Dutch reporter hacks EU defense ministers' meeting

A Dutch journalist took advantage of a security blunder to hack into a video call with EU defense ministers. "I'm sorry for interrupting your conference, I'll be leaving," the reporter told the EU's top diplomat.

EU meetings -like this leaders' conference - have been taking place in video conferences due to the coronavirus

EU defense ministers and the bloc's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell had a surprise during a supposedly confidential video conference on Friday when a reporter for Dutch broadcaster RTL Nieuws gained access to the call.

The reporter, Daniel Verlaan, used information from a Twitter post by Dutch Defense Minister Ank Bijleveld. The minister had published a photo of herself working from home while taking part in the conference. The post includes a photo of the minister's laptop screen with her EU counterparts visible. Another picture, which has since been removed, showed five digits of a six-digit pin needed to gain access to the call.

A Twitter user flagged the information to RTL Nieuws, prompting Verlaan to try hacking the meeting. In his own Twitter post, Verlaan said the code could be guessed "with a few tries."

What did Borrell say to the reporter?

The video published by the broadcaster shows EU's Josep Borrell asking "Who are you?" and noting the call has been "intercepted."

"Now I have to stop because we are working at a public square," Borrell continued before addressing the reporter again.

"How are you?" he asked.

"Hi, I'm fine, how are you," the journalist responded.

Borrell then asked if the reporter was aware that he was "jumping into a secret conference," as laughter is heard in the background.

"Yes, I'm sorry, I'm a journalist from the Netherlands," Verlaan replied. "I'm sorry for interrupting your conference. I'll be leaving here."

Borrell then said the breach was a criminal offense, "So you better shut off quickly," as the reporter replies with a "Yes. Bye, bye."

It was not immediately clear if Verlaan would face legal consequences.
What was the official reaction?

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has since reacted to the security blunder with a jab at his defense minister.

"This shows once again that ministers need to realize how careful you have to be with Twitter," Rutte said in the Hague.

An official with the Dutch Defense Ministry described the incident as a "stupid mistake."

Separately, an EU diplomatic source told the AFP news agency the meeting was cut short immediately after the reporter gained access.

"There may have been laughter, but the incident is considered as very serious," the official said.

dj/sms (AFP, dpa)

A Plan to Save Wildlife May Have Done More Harm Than Good

Banning the trade of vulnerable species sometimes makes them more vulnerable.

NATASHA GILBERT & KNOWABLE

THE ATLANTIC NOV 2020

JIMIN LAI / AFP / GETTY

Customs officials in Singapore made a grisly discovery in April 2019 at a port on the island’s southern coast. Inside shipping containers supposedly transporting frozen beef from Nigeria to Vietnam, they found bloodstained sacks stuffed with 13 tons of scales stripped illegally from pangolins—scaly, anteater-like mammals endemic to Africa and Asia. The seizure, worth about $38.7 million, is thought to be the largest bust of pangolin products globally in recent years

People hunt pangolins for their meat, considered a delicacy in Asia, and for their scales, which are used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat ills such as arthritis. All eight pangolin species are now vulnerable or endangered, and in 2016 more than 180 nations banned most cross-border commercial trade in them. They did so under a major international agreement called the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, commonly referred to as CITES. Trade bans on endangered species are the most severe restriction under CITES, which also limits trade in species that are at risk of overexploitation but not yet endangered, requiring permits for their export.

Conservation organizations hailed the pangolin ban as a big win in the war against the multibillion-dollar wildlife trade. But some scientists and wildlife trade experts worry that CITES bans—in this case and others—may be backfiring, by encouraging rather than suppressing trade in a species. “As products become rarer, prices and demand increase. You just hit species all the way into extinction,” says Brett Scheffers, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Florida. Poorly policed trade controls can allow illegal trade to flourish, adds Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, a sustainability economist specializing in the wildlife trade at the University of Oxford.

In 1977, for example, an international trade ban on the black rhino led to a tenfold increase in the price of rhino horn over a two-year period, spurring poaching and driving populations to extinction in some areas. And trade restrictions that began in 2013 on species of rosewood trees helped make the precious timber the most trafficked group of endangered species in the world.

It’s too soon to know if the same kind of thing is happening with pangolins, but there are troubling signs, says Dan Challender, a conservation scientist who works with ‘t Sas-Rolfes at Oxford and specializes in pangolins and wildlife trade policy: Seizures of pangolin parts in high volumes appear to be on the uptick.

