented.

46 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

4. Manifestations of hate speech in public space

This chapter of the report is dedicated to an overview of the main manifestations of hate speech in the public space. The main hate speech slippages of the politicians or other public figures that occurred during Oc- tober 2014 - October 2015 are listed in the first section, as well as a few interesting cases from the press or from football supporters. The second part of the chapter, taking the form of a “calendar of hatred”, focuses on the press topics that, due to their specificity or how they were handled by the journalists, went out of control and have generated waves of hatred in the public discourse around them. Finally, the third section gives an overview of the organized forms of hate speech that took the shape of hateful public events (marches of the organization The New Right – which recently became a political party - who targeted vulnerable groups to hate speech as well as the LGBT community and the Hungarians or the Roma) or various cultural products (for example, the book “The unseen face of homosexuality”).

4.1. Hate speech in the public area

In the Romanian public space, hate is democratically distributed. Statements inciting to hatred target the Hungarians, Romanians in diaspora, Roma, Romanians working abroad, sexual minorities, Jews, women, Mol- davians and Muslims. Consequently, the authors do not pretend to have presented all the manifestations of hate speech from this period. The cases presented were chosen either because of the public figure quality of the hate speech promoters, or because of the seriousness of the language used or of the situation (such as the article on Roma from the newspaper Glasul Sălajului or the admiration for Adolf Hitler expressed by a leader of PSD Olt) or to illustrate the status quo of the Romanian society, to which very few people seem to give due importance.

On TVR1, Gheorghe Funar called Hungarian the “language of horses” During the election campaign, in a debate TV show from October 2014 on TVR, Gheorghe Funar had an intervention of hatred against Hungarians. On this occasion, the candidate for President of Romania called Hun- garian the “language of horses”, alleged that this should be used in Budapest, not Bucharest and stated that, should he become President, Hungarian will not be heard in Romania anymore. The NCCD held it as a discrimination act and imposed Gheorghe Funar a fine of 2,000 RON.

Corneliu Vadim Tudor and Miron Cozma, offensive remarks towards diaspora on România TV Corneliu Vadim Tudor and Miron Cozma have been invited on a show on România TV, between the two rounds of presidential elections. On this occasion, the two have made insulting statements towards the Roma- nians working abroad, stating that they deal with begging, calling them “strawberry pickers” and “a bunch of screwed up that have sold your vote”. In addition, Corneliu Vadim Tudor incited to hatred against the Germans, alleging that he can not forget “my ancestors died in the two world wars.” Consequently, the NCCD imposed on the two politicians27 fines worth 2,000 RON each.

27 Miron Cozma is the leader of the Social Democratic Labor Party

47 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Article against Roma published in the newspaper Graiul Sălajului On December 12th 2014, the newspaper Graiul Sălajului published the article “The Roma are not willing to integrate, they would only do it under pressure...” The article contained particularly serious allegations such as “the former Gypsies have more rights than the other citizens on our land. But does this change things for the better? It seems not, since the Roma, with increasing and multiplied rights goes into the wide world. The number of Roma beggars has increased alarmingly, the thefts from homes have also multiplied, the lands remain uncultivated in the area inhabited by Roma colonies because their owners get almost nothing. The Roma steal everything. The Roma jump to the neck of those who don’t relent them with a dime. The Roma break into the houses inhabited by widows or elderly. The Roma make the law in prisons, because 80 percent of the prisoners belong to this ethnic group ... You will never cure the gypsy from stealing - even if you’ve renamed him Roma - nor from lighting the fire in the middle of the room, neither from begging nor from washing once every three months.” The National Council for Combating Discrimination took action and imposed a fine in amount of 2,000 RON.

The Minister of Transport Ioan Rus, insulting statements towards the families of those who left the country to work abroad, on Digi 24 On June 10th 2015, Ioan Rus, the Minister of Transport at that time, stated on a Digi 24 TV broadcast, about the families left behind in the country by the Romanian citizens working abroad, the following: “Currently, Romania has in the West, let’s say, 3 million people from its active force. Out of this, around one million are blacksmith-concreters, blacksmiths and so on. They work in construction, highways across Europe. They might have a 1,500 Euro salary. I say it very directly. With this money, at home, the kids grow into punks and his wife becomes a whore”. Several organizations have filed complaints with the NCCD regarding the statement of the minister. The NCCD found the discrimination act and sanctioned Ioan Rus with a warning.

Mihaela Rădulescu called the persons belonging to the LGBT community “abnormal people” On April 5th, Mihaela Rădulescu posted on her blog the article “Adam and Eve ?! (Tolerance on the back of the normality)”, which included hate speech statements against the sexual minorities: “I think a normal attitude would be not to bother with anything those who choose to be gay, meaning homosexuals, but neither should they, visually speaking. So to say, if they would do their job within four walls, without defiantly displaying a shaped eyebrow, a trimmed and effeminate «love», incomprehensible between two carriers of penis. It would also seem normal to me that minority rights were respected in an equal manner as the rights of the majority. Do not tell me that, as a parent of a boy or even a girl, you are not a bit worried by the idea of seeing them going ... behind the education that you have offered them and do not tell me that you rely more on open-mindedness, than on loading the mind with certain solid and just moral principles.” The LGBT community organized protests against the affirmations of Mihaela Rădulescu and filed charges against her with the NCCD. Discussions which appeared in the public space about the allegations of Mihaela Rădulescu, a member of the jury for of the TV show “Romanians have talent”, provided the opportunity to start the campaign against hate speech in public space “ My answer is NO” implemented for ActiveWatch by the advertising agency FCB Bucharest. It is worth mentioning that Mihaela Rădulescu, despite her apologizes for the article, received threats from private individuals because of the article on her blog.

Dinamo supporters, racist banner against Roma In the match against the team Rapid on the Saturday before Easter 2015, the supporters of the team Di- namo Bucureşti displayed a racist banner, which contained the text of a Romanian proverb that is offensive

48 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

towards the Roma minority “A Gypsy is a Gypsy even on Easter Day “. Dinamo Club received a sanction from the RFF and the supporters who have placed the banner on the stadium have been temporarily refused access to team matches.

Dumitru Dragomir, anti-Semitic statements on a sports television In the show Digisport, Dumitru Dragomir, former President of the Professional Football League, in the context of the scandal of corruption at the highest levels of UEFA, made statements likely to induce the idea that Jews control the decisions because of their financial strength and that they may get away unpunished in almost any situation. Textually, Dragomir stated that “Blatter will be unharmed. The Jewish community is the strongest on earth due to the fact that they have the finances, and America is owned by their banks, Rothschild etc. ... it is far beyond us. “

Daniel Predoiu, leader PSD Olt, admirative post for Adolf Hitler on his Facebook page Daniel Predoiu, a businessman from Caracal and a core member of the organization PSD Olt, published on September 8th 2015, on his Facebook account, a picture of Adolf Hitler, along with the text “I begin to miss one of the most powerful leaders of mankind!” At the request of the PSD President Liviu Dragnea, the governing bodies of PSD Olt met on September 10th and decided the exclusion from the party of Daniel Predoiu.

