FREEDOM CONTROL Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FREEDOM VS CONTROL FOR A DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE 18 20/11/2015 Final report Strasbourg 2015 PREMS 1055816 ENG The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading human rights organisation. It comprises 47 member states, 28 of which are members of the European Union. www.coe.int All Council of Europe member states have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights oversees the implementation of the Convention in the member states. www.world-forum-democracy.org FREEDOM VS CONTROL: FOR A DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE Final report World Forum for Democracy 2015 Strasbourg, 18-20 November 2015 Council of Europe The opinions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or publishing@ coe.int). All other correspondence concerning this document should be addressed to the Secretariat of the World Forum for Democracy ([email protected]). Contents FOREWORD 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 FORUM CONCEPT 8 FORUM PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS 11 Opening session 11 Plenary session 1: Surveillance – what is the right dose? 12 Plenary session 2: Lifting the veil of fear – building trust and resilience in diverse societies 14 Plenary session 3 - Media responsibility in the “age of terror” 16 Plenary session 4: The democratic response - theme reports and a debate with panellists 19 Closing Session and Democracy Innovation Award, Council of Europe Hemicycle 21 SATELLITE EVENTS 65 2015 World Forum for Democracy: facts and figures 68 Foreword How can individual freedoms and the right to safety be reconciled? This question – intrinsic to any democratic system – challenges democracies around the world. Today, more than ever, they need to confront the direct threats of violent extremism and terror, and others, more subtle, such as online hate speech and cybercrime. New technologies also hold the key to some of the answers. It is essential to remain alert and with the right balance between freedom and prevention of risks. How and through what means can the State exercise control? At what point does it risks crushing individual freedoms? Should we give up some basic rights in the name of security, in order to prevent radicalisation, the spread of terrorist networks and the risk of terrorist attacks? Is it justified to bend the law in specific cases? For example, is it acceptable to block certain social networks or web sites? Should there be limits to freedom of expression? Should it be absolute, or can it be held responsible for insti- gating hatred? Such questions were at the heart of the fourth edition of the Strasbourg World Forum for Democracy which focused on a theme in phase with the world news and the vigorous debate on a global scale: Freedom vs. Control: for a democratic response. The global nature of threats calls for a global response, and for a return to universal principles, in particular those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Organised jointly by the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the French authorities, the Alsace Region and the City of Strasbourg, the World Forum for Democracy is already an influential rendezvous on the international agenda. Personalities from around the world meet at the Forum to debate the challenges for democracy in the light of global developments. This Forum edition was no exception, echoing directly the key concerns of States as well as the growing concerns of citizens. Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe Laurent Fabius, Minister for Foreign Afairs of France Philippe Richert, President of the Alsace Regional Council, former Minister Roland Ries, Mayor of Strasbourg World Forum for Democracy Page 4 Highlights from 2015 World Forum for Democracy “The terrorists cannot destroy our democracies, but we ourselves can do it.” Thorbjon Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe “We can tweet revolutions, but we cannot tweet institutions or laws. Institutions and laws, we have to build together.”, Thorbjon Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe “Democracy protects each and everyone of us, including people who want to kill democracy.” Roland Ries, Mayor of Strasbourg “Les terroristes veulent nous intimider et nous diviser. Nous devons faire le contraire : les combattre et nous rassembler. Les détruire et nous unir. Refuser les amalgames. Répondre avec la force de la démocratie et de l’Etat de droit.” Harlem Desir, Secretary of State for European Affairs, France “La démocratie est toujours une conquête. Un combat contre l’oppression, contre l’arbitraire, contre les ennemis de la liberté, contre le droit du plus fort. A tout cela elle oppose la force du droit, un cadre constitutionnel et international fondé sur des institutions légitimes et garantissant les droits de chaque personne. Ce combat, il se mène aussi par l’éducation, par la culture, la création, la liberté de création, le rire.” Harlem Desir, Secretary of State for European Affairs, France “Pour combattre les extrémismes et les dérives, pour agir contre les injustices, l’exclusion et les fossés qui se creusent non sans conséquences néfastes, pour prévenir le désenchantement en particulier des jeunes, pour établir ou rétablir la confiance si essentielle à la stabilité, pour contrer l’érosion des valeurs, il nous faut nous attaquer aux causes comme aux conséquences.” « Michaëlle JEAN, Canada, Secretary General of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie “Le fragile équilibre qui peut maintenir liberté et sécurité sur un même plan impose d’imaginer des mécanismes capables de garantir que l’intérêt général primera toujours sur les intérêts particuliers, quels qu’ils soient, et que les droits de tous et de toutes seront toujours respectés, que l’état de droit et la justice pèseront toujours dans la balance.” Michaëlle JEAN, Canada, Secretary General of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie “The difficulty is in the ability of enforcing data protection laws, not to create it. Security is what everyone wants and no one provides.” Raegan McDonald, Senior Policy Manager, EU Principal at Mozilla “Some of the totalitarian countries treat media as an intelligence operation. Being associated with our online media is going against the government.” Emin Milli, Journalist and Executive Director of Meydan TV Azerbaijan “Major developments into a society usually come from immigrants, not from those living there, but from immigrants” Mr Leen Verbeek, Netherlands, King’s Commissioner of the Province of Flevoland and Vice- President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe “Journalism role is a counter-power in the name of civil society”. Journalism is for reporting, for “pointing the finger”. Ricardo Gutiérrez, General Secretary, European Federation of Journalists “We need more, not less democracy.” Jacob Appelbaum, Independent security researcher and journalist “Verifiable encryption is necessary for our economy, our privacy and our ability to regulate and reinforce the law.” Nadim Kobeissi, PhD researcher and Cryptocat lead developer “Radicalisation is like an epidemic and a strong community capital is like immunity helping to fight it.” Forum participant (Lab 12) Foreword Page 5 Conclusions and recommendations The 2015 edition of the World Forum for Democracy took place after the 13 November Paris attacks, high- lighting the pertinence of the theme chosen and the urge to provide answers to the three sets of questions raised. A high turnout, discussions in multiple fora and the testing of initiatives in the labs, not only provided material for in-depth reflection, but also for a number of recommendations (see below) that can be addressed to national authorities, media, and local communities as well as to international organisations such as the Council of Europe. “The terrorist cannot destroy our democracy… but we can” The debates emphasised the need to check the cost-effectiveness of surveillance, the risks of its encroaching into constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, its effects beyond national borders, the way in which it is managed and the central question of proper oversight – parliamentary, judiciary and financial. Even though the debate about surveillance is lively, whistle blowers are still few and no meaningful democratic control can be exercised by civil society. This is because the civil society is not equipped as it should be to assess the effectiveness of surveillance and its impact on freedoms. Calls for an enhanced civic engagement over surveillance issues can only be made in functioning democracies with sufficient cyber literacy levels. Whist legal restrictions to freedom of speech and attacks against journalists were still being encountered in many countries, media themselves felt they had their own unique role to play when it came to exposing gov- ernments and secret agencies mishandling and/or violating citizens’ rights. Civil society was also concerned with up-holding the vital role of a free and independent media. A recent PEW research study presented at the Forum showed that in some countries there was large support to limit the press’ freedom when dealing with sensitive issues related to national security. Hence the strong calls made to journalists to continue to focus on investigative journalism, to