There’s no disagreement among researchers that the wildlife trade is a major contributor to the loss of biodiversity worldwide. Where they disagree is over what the countries that are signed up to CITES should do about it.

Many conservation groups say that CITES is one of the best tools they have—letting signatory nations ban international trade for species that are already endangered and set trade limits for species that are at risk due to commercial activities. But trade experts like Sabri Zain, director of policy for TRAFFIC, a nonprofit group working to make the wildlife trade more sustainable, say that CITES rests too heavily on bans when it’s meant to help ensure that the wildlife trade meets people’s needs while also safeguarding nature.

“When you talk to people about CITES, the first thing that comes to their mind is trade bans,” Zain says. “But the real heart of CITES is sustainability.” Critics also argue that countries don’t adequately apply science to assess whether CITES bans and quotas will work the way they’re intended—or will make matters worse by sparking illegal trade. All these difficulties have left CITES gasping for breath, says ‘t Sas-Rolfes. “CITES,” he says, “is a terminally ill patient that is in need of serious attention.”

CITES was born in the mid-1970s out of public concern that countries weren’t adequately protecting rare and threatened species. The aim was to encourage governments to restrict imports from nations that lacked protections for plants and animals that are on the “red list” of threatened species as identified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the globe’s leading authority on the state of the natural world. Today, CITES is a voluntary agreement among 182 nations, as well as the European Union; it protects more than 38,000 species of plants and animals to varying degrees.


To safeguard a species under CITES, a country makes its case for protection—to either ban or limit trade—at the CITES meeting held every two to three years. If two-thirds of member nations vote to approve the proposal, each country then creates laws and systems to implement it. If trade is restricted rather than banned, countries will dole out a limited number of trade permits at levels deemed sustainable for safeguarding a species. Typically, trade restrictions are applied first—but if they fail to help populations recover, countries can propose bans.

Clearly, action is needed. Roughly a million species are threatened with extinction, according to a major international study published last year. Researchers found that trade and personal use of species by people is the second leading driver of these extinction threats, behind only habitat destruction.

The devastating impact on global diversity from the harvesting of wild animals and plants makes CITES “one of the most important available tools to address the extinction crisis,” said Mark Jones, head of policy at the conservation group Born Free, and Alice Stroud, director of Africa policy at Born Free USA, in a statement to Knowable Magazine. Once countries restrict or ban trade in a species, that species becomes a high priority for conservation in its native country, they wrote.A Hong Kong Customs officer stands next to seized endangered-species products, including elephant ivory tusks, pangolin scales, and shark fins during a press conference (Isaac Lawrence / AFP / Getty).

In a briefing note, the CITES Secretariat pointed to successes such as the recovery of the pirarucu: the world’s largest scaled freshwater fish, which can stretch more than three meters and weigh 220 kilograms. Pirarucu populations plummeted in the Amazon basin in the late 1960s due to overfishing. Following CITES trade restrictions in 1975, community-led conservation and monitoring programs helped the giant fish bounce back in some areas.

And at a meeting last year, CITES members agreed to relax a 50-year-old trade ban on an Argentine population of the delicately featured vicuña (Vicugna vicugna)—a cousin of the camel that is prized for its wool—after community-led conservation efforts had helped the species back on its feet. CITES members also agreed that—as a result of conservation and captive breeding programs—American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) populations in Mexico had recovered sufficiently to allow some trade, which had been banned since 1975.

But bans and trade restrictions don’t always work as intended. For example, a 2010 trade ban on critically endangered European eels (Anguilla anguilla)—driven by culinary demand from China and Japan—hasn’t helped their chances of survival, recent findings show. In 2019, an international anti-trafficking operation announced that illegal fishing is now a major factor in European eel declines, with up to 350 million eels smuggled from Europe to Asia each year.

And legal trade in the tiny Kleinmann’s tortoise (Testudo kleinmanni) skyrocketed in 1994, the year before a ban took effect: Some 2,800 individuals were sold, representing half of the species’ total estimated adult population.