Cheloo, Nazi symbols in a photo posted on Facebook In July, 2015, in the context of tightening of the Ordinance 31/2002 on banning the organizations and symbols of fascist, legionary, racist and homophobic nature, the publications România TV and Cancan made known to the public that the rapper Cheloo, member of the hip-hop band Paraziții and sympathizer with the extreme-right doctrine, published on his Facebook account a picture of him in a recording studio on whose ceiling a Nazi symbol was painted. At the time of drafting this research report, the photography is not to be found on the artist’s account any more.

Romanian Ambassador to Armenia, jokes about Hebrew, inappropriate remarks about the LGBT community members At a conference at the American University of Armenia, the Romanian Ambassador Sorin Vasile was put in difficulty by a student’s question about the Armenian genocide. The answer given by the Ambassador contained, at first, a series of inappropriate remarks about the LGBT community: “What happened at the beginning of the last century is very complicated ... what is morality? Ok, let’s say ... That is morality. What is morality in a normal couple ... hermaphrodite couple, right? No, not hermaphrodite. Gays and normal people, men and women, right? Are they ok? They are normal, they are moral. But are homosexuals moral or...? So it is like with... you know, everything is relative. This is the answer to your question. For you, it is controversial. For gay couples, for them it is perfect, it is the family model, right? Gay “. Sorin Vasile then continued such negative analogies with a joke about Hebrews: “This is not mathematics. You know policy, strategy, geopolitics. You don’t have 1 + 1. You know, actually, there is a good joke with the Jews. A Jew, important businessman, seeking for an accoun- tant for his company and asking the first candidate how much is 10 + 10? 20, answers the candidate. No, you are no good, get out. The second answers 30. No, neither you, get out. And the third comes and says: “10 + 10? How much do you want it to be? “. Ok, you’re hired. This is not math, to say 1 + 1 makes 2. Next year it will be the 100 years commemoration. I am not telling who is right, who is not right, because I am allowed to say it, but ... it’s complicated.” Although he initially refused, the Ambassador apologized for his words. The Foreign Minister recalled Sorin Vasile Bucharest to explain his remarks, but still kept him in office.

49 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Mădălin Voicu, statements with anti-Semitic character In December 2014, Mădălin Voicu launched an attack on the International Monetary Fund, expressing the words “I understand that world finances are driven by some payots, but I desire to know what is my advantage as a country.” The senator’s anti-Semitic remark was subject of a complaint of the Center for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism before the NCCD.

Radu Bacau, Islamophobic tirades in the context of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. Three days after the bombing in Paris against the editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine by Muslim terrorists, Radu Banciu, during his show at B1 TV, launched in a tirade against this religion’s believers. Among his allegations, we point out: “This idiotic religion has dulled the people, because they all root from this shit that is Islam” and “Go to hell, you idiot! Of course that all this problems happened because of you. Of course, because you radicalized a religion that should not even exist.” A member of the Muslim community in Romania filed a complaint with the NAC, which imposed the B1 TV a fine of 20,000 lei. Within a few days, Radu Banciu made public the email address of the person having filed the complaint to NAC and continued the hateful allegations against the Muslim community: “Sirs, come and run me, you know where. Because I have noticed lately that your method of acting, yours and your community’s is this. Well? So Dobrogea will become a powder keg and perhaps if we continue to ignore you from this panel too, because you’ve send some ultimatums lately, you will come and act accordingly. So far you will take criminal actions against me. OK! Because I dared to comment a caricature and stand up against the clichés of this society. But if you fail in your criminal actions, Lord save you ... Lord, in the nook where you’re looking for Him. I shall not mention Him, because as you know the labels are different there also. You’ll probably find Lord at the office and He’ll help you, but if not, then come and do your job. Usually, you saw, with a bullet to the head the problem is solved. Because you come from a serious world, unlike ours.” These statements were also sanctioned by NAC.

Traian Băsescu, islamophobic statements amid the building of a large mosque in Bucharest and the refugee crisis. Regarding the subject of refugees and Muslims in general, Traian Băsescu has positioned himself on the political “market” so as to attract extreme-right voters. In July, in the context of the public debates with regards to the construction of a large mosque in Bucharest, the former president stated that “Such decisions are unwise, if not anti-national. We have a minority of 60-70,000 Muslims, we have mosques in Constanța, but to build the largest mosque in Europe and bring 6,000 Muslim students. (...) There is no higher risk than to bring Muslim students in a country”. In September, amid the refugee crisis, Traian Băsescu came up with new statements associating Muslims with terrorism and inciting to the rejection of the people with this religion: “I think about the problem in terms of national security. Let us not forget that among these people are Sunni, Shia, people who put bombs reciprocally in their country (...) Why should we Islamize Europe? We should destroy the migrants’ boats and ships, right in the docks. Otherwise immigration will increase each year, will triple from year to year. “

50 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

4.2 Calendar of Hatred

This report provides for an overview on the main topics from the local public agenda, which generated waves of hostility in the public opinion. Thus we analyzed the main six online resources of information28 in Romania, in order to identify those topics that trigger the public hostility towards certain minority groups, the authors of the messages (especially politicians and / or people who enjoy a wide notoriety) as well as the public reactions, especially in the chat rooms. The result thereof, “The calendar of hatred 2014 - 2015” does not ex- haustively render the incidence of hate speech, but offers a panoramic picture of the dynamics of hate speech in the online environment. As a result of analyzing six online publications between November 2014 and October 2015, the most relevant potentially discriminatory topics were: ¾¾ November 2014 - The election campaign, led by the Social Democratic Party and by the candidate Vic- tor Ponta, built on the nationalist-conservative theme “Proud to be a Romanian” ¾¾ February 2015 – Broadcast of the documentary “Romanians are coming” on the British broadcaster, Channel 4 ¾¾ April 2015 - The legislative initiative of replacing the ethnonym Roma with Gypsies, assumed and promoted by the unaffiliated deputy Bogdan Diaconu ¾¾ May 2015 – Organizing of the simultaneous “March of normality” and “Gay Pride” in Bucharest ¾¾ June - September 2015 - The project of building, in Bucharest, “the largest mosque in Europe” ¾¾ August 2015 - Press coverage of a false scandal with regards to a bilingual inscription of a police car from Odorheiul Secuiesc as a result of which, the deputy Bogdan Diaconu submitted to the Chamber of Depu- ties a bill prohibiting the use of Hungarian language in the local administration ¾¾ September-October 2015 – The refugee crisis in Europe and the quotas imposed on Romania by the European Commission

The presidential campaign in 2014 The campaign carried out by the Social Democratic Party and the candidate Victor Ponta focused on populist-nationalist topics under the key messages “The unifying president” and “Proud to be a Romanian”. Since July, with the launch of his candidacy, Victor Ponta declared: “I do not believe that a candidate for President of Romania has a problem by not being orthodox or a Romanian ethnic. I think he has the same rights as myself. But I want something and I say it every time:I do not want anyone to accuse me or to say that it is a fault that I am Romanian or orthodox in my own country. I was born like this, I shall die like this, I am proud of it, and I think that I should be respected for this” (speech in front of the National Council of PSD, held in Craiova on July 29, 2014). This speech of Ponta from the summer was to announce the presidential campaign leitmotifs in the fall and the major attack themes against his main challenger, Klaus Johannis (German ethnic Romanian citizen, Protestant). Although during the official election campaign, Ponta has not come into the spotlight with controversial statements, other members of echelons 1 and 2 of his party came into the attention of Bucharest media with populist-nationalist messages. The most serious incident reported by the central press had as its main actor the PSD Deputy Sorin Avram Iacoban who posted on his personal Facebook page a photo of Klaus Johannis, with Nazi symbols superposed. The gesture of the PSD deputy was sanctioned by the Liberal Christian Alliance (ACL) that filed a criminal complaint against the PSD deputy for the distribution of Nazi symbols.

28 Electronic publications: www.adevarul.ro, www.evz.ro and www.gandul.info. News websites: www.mediafax.ro, www. hotnews.ro and www.ziare.com

51 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

On 4 November 2014, Victor Ponta was starting the final confrontation of the Second Tour with a new nationalist message: “I want to give the message to the voters from Transylvania that our project is a project for Romania and for the people. Mr. Johannis addresses things, I address people, Romanians, Mr. Johannis is a thing, I’m a human, a Romanian as everyone in Transylvania, Moldavia, Oltenia, Bucharest and I want to make a country for people, not for things “(message launched on the official website of former prime minister). Vic- tor Ponta’s message was also supported by Corneliu Vadim Tudor, president of the Greater Romania Party, who declared the same day: “I will never vote for someone who is foreign to our nation and laws”. Despite the consistent campaign aimed at antagonizing the electors with profound nationalistic messages, the public amended the incidents during the campaign and disapproved the messages promoted by the PSD members or other political figures. On November th16 2014, Victor Ponta lost the election to candidate Johannis.

Romanians are coming – the documentary that divided Romania On February 12th 2015, Mediafax announced, with five days in preview, the broadcast of the first episode of the documentary “Romanians are coming”, a documentary created by the British broadcaster, Channel 4, which dealt with the Romanians situation in Great Britain. The trailer aired by the British channel was vehemently criticized by the readers of our six monitored publications, most opinions accusing the filmmakers of the documentary for leading a denigrating campaign against Romania’s image. On February 18th, the second day after the broadcast, all of the six monitored websites published at least one story on the documentary, Gândul and Ziare.com having even more articles on this topic: two, respectively three articles. Evenimentul Zilei and Hotnews reproduced the news from Pro TV news website, with the title: <<”Romanians are coming!” A reportage on Gypsies living in England revolted the Romanians in the kingdom. How this affected their lives >> . On February 19th, the news revolved around the disappointment reaction of Romanian Ambassador to the UK, and in the coming days, news is revealed about the protests of the Romanians living in Great Britain against the bad image of the Romanians showd by this documentary. On March 4th, the next day after the broadcast of the last episode, the news showed the public letter of several Romanian NGOs, accusing the Romanian officials’ reactions of hypocrisy or ignorance. Since then, it has also been shown the intention of some Romanians from Britain, who want to make a documentary in order to present their version of what it means to be an immigrant (the project “13 Shades of Romanian”). In the second part of March, the subject already went off the Romanian websites, reappearing in articles later in April, on the occasion of the presence in Romania of the director of the documentary. During this period, the attitude of journalists was positive towards the Roma in only two opinion pieces, which caused many negative comments. On March 2nd 2015, the newspaper Evenimentul Zilei published the article “A new, but tough look about the Diaspora”, generating 166 comments – most of them critical towards the author and with a negative attitude towards Roma.

Legislative initiative to replace the official name “Roma” with “Gypsy” On April 26th 2015, the independent deputy Bogdan Diaconu announced on the Adevărul blogging platform his intention to submit a “Bill on the reverting to the name” Gypsy “for the Roma people”. Diaconu’s initiative is not new, as in the Romanian political landscape a similar initiative had been undertaken by the former PDL deputy Silviu Prigoană five years ago. Bogdan Diaconu’s recycled initiative was welcomed by his readers’ community on the blogging platform hosted on www.adevarul.ro website.

52 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

The subject brought again on the public agenda by the politician Bogdan Diaconu did not receive coverage, the only publication out of the six monitored outlets that reproduced the story being the websitewww.gandul. info under the title <>. The reaction came promptly: “That’s all he understands! From my point of view, for the idiots, only best wishes!”(April 27th 2015). The reporters of Gândul also presented the reactions of several NGOs’ representatives as well as the position of the President of the National Council for Combating Discrimination, Csaba Asztalos. The latter framed the deputy’s initiative as “inadequate”, while the voices of NGOs were more categorical against the politician. Readers’ reactions were, however, favorable to the politician and virulent towards his opponents. The politician continued promoting the project, exclusively on the blog Adevărul, this being, in fact, the only place where he tried to keep the topic in the readers’ attention. On June 13rd 2015 he published a right of reply, as a result of the open letter formulated by ActiveWatch, which asked for the rejection of the bill. Under the title “Romanians in the country and abroad sustain the law on the reverting of the Roma to the name of Gypsies” Diaconu presented a list of 34 signatories (individuals and organizations) which supported his request. During the same time, Bogdan Diaconu stated that “In reality, the establishment of NGOs like ActiveWatch, SAR or other institutions such as NCCD is a well thought manner, sponsored by the European Union, of destroying anything that is Romanian. EU issues legislations to combat discrimination, but they are made just to force the Romanian people to tolerate the Gypsies, to host them and, finally, to give them everything, including the name and territory, without the right of appeal, as if the Roma ethnicity were the only problem of the Romanians”. Once again, the initiative was sustained by the politician readers, and the opponents of the project were severely criticized. On July 18th 2015, Romania United Party organized a meeting of support for Diaconu’s initiative. The media did not provide any information about the organization of the event, nor about its size. Only the website www. gandul.info mentioned this event, on July 20th 2015 when it published an article to identify readers’ opinions on the official name of the Roma. The article “Poll: Roma or Gypsy?” Has accumulated over 200 comments, most of which favorable to this initiative, some opinions explicitly inciting to hate. The legislative proposal on the reverting to the official name “Gypsy” for the Roma people (Pl-x No 803/2015) was rejected by the Senate on November 3, 2015 and received rejecting reports from the Commis- sion for Human Rights, Cults and Problems of National Minorities on 3 and 8 December 2015.

March for normality v Gay Pride 2015 This year again, the press presented the tenth year of simultaneous organizing of the event dedicated to the LGBT community (Gay Pride 2015), together with the event organized by the New Right (The March for Nor- mality). Journalists from the six newspapers have neutrally presented the two events’ programs as well as the two key messages of the two camps. Contrary, the readers had negative reactions towards the LGBT community, criticizing the organization of the parade that had already become a tradition in Bucharest. Unlike the previous years, it is worth noticing the objective manner in which journalists have reported on the two events without any contribution to the inflammation of the debates generated by the two topics.