Critics say that part of the problem is that for many species, long-term data on populations are lacking—so that countries can only take a best guess at whether a species is in trouble and, if so, whether that’s due to trade. What’s more, the critics add, countries and CITES administrators fail to thoroughly analyze how bans or restrictions might affect trade in the species. An analysis by Challender published in April 2019 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment found that proposals to ban trade under CITES commonly fail to examine markets for wildlife in detail. Of the 17 proposals that were scheduled for a vote at last August’s meeting, including ones for Brazil’s riverside swallowtail butterfly (Parides burchellanus) and the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), Challender found that all but one lacked detailed trade analyses.

The CITES Secretariat said in a statement that the treaty’s administrators do collect data from countries on legal imports and exports, and for some iconic animals they have established more elaborate monitoring systems. The most sophisticated of these tracks the illegal killing of elephants and analyzes illegal trade. When wildlife rangers around the world find elephant carcasses, for example, they establish the cause of death and report the information to the CITES program that monitors the illegal killing of elephants. The information is included in a database and analyzed to help keep an eye on poaching and trends in illegal trade.

But Challender argues that this isn’t enough. Decisions to tighten trade, he says, need a comprehensive assessment of the likely consequences of doing so—including information on market factors such as retail prices, sales volumes, consumer preferences, and social and cultural attitudes to the consumption of wildlife. And when the data suggest that outright bans or severe trade restrictions won’t work, those who would safeguard wildlife should look to other creative solutions. “A trade ban may feel intuitively positive, but it’s difficult to predict the outcome for species,” he says.

Complicating matters are disagreements over how to best safeguard a species from extinction while balancing its importance to some people’s livelihoods.

Groups such as Born Free, which prioritizes animal welfare, doubt that wildlife trade could ever be sustainable or thus helpful to conservation. Legal trade creates opportunities to launder specimens obtained illegally, say Jones and Stroud. For example, ivory products from legal and illegal sources were sold side by side in China prior to the country’s domestic ban on ivory trade in 2017.

But some wildlife-trade analysts note that sustainable trade provides a livelihood for people in many communities, and constitutes big business in countries like China. Banning or restricting trade when there’s little evidence to suggest that tighter controls may help a species, they say, can harm local communities and shift countries’ limited conservation funds away from neglected species.

“From our perspective, a [trade ban] is more a sign of conservation failure rather than a goal to strive for,” Zain says. A ban, he adds, shows that previous efforts to restrict trade through limited export permits failed to help a species’ population recover.

Zain wants to see more effort put into making trade restrictions work for species by better assessing their populations and how much trade a given population can handle. If those additional efforts fail, countries could then consider a ban.

Representatives from CITES acknowledged that legal wildlife trade is essential for the livelihoods of many local people, but said that the type of extensive data collection advocated by Challender would be too time-consuming and expensive if done for every species under threat. Still, they added, the convention has made improvements. Since 2017, it has required countries to report data on illegal trade garnered from seizures and other violations. Member countries have contracted the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to develop a database of countries’ illegal trade to make data analysis easier; the office has produced two detailed global reports, the most recent in July of this year.

Many experts believe that CITES has a key role to play, but they fear that the wildlife trade is too big and complex for CITES to manage alone. And the international marketplace in wildlife—legal and illicit—stands to grow in the future, Scheffers says. Currently, more than 7,600 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are traded globally, and Scheffers predicts that another 4,000 or more could be traded in the future. It’s not clear that CITES alone can cope with the scale of the problem.

So what is the answer? In a paper in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, ‘t Sas-Rolfes discusses a range of measures beyond CITES that he thinks could make the treaty more effective.

One key tool is local detection of illegal activity, courtesy of new geospatial technologies, in order to catch more poachers. An example is the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool, developed in 2011 and now in use in more than 60 countries in Africa, Asia, South America, and the Caribbean. Rangers can input data onto handheld devices as they patrol. The software takes data on areas surveyed, snares removed, and arrests made, and converts that information into maps. It also lets rangers take photos for evidence and identification; the software tags them with time and place stamps.

The data are updated in real time, helping connect rangers in the field to command centers elsewhere, aiding operations as they happen. And knowing where poaching and smuggling has previously occurred can help rangers better plan patrols and improve enforcement, the technology’s creators say. They report that the software has saved rangers time and helped operations run more smoothly. That has reportedly contributed to a 67 percent increase in patrols at protected areas in Nigeria managed by the Wildlife Conservation Society—and a 71 percent reduction in gorilla hunting there.

A more novel strategy is the development of “synthetic” alternatives to illicitly traded animal products, such as rhino horn and pangolin scales. Introducing cheaper substitutes for wildlife products can drive down prices and reduce illegal harvesting, studies suggest. Researchers have had some success making biofabricated horn from horsehair; it’s reportedly identical to wild rhino horn. But that product isn’t yet on the market, so its acceptance—and thus, any conservation benefits—remains to be seen.

In a similar vein, Conservation X Labs, a technology company in Washington, D.C., that works on solutions to conservation challenges, hopes to develop synthetic pangolin scales as a substitute for the wild-caught product. Alex Dehgan, the company’s co-founder and chief executive, says the project is still in very early stages.

Another approach—and one that’s controversial—is to raise animals such as lions and bears in captivity to help satisfy consumer demand for wildlife products while protecting wild populations. Such wildlife-farming initiatives have had mixed results. Researchers report that South Africa, for example, has legally exported farmed lion parts to Southeast Asia and China to replace the use of wild large cats for tiger wines and health tonics. But that program has also been widely criticized for poor animal-welfare standards, and wildlife-conservation organizations argue that the practice provides cover for illegal trade. “A legal trade removes the stigma attached to wildlife-product consumption and increases demand,” Jones and Stroud say.

CITES would also have more teeth if its efforts were linked with other international conservation agreements, Scheffers says. He suggests a partnership with the United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. This would help foster initiatives that support the forest-dwelling people who depend on the wildlife trade for their livelihoods. Local people who are directly affected by CITES rules struggle to get their views and experiences heard in CITES decision-making, Scheffers says; for him and some other experts, this is among the convention’s biggest flaws.

Indeed, ‘t Sas-Rolfes says, for conservation efforts to be effective, they need to involve “the people who have skin in the game on the ground.” Early findings from one of his research projects suggest that governments that encourage participation from local communities are more successful in conserving wildlife and biodiversity. More governments should encourage participation from local communities at CITES meetings, he says—and the meetings should give local people more time and space to express their views. CITES will also struggle to achieve its goals unless it gets better data, Scheffers says.

Still, although CITES has its problems, even its critics aren’t ready to abandon the program just yet.

“With all its flaws and faults,” Zain says, “it’s really the only tool out there.”

This post appears courtesy of Knowable.

The Case Against Wet Markets MARTHA CHENG


Can You Wage a War on Poaching? ZACH GOLDHAMMER


The Price of Protecting Rhinos CATHLEEN O'GRADY

The three major cartels behind the downfall of Africa’s elephants

The opioid crisis is killing trees too

Read: It will take millions of years for mammals to recover from us

The Tragedy of a Ruined Telescope

One of the world’s most beloved observatories is being demolished before its time.

MARINA KOREN NOVEMBER 19, 2020

RICARDO ARDUENGO / AFP / GETTY

One of the most powerful telescopes in the world is on the brink of collapse.

Arecibo, a giant radio observatory nestled in the lush mountains of Puerto Rico, did some of the dreamiest work in astronomy. But it was forced to stop operations this year after suffering unprecedented damage, and officials now believe that it is beyond repair. Instead of trying to fix it, they’re going to tear it down.

The trouble began in August. A metal support cable weighing thousands of pounds slipped out of its socket and plummeted into the cavernous, 1,000-foot-wide radio dish in the middle of the night. The cable, installed in the 1990s, was considered fairly new for an observatory that began operations in 1963, and the incident confounded Arecibo’s stewards. The cable “definitely should not have failed in the way it did,” Ashley Zauderer, the Arecibo program director at the National Science Foundation,which owns the telescope, said during a press conference today.

By the time the sun rose the next day, the telescope was transformed. The great Arecibo, where the fictional astronomer Ellie Arroway scanned the cosmos for unexplainable phenomena in Contact—and where countless real astronomers did the same—now resembled a crumbled set from an apocalyptic disaster movie.

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

Officials were hopeful they could repair the damage, and outlined a plan. But earlier this month, just days before engineers were scheduled to try to stabilize the telescope, another piece of hardware came smashing into the dish. A main cable, one of the originals installed when the observatory was built, had snapped, causing even more damage. Engineers had recently inspected the cable, and though they saw that some of its exterior wires had torn, they thought it was strong enough to hang on. “It was just not seen as an immediate threat, and I don’t think anyone understood that clearly the cable had deteriorated,” Zauderer said. The gut punch is that this main cable was scheduled to be replaced this year.