“The biggest mosque in Europe”, the biggest controversy of the summer 2015 On July 5th 2015 the statement of the former President Traian Băsescu regarding the agreement of building a mosque and a Quran university voyaged around the Bucharest press. In his opinion, the Bucharest’s execu- tives’ decision to donate the Turkish state a plot of 11,000 square meters represented a threat to the national security: “We have a PM who cringes somewhere in Istanbul. Lame, but still he took this mosque decision, which leads us to think that he had a brain surgery, not a leg surgery. It’s a story, if it weren’t tragic, it would

53 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

have been comic (...) Such decisions are unwise, if not anti-national. We have a minority of 60-70,000 Muslims, we have mosques in Constanța, but to build the largest mosque in Europe and bring 6,000 Muslim students. (...) There is no higher risk than to bring Muslim students in the country”. The former President’s statement had the snowball effect, generating other reactions from certain public persons. In an interview for the newspaper Gândul on July 10th, the writer Andrei Cornea (columnist for Revista22, and a founding member of the Group for Social Dialogue) declared: “In addition to the mosque, an academy is founded. Such Islamic schools were and still are breeding terrorists. Do we need this? “. On this subject also commented the representatives of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the press reproducing on August 15th the statement of the Bishop of Giurgu, PS Ambrozie: “It is not possible to build a mosque in the country of the voivods. (...) It would be good for the mind not to let it happen. “ The public statements also echoed in society, the media having reported three events against the mosque building: a protest against the construction of the mosque (held on 20th July, attended by about 100 people) and two unusual actions within which several people buried pig shells in the land of the future mosque (on August 24th) and then installed 200 crosses (on September 1st). In fact, the dominant opinions expressed in the online environment were clearly against the building of this mosque in Bucharest. The arguments that were put forward the most were those related to the terrorist threat, the cultural differences between the Orthodox and the Muslims, or the opportunity related to the Muslim community in Romania and the mosque’s location in Bucharest. The topic on the building of “the largest mosque in Europe” in Bucharest decreased in intensity, starting with September, but has not disappeared from the readers’ comments, being adjacently referred to in relation to another topic which developed in September: the crisis of Syrian refugees in Europe and the Romania role in its management.

The fake scandal related to a police car with bilingual inscriptions In August 2015, a student from Iași published on Facebook a photo of a local police car from Ordorheiu Secuiesc with an inscription in Hungarian on one side. Although Odorheiu Secuiesc is a city inhabited by 90 percent Hungarians, this photo scandalized a major part of the Romanian press. The titles under which the news was published contained strong words such as: outrageous, incredible pictures, the image that burned Face- book. The daily newspaper Evenimentul Zilei announced that locals got outraged on the socializing websites, as if a photo on Facebook was required to make people aware that in their city there were bilingual inscriptions in public places. One by one, more or less visible websites reproduced the topic, presenting it in the same package. In almost all publications an important thing for the public knowledge was omitted: the Romanian Constitution provides in Article 120, paragraph 2: “In the territorial administrative units with a significant weight of citizens belonging to a national minority, the use of the language of this national minority shall be ensured, both in written and in oral, in its relations with the local public administration authorities and the decentralized public services, under the terms of the organic law.” Afterwards, the image was reproduced and rolled by the deputy of Romania United Party, Bogdan Diaconu. This one, like almost all the journalists who approached the topic, believe it is unreasonable for the Hungarian minority in Romania to benefit of language rights. Thus, on his Facebook account, the tone for hate messages was set. Regarding the reactions, we give the example of a user who has proposed that all Hungarians leave Romania, in the spirit of the well-known slogan “Out with the Hungarians from the country”. Evidently, the Hungarians stroke back. Their comments were targeting two different ethnic groups: the Roma and the Romanians, in particular through the use of “Gypsy” regarding their opponents.

54 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

This scandal was not without consequences. The deputy of Romania United Party, Bogdan Diaconu filed in Parliament a bill to ban the Hungarian language from use in public institutions. The initiative has collected no less than 33,670 likes and 48,056 shares until rd3 September 2015. Currently, the law is in Parliament, having received a negative opinion from the Legislative Council.

Refugee crisis and the quotas imposed by the European Commission September brought again to the fore the former President Traian Băsescu, who publicly opposed to receiving the quota of refugees. In a television interview on September 4th, Băsescu said: “I think about the problem in terms of national security. Let us not forget that among these people are Sunni, Shia, people who put bombs reciprocally in their country (...) Why should we Islamize Europe? We should destroy the migrants’ boats and ships right in the docks. Otherwise, immigration will increase each year, will triple from year to year.” The Dep- uty Bogdan Diaconu took advantage of the controversies regarding the quotas of refugees and began a campaign of criticism against Brussels, whom he accused of colonialist attitudes. Diaconu’s opposition extended to non-governmental organizations that have required to the Romanian government to take real measures to host the refugees. According to Bogdan Diaconu, “these NGOs have spent a lot of money to solve social problems in Romania and integrate poor, gypsies and other vulnerable groups. They have solved all, which is why now, they need immigrants to prove their professionalism” (from the Article “The kindhearted NGOs resolved the poverty in Romania and now are asking for immigrants” published on the blog Adevărul, October 2nd 2015). With regards to the public reaction, most opinions were against receiving refugees in Romania. The most common arguments focused on the relationship between Romania and the European Union, where Romania is a sovereign and independent state, and arguments related to internal security issues. Arguments have been identified that fueled the conspiracy narrative too, some having a strong anti-Semitic message. Towards the end of October, the refugee crisis and Romania’s involvement in the program of their management got out of the Romanian media’s attention. The most recent statements on this subject, potentially tens- ing the public opinion, belong to former President Traian Băsescu which, on October 12th 2015 was attacking the strategy of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Thus, following retrospectively the evolution of this topic on the public agenda, we might say that the situation of the Syrian refugees has been exploited for electoral purposes by Bucharest politicians. On October 24th 2015, former President Traian Băsescu was elected president of the People’s Movement Party.

4.3. Public manifestations of intolerance

This Chapter presents the main public manifestations of intolerance in Romania (or in the Romanian language, online) during last year. We reviewed the actions, protests, demonstrations and conferences, petitions whose purpose was, directly or indirectly, to increase the intolerance towards certain minorities or vulnerable groups. In this regard, the New Right organization, which became a political party, came to the fore by organizing demonstrations against the Roma, sexual minorities, Hungarians and Muslim refugees, although the attendance at the events set up by this organization was generally a low one, never exceeding 200 people. Regarding the protests and actions against the refugees, in addition to the cases mentioned in this chapter, the authors also noted a number of attempts at organizing events which failed due to the extremely small number of people. An example in this are the protests in October in Bârlad and Cluj, the latter being announced on the social networks as the largest anti-Islam protest in Romania, but it was only attended by the organizers. It is interesting that, unlike the civic protests with wide attendance organized in Romania during the recent years (the protests for Roșia Montană, the ones organized in connection with the accident from Collective etc.), the manifestations of hatred

55 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

always seek to obtain the approval of the authorities, and their organizers usually refine their official messages so as to prevent their exit from the area of freedom of expression. It is also worth mentioning that none of the public demonstrations presented below in this chapter have witnessed any violence, except for verbal violence.

Protest to the change the name of the Roma minority to “Gypsy” The public demonstration took place on July 18th, 2015 in Bucharest, University Square, and the organizers were the Association of the Romanians from Sweden and the group The Rescue of the Romanian Identity. The invitations to this event were sent mainly on Facebook social network, but the news was quickly reproduced by the extreme-right press who called the readers to participate. According to the website Ştiripesurse.ro, which published an article on the preparation of the public demonstration, the deputy Bogdan Diaconu, initiator of the bill on the same subject, distributed on his Facebook account a video that contained the invitation to protest, United Romania Party’s visual identity, as well as a series of populist or extreme-right statements, among which: “When the identity of a people and a country are intentionally damaged by their association with a minority that is mostly criminal (and has an obscure history!), this is called an attack to the national security “. The participants, very few numbered, have displayed messages such as “The Romanians are not Roma”, “We want the pride of the name of Romanian back”, “The Romanians want the right to a national identity of their own”, “Ro- mania was not Gypsies (sic!) Land and it will never be!” One of the protesters came dressed in clothes imitating the military uniform. The protest was also attended by representatives of Romania United Party.

Online petition “Stop the cultural confusion with Gypsies/Roma. Stop discrimination!” The petition was initiated by the Association of the Romanians from Sweden and the Initiative Solidarity for Romania and contains an appeal to the authorities to stop the confusion Romanian / Roma perceived in public (especially abroad), the proposal for settlement thereof being the reverting to the “historical” name of “ Gypsy” or assigning other name agreed by the Romanians and Roma, that avoids the confusion. This is how the petition’s arguments are constructed: the freedom of movement led to an increase in begging, begging is a phenomenon in which Roma play a much more prominent role than the Romanians, the journalists from abroad do not understand the differences between Romanian and Roma, therefore Romanians come to be discrimi- nated because of the Roma’s crimes. The document has circulated on the Internet since January 2015 and has collected more than 500 signatures, most of them by April 2015, month by the end of which Bogdan Diaconu submitted the draft law on the change into the name “Gypsy” for the Roma ethnics, claiming at that time that he had received “thousands of requests to end this confusion that terribly affected us during the recent years.”

The march against the real estate mafia - October 2014 On the evening of October 5th 2014, in Timișoara took place the sixth annual march organized by the New Right against “the Gypsy real estate mafia”. The protest, organized in consideration of the existence of some underworld gangs which, in some cases, use their Roma ethnicity to determine the owners of certain houses to sell well below the market price, was in the previous editions the scene of particularly serious extremist behaviors. As the example of the march in 2013, when the protesters chanted “Antonescu, had he lived, all the Gypsies would be killed.” At the event from this year, the slogans were outside the criminal area, but in most of the cases, there were racist slogans against an entire ethnic group and not against a specific type of lawbreakers, regardless of the ethnicity they belong to. It was shouted, among others “Gypsy, keep in mind, Timişoara is not yours”, “Gypsies are not Romanians” “Out with the mongrels / Gypsies from our country”, “Timişoara does not tolerate the Gypsies”. The march was attended by 50 to 100 people, who carried lighted torches on the streets of Timișoara, inhabited by Roma people. The protesters were accompanied by gendarmes and police, but, as far as we know, no fine was applied.

56 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

March against the real estate mafia - August 2015 On August 22nd 2015, the New Right organized the seventh edition of “the march against the Gypsy real estate mafia”. The name appearing on the event’s poster (The March Against the Real Estate Mafia) has no textual reference to any ethnic group, but some of the slogans shouted during the protest (“Timişoara does not tolerate the Gypsies” or “Our Timişoara is not your tribe”) targeted rather the Roma than the real estate lawbreakers. The march was attended by 50 people, from Timișoara, Bucharest and Arad, who walked a route which passed through the areas inhabited by Roma people, too. Although there were no incidents, the press articles have reported about the Roma having locked themselves in their homes during the passage of the participants in front of their houses. A new element of the march was the widening of topics shouted by the protesters who, at this edition, have also approached the weddings of the rich Roma: “We want a clean Timișoara, where everyone respects the laws of the State, where we respect each other, we lead a quiet life, without the loud oriental music at gypsy parties, without decibels, without entirely blocked boulevards and, back to the other aspect, we do not want to see any more people robbed in common transportation, on the street and so on “- Cătălin Duță, leader of the New Right Timișoara.

The book “The unseen face of homosexuality” “The unseen face of homosexuality” is a book by Virgiliu George and Andrei Dîrlău. The book contains references to a number of pseudo-studies that portray the members of LGBT community as promiscuous people, exposed to a huge incidence rate of sexually transmitted diseases and to psychological illnesses above average, and the rate of drug and alcohol use, three times higher than in case of the heterosexuals. The publisher’s note (Univ. Dr. Paul Chirilă) presents the book saying that “through a detailed documentation, it reveals scientific facts that blow the whole ideological edifice on which the propaganda of homosexuality relies today.” Originally, the book was to be launched at a conference in the Students House of Culture organized by the Bucharest University Students’ Society (which has, among its objectives, “to affirm and promote tolerance, pluralism of opinions, free confrontation of ideas, performance, critical spirit and universities autonomy”) but, as a result of the complaints filed by the LGBT activists with the Ministry of Education, this location could no longer be provided for this event. Still, the launch took place at the Siqua Hotel. The activists for the LGBT rights protested in front of the hotel entrance, and the organizers refused their access in the conference room. During the conference, Andrei Dîrlea, co-author of the book, spoke about the cases of adopted children who have been applied hormone treatment for the sex change, about genital mutilation of children at birth and suggested that, if homosexuality were to be accepted, then the next step is the acceptance of pedophilia. The author was invited to speak about the book in the conference “Evenings of watch – passions’ war - physiology and neuropsychology of the salacity war”, organized by the priest lecturer Doctor Gheorghe Holbea and held at the Amphitheatre “Dumitru Stăniloaie” at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology “Patriarch Justinian” from the University of Bucharest. The book was also presented in a show on public television, in a format which only permitted the presentation of the authors’ opinions. Since their speech could be viewed as intolerant, ActiveWatch filed a complaint with the NAC, which ruled favorably to the association.

Distribution of a homophobic booklet during the religion class at a high school in Brasov In April 2015, the religion teacher Dorel Chiriță form the National College Nicolae Titulescu from Brașov distributed to students during the classes, a booklet containing hate speech against the members of sexual minorities. The material published by the Christian Orthodox Students Association in Romania in 1994 and titled

57 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

“Homosexuality: Propaganda for the human deterioration”, contained, along with titles like “Gays attack the youth” or “Mass murders are often related to homosexuality”, quotes from the Bible according to which the homosexuals and those who tolerate homosexuality are worthy of death. The pupils filed a complaint against the teacher with the school board and the Secular Humanist Association in Romania (SHAR) filed a complaint with the Brașov County School Authority. The teacher defended himself by saying he was not aware of the bro- chure’s content and only distributed such material to his students because it contained a text of Father Galeriu that he wanted to discuss in class. Following the complaints, the teacher has been, for a period of one year, banned from sustaining degree exams or holding leading positions, and at the first lesson which he held after the sanction decision, he was accompanied in class by another teacher with a supervisory role. The SHAR representatives and ACCEPT stated publicly that the punishment was too light for such a serious act.