The Arecibo Observatory faces an “uncontrolled catastrophic collapse,” Ralph Gaume, the director of the astronomy division at the NSF, told reporters this morning. The structure is so unsteady that it’s too dangerous for engineers to inspect it up close. “According to engineering assessments, even attempts at stabilization or testing the cables could result in accelerating the catastrophic failure,” Gaume said. Engineers fear that more cables could break and crash into the dish.

Arecibo has provided observations for discoveries within the solar system and well beyond. It is considered a landmark in the field of SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and one of the best spots for studying potentially hazardous asteroids near Earth.

Over the years, Arecibo has built a reputation as a resilient institution; it has faced danger and damage, but it has always endured. In its lifetime, it has survived earthquakes and storms, including the hurricane that devastated Puerto Rico in 2017, which damaged some of the dish. This year, a month before the first cable failure presaged Arecibo’s downfall, the observatory weathered a tropical storm in silence and then powered up as soon as the skies cleared, ready to chase an asteroid as it zoomed past Earth. Even after the second cable broke this month, officials wanted badly to save the telescope. “It’s just too important of a tool for the advancement of science,” Francisco Cordova, the observatory’s director, said at the time. The expectation was that Arecibo would bounce back yet again.


Engineers are now working to quickly formulate a plan to demolish the telescope before it collapses on its own. Arecibo’s demise is a different fate than astronomers are used to. Hardware of all sorts ages and breaks—Hubble, another famed telescope, is operating with fewer working parts than it launched with 30 years ago. But it is unusual to wreck an observatory because you have no other choice, and so unexpectedly too. Engineers have deliberately destroyed spacecraft before, such as Cassini, which plummeted into the atmosphere of Saturn, and Galileo, which met a similar end on Jupiter, but those goodbyes were planned. Scientists had the chance to make their final observations and close up shop. The spacecraft were running out of fuel, and soon their scientific instruments would fall silent. Their missions were over. Arecibo’s was not.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

2020 Came for One of Earth’s Most Famous Telescopes

The Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico suffered unprecedented damage this week, the latest in a series of recent misfortunes.

MARINA KOREN AUGUST 12, 2020

If the name Arecibo sounds familiar, it is probably because you’ve seen Contact, the 1997 movie adaptation of Carl Sagan’s sci-fi novel of the same name. Dr. Ellie Arroway works at the Arecibo Observatory, scanning the skies for mysterious radio signals from faraway stars. In one scene, she gazes at the cavernous 1,000-foot radio dish, nestled in lush mountains, under a clear, blue sky.

The real Arecibo Observatory, built inside a natural sinkhole in Puerto Rico, is just as breathtaking as it looks in the movies, and it has provided countless observations to many real astronomers since it began operating in 1963. Over the years, Arecibo has produced a trove of scientific discoveries inside the solar system and beyond. It is one of the most powerful telescopes in the world. Arecibo is where the field of SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, began in earnest, with visionaries who believed that someday we would make that triumphant first contact. And it can’t catch a break.

The telescope’s latest mishap unfolded earlier this week, in the middle of the night. A metal support cable snapped and fell into the dish. The force of the impact ripped a 100-foot-long gash in the aluminum. The mesh of steel cables supporting the massive dish broke too, dropping debris on the grass below.

“We have seen nothing like this at Arecibo before,” Zenaida Gonzalez Kotala, a spokesperson for the University of Central Florida, one of the institutions that operates the observatory, told me. Engineers don’t know yet what caused the cable to break. For now, the telescope has paused observations.

Read: Waiting for a signal from Arecibo

It might be tempting to react to this photograph in the way many of us have responded recently to bits of bad news against the backdrop of the pandemic: Really, 2020? You couldn’t leave Arecibo alone? But Arecibo has experienced its share of disasters, large and small. In its efforts to survey the cosmos and uncover worlds beyond imagination, the observatory has been repeatedly derailed by the most earthly of obstacles. Earth is the only home we’ve got in the universe, but sometimes the planet can really ruin the view.