“The March for Normality” “The March for Normality” is an event organized annually in response to “the March for Diversity”. This counter-demonstration is organized, each time, on the exact same day as the LGBT event in Bucharest. By its beginning, the verbal violence and even the attempts for physical violence against the members of sexual minorities were a constant of this public demonstration, which was organized in the same time period and on the same route as the March for Diversity. Recently, however, both the violence of the messages and the number of the participants decreased a lot, and the route does not follow the one of the LGBT demonstration any more. According to the representatives of the New Right, the march is organized against the marriages between people of same sex and against homosexuality, not homosexuals, but banners with the title “Bucharest is not Sodom” and “Romania needs children, not homosexuals”, as well as slogans like “Filthy Gay, leave the country”, placed the event in the hate speech area. Participants were numbered to about 100 and the route of the march, 4 kilometers long, passed also by the Metropolitan Church. There were no incidents, but there were cases where passersby have called the participants in the march “neo-legionnaires”.

Conference “Homosexuality – What the Bible tells us”, organized at the Students Culture House, Cluj The conference was organized at the Students Culture House in Cluj, and the speaker was Father Stelian Tofană, Professor at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology within the University Babeș-Bolyai. During the event, the priest Tofană, which stated in the opening that the discussions should not be construed as incitement against homosexuals, presented a series of texts from the Old Testament on homosexuality, which considered this as “abomination, shame” and homosexuals – death worthy, without explaining the context, rather emphasizing that the quoted passages were the Bible word itself. The speaker allowed questions from the audience, not directly, but in written notes, out of which he chose the ones he wanted to respond to. One of these questions required father Tofană to explain how one could show compassion to homosexuals, while the Bible clearly states that they should be killed. The question was received with applause and laughter in the audience and parent response was “Your feedback is quite the answer.” The conference was attended by dozens of people.

Rappers Dragonu and Cedry2k publicly condemn homosexuality and abortion and promote the legionnaires as heroes of the nation On the Romanian hip hop scene, more and more often there may be encountered hate messages against homosexuality, abortion and “fornication” as well as against the “enemies of the nation”. Dragonu and Cedry2k, two artists known for their anti-globalization beliefs and for their Christian conservative attitude launched in the recent years several songs, publicly condemning the deviations from orthodox faith dogmas, e.g. homosexuality or abortion.

58 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Dragonu - Diablo XXX (2015) “How to be Western, again about oral sex / Considered normal, and being gay / [...] Male whores, don’t make a pass at me / Transvestite with miniskirts, strippers in bikinis / [...] Concita Wurst with beard fits to the trend “ Moreover, they praise different persons known for their membership in the Legionary Movement, such as Constantin Zelea Codreanu, Petre Ţuţea, Dumitru Bordeianu etc. and promote them as heroes of the nation, unjustly convicted by a “false history”. Also, Cedry2k denounces the “enemies of the nation” who want to take Szeklers’ Land from us. Cedry2k - Saints of the Prisons (2015) “Captain Codreanu, (Dumitru) Bordeianu, George Manu / Traian Trifan, Oprişan, Ogoranu / Fathers Sofian and Adrian Făgeţeanu / Fighting for people, not for ideas / [...] Wonderful people, great, true Romanian, / For whom the faith is essential, / It was not an illusory victory, but you have no memory / And you believe in a false, contradictory history / [...] / Although they told us of sequels from the rebel trends / Divorces, abortions and the consequences are serious” Cedry2k - Days of Fear (2007) “And being more and more queers, f**k them / They’ will get adoption legalization over my dead body. “ Cedry2k - Vipers (2015) “The enemies of nation and country are robbing us / Blackmailing us with the so-called Szeklers’ Land.” The video for the song Diablo XXX managed to collect in only two months over 250,000 views, while the song Saints of the prisons has exceeded one million within one year. In 2012, the two launched the song “Silent Cry” condemning the abortion, stating that this practice turns Earth into a “human slaughterhouse, led by Sa- tan.” On the YouTube channel only, the song raised over 80,000 views.

Avram Iancu memorial march held in Cluj by the New Right On March 15th 2015 According to the New Right, the march was organized to celebrate the “166 years since the Romanian Rev- olution in Transylvania” and in response to pro-autonomy demonstrations of the Hungarians in the Szeklers’ Land. The march was attended by over 100 people. In addition to a series of political slogans, the participants chanted “Out, out with the mongrels from the country”, message targeted against the ethnic Hungarians, or “Autonomy in jail”. It is particularly noteworthy that choosing Avram Iancu as the image of the march organized by the New Right is not a coincidence, neither the choose of the event’s day: March 15th is the Day of Hungarians from everywhere, a celebration particularly important for the Hungarians in Transylvania and, equally, the starting day of the Hungarian revolution from 1848 – 1849, when the Hungarians tried to gain independence from the Austrian absolutist government of the time; Avram Iancu, in the Hungarian historiography, is the historical figure who served the Austrian goals, contributing to the failure of the Hungarian revolution. Given this, we believe that the event organized by the New Right was rather one against the Hungarians.

The counter-demonstration organized by the New Right against commemorating the 13 generals of the Hungarian revolution of 1848-1849 and the vandalism acts against the monument to their memory The New Right organized a counter-demonstration in response to the annual commemoration of the 13 generals of the Hungarian revolution of 1848-1849, event organized in the recent years by UDMR on October 6th in Arad, near the Statue of Liberty, a monument in their memory. The New Right motivated its action by

59 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

claiming that the commemorated historical figures would have been guilty of the murder of 40,000 Romanians during the Hungarian revolution. This information is false, the 13 generals having fought against the Habsburg armies mostly on the westerns or southern fronts during the Hungarian revolution, without being involved in direct combats against the Romanian armies led by Avram Iancu. The generals were murdered by hanging on October 6th, 1849. Earlier this counter-demonstration, in February, three people vandalized the Statue of Liberty by painting in red, yellow and blue the images of certain generals on one side of the monument and by writing insults on another side.

Raising black flags at Târgu Secuiesc on the National Day of Romania In 2014, on the National Day of Romania, several black flags were raised as a symbol of mourning, on some buildings in the town center of Târgul Secuiesc. The gesture was planned by Hungarian extremist organization The Movement of Youth from 64 Counties, whose local leader is Beke Istvan, accused at the end of 2015 of plot- ting an action to generate the panic during the National Day celebration. Some of the buildings that were raised the flags of mourning on, belonged to his family.

Protests against the construction of a mosque in Bucharest By the end of May 2015, the Great Mufti’s Office of Muslim Community in Romania was offered by the Romanian Government a land to build a mosque which was written in the press it would be the biggest in the European Union. The protests against this decision started in July, when over 100 people attended a meeting in University Square. The event, though with a strong nationalist and traditionalist character (participants had Romanian flags, and some of them were dressed in traditional Romanian costumes), had few elements to be considered, directly or indirectly, as targeting the Muslim minority (there was one single banner with the text “Ponta-Turkish, plagiarist and corrupt”, which may be considered as implicitly approaching in a negative way a Muslim majority population). The organizers of this first protest, who also created a Facebook page dedicated to the cause, with over 20,000 subscribers, continued however to organize a series of protests and actions against the construction of the mosque, which included bringing living pigs and burying of carcasses of pigs in the land dedicated to its construction. In Muslim tradition, the pig is an animal forbidden for consummation, and in some branches of Islam the land on which there were pigs is considered unclean and no place of worship may be built upon it. Towards the end of the year, the protests have begun to receive an anti-refugees tone.