The trials that Arecibo has experienced over the years sound almost biblical in their proportions. In September 2017, Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, knocking out power across the island for months. The observatory famous for once broadcasting a radio message into the cosmos intended for any intelligent civilizations fell silent. During the storm, an antenna suspended over the observatory fell and punctured the dish, tearing a hole in the aluminum. But the observatory was back up and running within a week, powered by generators.

The hurricane struck at a moment when Arecibo’s future seemed more uncertain than ever. The National Science Foundation, which owns Arecibo, was already considering passing the observatory off to someone else so it could focus—and spend money on—other, new projects. Some feared the hurricane damage would make the NSF pull the plug, but the foundation eventually negotiated an agreement with a trio of institutions to take over operations, and astronomers around the world sighed in relief.

Then, in January of this year, the earthquakes came. The tremors, some as strong as 6.4 magnitude, made observations impossible, and no one was allowed on-site. The dish wasn’t damaged, not like it was after an earthquake in 2014, but the observatory was forced to stop operations until the shaking from nearly a dozen quakes subsided.

The coronavirus pandemic has prevented astronomers from visiting Arecibo, but the telescope can be operated remotely, so the work continued. Even in the middle of a plague, Arecibo found itself facing more natural disasters. An asteroid that astronomers wanted to observe zoomed past Earth just as Tropical Storm Isaias struck Puerto Rico in July. Arecibo went quiet as the storm approached, then leapt into action as soon as it passed. Researchers managed to study the asteroid for two and a half hours, just enough time to learn about its shape and orbit.


When the cable fell this week, Arecibo was still recovering from Hurricane Maria. Even three years after the storm, although the structural damage had been repaired, technicians were still in the careful process of recalibrating the dish to restore its sensitivity to high-frequency radio waves. “That takes a lot of time,” Abel Méndez, an astrobiologist who directs Arecibo’s Planetary Habitability Laboratory, told me. “You can still use the observatory, but it won’t be as sensitive as before." Now they will have to begin the effort anew.

When Méndez saw the photo of the latest damage, he was in disbelief. He had used the telescope just last week to observe a favorite target, Barnard’s star, one of the stars closest to Earth. Officials don’t know how long Arecibo will remain out of commission, and when it ultimately recovers, the star will still be there. But some other targets will have come and gone. The outage may prove most debilitating for astronomers who use the observatory to detect near-Earth asteroids. Three years ago, when Arecibo was struggling to rebound from Hurricane Maria, other observatories around the world were scrambling to observe the first-known object to ever come from another solar system, the asteroid called ‘Oumuamua, as it raced past Earth. “We missed that opportunity,” Méndez told me.

Méndez believes Arecibo will recover from the latest setback, just as it always has. The observatory has proven its resilience, and it should have a long career of making cameos in sci-fi movies ahead of it.

“It’s frustrating,” Méndez says, but “I always see this as, Okay, stop for a moment, but we will be back soon. It’s not like I feel that it’s doomed.”


MARINA KOREN is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

MORE STORIES


Hubble’s Hardware Woes and the Painful Era of Aging Spacecraft 

MARINA KOREN



Puerto Rico's Environmental Catastrophe 

VANN R. NEWKIRK II

Europe’s Blind Spot: The Movement Against Corruption in Bulgaria

Radosveta Vassileva
NOVEMBER 2020  Green European Journal

The people of Bulgaria have been on the streets protesting against endemic government corruption since July. Meanwhile, leading European politicians continue to pretend that everything is fine. We spoke to legal scholar and activist Radosveta Vassileva about the state of democracy in Bulgaria, the anti-corruption protests, and the hopes for a progressive alternative.

Green European Journal: Protests that began in July were triggered by a police raid on President Rumen Radev’s office but the underlying reason is said to be endemic corruption. 

Can you tell us more about the protests?

Radosveta Vassileva: There have been over 100 days of protests since the presidential office was raided by armed personnel and two presidential advisors arrested on obscure charges. For many Bulgarians, this was the last drop in a sea of corruption scandals. From a constitutional perspective, it was a violation of the principle of the separation of powers, as well as the principle of presidential immunity guaranteed. The president is a member of the opposition, and critical of Prime Minister Boyko Borissov. Pro-government media have indicated that the prosecutor’s office was trying to pave the way for the president’s impeachment.