Protest Anti-refugees in Câmpulung Muscel The protest was organized in October 2015 by a local businessman, in response to rumors that a gendarme barracks from the town was to receive refugees. Although 500 people announced their participation, only 15 took part in the event. The participants distributed the passers-by leaflets with texts such as “Dear refugees, here is a toxic waste town. Here there is no economy, no future, and no hope. Choose your destination responsibly!” According to the organizer, the protest was not thought of as a xenophobic one, but its purpose was to draw attention that the town of Câmpulung Muscel faces a number of problems that would make it an undesir- able destination for refugees. Interviewed by reporters, he admitted however that he is concerned for the safety of the locals and especially the children from Câmpulung Muscel in case of the refugees coming.

Anti-refugee protest in October, in Bucharest The protest held in Bucharest in October against the acceptance by Romania of the refugees’ quotas came

60 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

as a continuation of the protests caused by the donation of the land for the mosque building. This time, the protest was joined by the New Right, who described the wave of refugees as an “extra-European invasion”. About 200 people took part in the protest. The organizers incited the public by repeating on the loudspeaker the question “Do you want them in Romania?”, each time the audience’s response being “No”. One of those who gave speeches claimed that Romanians must prepare to “defend their country in illegality”, because the state is no longer able to defend its citizens. In the opening of the speeches it was recited a poem especially written for the event, out of which we quote these lyrics: <

29 A play on words: to the word “rai” which means “heaven” in Romanian, from the phrase “Beating comes from Heaven” (a Romanian proverb, equivalent to the English “Spare the road and spoil the child”) it is attached a prefix forming the oriental name “Sarai” ( “serai” in Romanian).

61 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

5. Public manifestations pro-tolerance

This chapter is an overview of the main public events which are pro-tolerance or that we believe that could increase the understanding and acceptance within the Romanian society. We do not claim to have done an ex- haustive list of such manifestations in the Romanian public space, but we consider that those listed below may give the measure of this kind of intervention in Romania. Culture has been the main vehicle by which it was attempted the closeness of the rest of society to certain groups vulnerable to the intolerant discourse, the film having a particularly important role in this respect. In the analyzed period (October 2014 - September 2015), a film festival had as the main topic the LGBT community, another festival had a special section on this topic, the movie “Aferim!” directed by Radu Jude was released, and the first film festival dedicated exclusively to national minorities took place. Issues concerning the Roma community have been communicated mainly through music, dances and traditional crafts, but there were also actions that aimed at widening the horizons of understanding the Roma culture by emphasizing on the modern culture of these ethnics.

March against racism on July 17th in Cluj On July 17th 2015, the Roma community that had been forced, 5 years ago, to move near the city waste dump from Pata Rât, supported by volunteers from Romania and from abroad, organized a march against racism. Around 350 people walked about 15 kilometers from Pata Rât to Cluj County Council, crossing by Coastei Street, where a part of the protesters had lived before evacuation. The participants held banners with anti-racist messages (Stop the Roma slavery) and Roma flags. Among the chants we mention “Stop the Roma slavery”, “Stop the forced evacuations”, “Say no to racism” and “Solidarity”. In the end, the participants sang traditional Roma songs.

The March for Diversity, tenth edition The tenth edition of the march for diversity was held on 23rd May 2015, on the already traditional route from the Arch of Triumph to Victoriei Square. The march was attended by over 500 people. The event, which celebrates the social change through personal involvement and activism for LGBT members’ rights, had this year the slogan “You are the changing”. Several embassies, including the embassies of Finland and the Netherlands, as well as the European Commission Representation in Bucharest, supported the event. In addition to celebrat- ing diversity, the march aimed to support the civil partnership - a law rejected for the second time in Parliament.

Bucharest Pride 2015 Bucharest Pride represents a series of events taking place in Bucharest during a week and having the LGBT as the central theme. The best known of these events is The March for Diversity, which reached its tenth edition this year. In 2015, 14 events were organized within Bucharest Pride: discussions, debates, film screenings, parties and an opening of an art exhibition.

Romani Kultura Festival The festival, organized by the National Cultural Centre of Roma - Romano Kher took place between 3 and 6 September 2015. The organizers aimed to promote both traditional Roma culture elements and those of this ethnicity’s modern culture, much less known by the public. During the 4 days in the Kulture’s Tent, organized in the University Square from Bucharest, the passersby and guests were able to take part in debates, demonstrations of Roma craftsmen, to watch documentaries about the members of the Roma community, and exhibitions

62 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

with paintings and sculptures by Roma artists as well as jazz auditions and traditional music concerts.

Solidarity Pakivalo Festival The event was organized from the 6th to the 8th of August 2015 at the Museum of Roma Culture (Dumul Săbăreni, nr. 101-125) and included concerts by Roma artists, local and from abroad, film screenings, theater performances, painting workshops and DIY for children, street dance demonstrations, exhibitions dedicated to informing the public about the Roma history and personalities, art installations created by Roma artists from various countries, debates on various topics of interest, Roma crafts exhibitions, the launch of the collection Nicolae Gheorghe in the Documentation Center of the association Romano ButiQ. This year’s festival edition was dedicated to the memory of Nicolae Gheorghe, founder of the Roma Civic Movement from Romania and one of the most appreciated Roma militants in Europe.

The unveiling of the first monument commemorating the Holocaust against the Roma The event took place at the Festival of Solidarity Pakivalo and the monument is temporarily placed in the Museum of Roma Culture, but its promoters want it to be exposed soon in a square or in a park, where it may be seen by a larger number of passersby. The monument is built around the traditional symbol of the Roma community, the wheel with 12 spokes which signifies the Roma spiritual archetype of freedom. On this occasion survivors of the Roma deportations in Transnistria gave speeches, as did representatives of academia, of the civil society and of the state. The monument was carried out with the help of Bright Light Foundation, Foundation Roma Center for Social Intervention and Studies, and the Senator Damian Drăghici.

The praying of the Roma children, the nineteenth edition To its nineteenth edition, the festival exclusively dedicated to Roma children took place on 30th May, like every year, in the town Măguri, Timiș County. The event was attended by about 300 children, who recited poems and played in sketches, sang songs and danced specific Roma dances. The festival wants to change the perception of the majority with regards to Roma ethnicity and to encourage the latter to freely express their customs and traditions, but also to prevent early school leaving and to attract Roma to school.

Festival-contest in memory of the best Roma violinist in Sălaj The Art and Culture Center of Sălaj County, along with the Roma Party Association - Pro Europe and Wass- das Foundation organized on November th6 2015 the festival-contest in memory of the best Roma violinists in Sălaj County. The admission to the event was free.

Nomad International Film Festival The first edition of the biggest festival for cultural minorities took place between thend 2 and the 28th of June 2015 in four Romanian cities (Bucharest, Timișoara, Târgu Mureș and Constanța) and in Oslo. The program contained 42 long and short films, produced worldwide, mostly about Roma, produced starting the ‘70s and up to the present days. 15,000 spectators have visited the festival, which was organized by Metropolis Cultural Association in partnership with the Intercultural Museum from Oslo.

Anti-discrimination march in Satu Mare About 300 high school students, teachers and NGO members attended on March 27th, 2015, an anti-discrimination march organized by the Association Star from Satu Mare. Participants held banners with general messages pro-diversity and pro-tolerance, and with more specific messages like “Stop the Family Violence”.

63 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Three high schools and two elementary schools were involved in the event’s organization and the participants represented over 20 NGOs and local public institutions.

Aferim! The film, directed by Radu Jude, was launched on March 13th 2015 and it is one of the few Romanian movies whose main subject is inspired by the history of Roma communities. Aferim! shows how a Roma slave who has fled from his owner is chased by a gendarme and his apprentice. The action takes place in the early nineteenth century and presents, un-romanced but with much black humor, the situation faced by Roma slaves at that time, as well as a number of stereotypes of the Romanians in that period, which may explain the actual prejudgments in our society. The film was extremely well received by audiences and critics, and Radu Jude won the Silver Bear for the best director at the Berlin Film Festival. Objects from Aferim! props were sold in a charity auction held during Pakivalo Solidarity Festival and the money were donated to the Museum of Roma Culture.

Gay Film Nights The film festival, now in the tenth edition, was held in Cluj during the periodth 10 -16th November 2014. The selection contained 50 LGBT-themed films, documentaries and fiction movies from 21 countries. The Finnish and Spanish Embassies and the French Institute from Cluj-Napoca were partners of this event. In addition to the views, the festival agenda also included book launches, an exhibition in the cafés from the city and a workshop on hate speech. By the end of the timeframe of this research, Gay Film Nights was the only film festival in Ro- mania exclusively dedicated to LGBT topics.

LGBT Section at NexT Film Festival The ninth edition of NexT Film Festival, held in Bucharest from April th15 to 19th, 2015, included a special category dedicated to LGBT topics. Six films were presented, all being international productions. The organizers, who said that the festival aims to have a component of public education, too, both culturally and socially, are trying to keep constantly this section in the future editions of the festival.

The theatre play: American Trilogy - Part One “Anything for you” “Anything for you,” the first part of the play “American Trilogy” is an independent theater show which was played in 2015 in several theater festivals in Romania. The play, actually a collection of four theatric moments of 10 minutes each, shows several scenes from the lives of some persons belonging to LGBT minority, including a “coming out” in front of a homophobic brother. The director is Doina Antohi who chose a cast of young actors, fresh graduates of the National University of Theatre and Film I.L. Caragiale from Bucharest.

LGBT History Month 2015 was the fourth year in which ACCEPT has been organizing the LGBT History Month, in February. The event, organized as a culture festival for human rights in 9 European countries, focused on four main topics of interest to the LGBT community: self-advocacy, solidarity, community and visibility. The program included 21 different events: theater plays, film screenings, parties, talks, games evenings and workshops.

Hungarian Cultural Days in Brasov The Hungarian Cultural Days Festival in Brasov reached its fifth edition in September 2015. The event was organized by the Association for Hungarian Diaspora and included cultural events such as plays, concerts, folk- loric festivals and even a crafts festival. The festival was held over three days betweenth 18 to 20th September.

64 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

Flash mob in Cluj against the refusal to install bilingual signs in the Hungarian language The Hungarians from Cluj organized on 12th February 2015, a flash mob by which they wanted to mock the “normality” of the city. The action took place in response to the decision of Cluj Court of Appeal that ruled in favor of the City Hall against a decision forcing the latter to erect bilingual Hungarian signs in the city. Within the flash mob, a ribbon was cut in Union Square, a gesture that ironized the action of a representative of the City Hall who cut with scissors the Hungarian translation of a banner displayed during an official event in Cluj.

Action Hug a Hungarian / Hug a Romanian Discontented with the conflicts occurring around the Day of Hungarians from Everywhere, on which occasion the Romanian and Hungarians nationalists take actions that lead to resentment among both ethnicities, Edwin Sebastian Marc, a young man from Timișoara, launched to the Romanians and Hungarians, on Facebook, the encouragement to make, on March 10th 2015, a picture of themselves embracing a person from the other ethnicity. The page created in this regard, “Hug a Hungarian / Ölelj meg egy románt!(Hug a Romanian)” was a great success and raised a few hundred photos with Romanians and Hungarians hugging.

65 NetRangers - Annual Report On Hate Speech in Romania 2014 – 2015

General conclusions

With regard to the legislation in force in Romania, it might be considered that this covers the terms of combating hate speech. The analysis on the law enforcement reveals, however, some problems. Thus, at the Pros- ecutors’ Offices level, it was noticed a striking timidity regarding the prosecution of individuals against whom complaints were filed related to the offenses under Article 369 of the Criminal Code or under the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 31/2002 (out of a total of 123 causes, none was sent to trial). The NAC applied four sanctions related to hate speech during the monitoring period, but because of the institution’s working procedures, it is hard to say how many complaints on this subject have been filed. The National Council for Combating Discrimination was the institution with the best results in combating this form of speech. However, one may notice a tendency to protect the mainstream politicians who are the subject of complaints before the NCCD on the use of discriminatory or hate speech. The sanctions imposed to such persons are, mostly, warnings and, when fines are imposed, their values lead us to consider that, in determining their amounts, the status of public person and opinion-former of the defendant was not taken into account. The same situation (the existence of the regulations, but lack of their implementation) could also be noticed with regards to the self-regulations of the media organizations and political parties. Regarding the analyzed sport associations, none of them was transparent about the sanctions imposed. However, the Romanian Football Federation was notable for the fact that it started the drafting of an anti-discrimination strategy, within and through football, which also addresses hate speech issues. As regards the self-regulation of the news websites about the user generated content (Terms and conditions of use of websites), we might say that, in most of the cases, they seem to be designed rather to protect the publication against any potential contentious problems, than to protect the society from hate speech. However, we find it encouraging that the comments moderation by removing hate speech starts to become a concern for the news websites, some of which (especially Gazeta Sporturilor and Adevărul) making consistent steps in this direction. In the public space, hate speech targets belonged to a wide spectrum - from Roma, Hungarians, Hebrews and LGBT community members, to Muslims, refugees and people who left to work abroad. The Neo-Nazi slippages were also present in the reference period of the research. The media have conducted news campaigns that generated hatred in the online environment on topics such as the documentary “Romanians are coming”, the construction of the mosque in Bucharest, the wave of refugees from Syria, and on a topic regarding bilingual inscriptions from Târgu Secuiesc. The latter led to the submission by MP Bogdan Diaconu of a bill aiming to re- strict the rights of the Hungarian minority in Romania. During the reference period of our research, there has been no lack of organized expression of hatred. The New Right, which became a political party, was notable in this respect, by organizing marches against the Hun- garians, Roma and the members of sexual minorities and by its involvement in anti-Muslim protests. Fortunate- ly, we notice a decrease in the number of participants in these demonstrations (their number did never exceed 200). In contrast, the pro-tolerance manifestations gathered much larger numbers of participants. The cultural events were the main vehicle for spreading positive messages in the public space.

NetRangers AGAINST INTOLERANCE

Project by against intolerance

NET RANGERS

Publication edited within the ”Net Rangers Against Intolerance” project

Project founded through the EEA grants 2009 – 2014, Find out more on within the NGO fund in Romania www.cyberhate-watch.ro For official information on EEA and Norway grants please access www.eeagrants.org. The content of this publication does not necessarily represent the oficial position of EEA grants 2009 – 2014