The day after the raid, people spontaneously started gathering in the streets to express their support for the rule of law. People came from across the political spectrum, left-wingers and right-wingers uniting against endemic corruption. Much has been achieved in these first 100 days. For the first time in a long while, international media is interested in events in Bulgaria: Der Spiegel, Le Monde, La Repubblica, and Politico, among others, are criticising Borissov and calling out Bulgaria as a mafia state.

Even though people expect legal consequences, these days citizens are more interested in prevention. They want to know how we can curtail corruption on this scale in future.

In what way is corruption endemic in Bulgaria? Is it concentrated at the highest level or do people experience it in their daily lives?

We see both kinds but the true shock is the scale of high-level corruption. Bulgaria has been permanently shaken by corruption scandals, involving among others the prime minister and the prosecutor’s office. Since Borissov came to power in 2009, one of the most prominent scandals was “Yaneva Gate”. Two senior judges were recorded discussing how they receive orders from the prosecutor’s office, the Prime Minister Borissov, and other politicians regarding how to handle cases. It was clear evidence that there is no separation of powers. Several corruption scandals have implicated Borissov himself: he was investigated for money laundering in Spain, he was recorded boasting about instructing the prosecutor’s office to charge particular people and raid their businesses, and pictures of his bedroom showing exorbitant amounts of cash and gold were leaked (experts estimated the equivalent of 1 million euros in the picture). I could also mention the abuse of EU funds. In the “Guest House Gate” scandal, it was revealed that politicians and their relatives were using structural development money to build luxury houses. The prosecutor’s office is a political puppet and pretends that nothing is going on.

So far there are no consequences?

Not even an investigation. Even though people expect legal consequences, these days citizens are more interested in prevention. They want to know how we can curtail corruption on this scale in future.

Why is the prosecutor’s office so influential?

The prosecutor’s office has excessive powers and an entirely vertical structure: all decisions depend on the top. It is a Soviet model that has barely been reformed since the Communist era. It is easy for a serving prosecutor general to abuse their power and there is no accountability mechanism. The magnitude of this problem was revealed by the brutal murder of Prosecutor Nikolay Kolev in 2002 after he challenged the prosecutor general’s authority. This crime has not been prosecuted; the murderers were never found. Following the decision in Kolevi v Bulgaria by the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe has been insisting on an independent investigation into his murder and a reform of the prosecutors’ office to introduce checks and balances and accountability.

This superstructure is one of the greatest rule of law challenges in Bulgaria. But the Supreme Judicial Council is also problematic. This body is responsible for the election, appointment and promotion of all prosecutors, investigators, and judges. But the people it promotes are always convenient candidates for the prosecutor general. Meanwhile, the two highest ranking judges – the presidents of the two supreme courts for cassation and administration – are technically elected by prosecutors, but members of the council elected by the parliament form the majority in this body.

Where does Borissov’s political support come from?

Since Borissov’s Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) party took power, it has doubled the size of the public administration. Many people that support Borissov are happy about these jobs and they form his base. Many people also do not see an alternative. The biggest opposition party, the Bulgarian Socialist Party, is the direct successor of the Bulgarian Communist Party. The memory of communism is still fresh in the country, and its legacy is unacceptable for many voters. Borissov is seen as a right-winger, even if his policies and rhetoric swing between far right and left.


Voting buying is a major issue in every election. Journalists find and even interview people who openly admit that they have sold their votes.

GERB and its allies implemented a crackdown on human rights and freedoms in violation of international conventions, encouraged xenophobia, especially against the already marginalised Roma minority, and propagated intolerance towards the LGBT community. At the same time, GERB doubled public sector employment and relies on left-populist strategies to maintain popularity, such as blaming the rich for the country’s problems, giving pensioners a 25 euro bonus, and claiming that a managed economy is a panacea for Bulgaria’s economic turmoil. Many of GERB’s members, including Borissov, were formerly members of the Communist Party. Borissov was the personal bodyguard of Bulgaria’s last Communist leader, Todor Zhivkov, after he was overthrown.

Borissov is also suspected of electoral fraud. Data published by the Eurobarometer survey shows that many Bulgarians do not trust elections.[1] Voting buying is a major issue in every election. Journalists find and even interview people who openly admit that they have sold their votes. “Dead souls” or phantom voters are also problem, deceased people who are registered and reported as having cast a vote. Experts estimates that they might make up 18 per cent of the electoral roll.

Why is there no EU response to systemic electoral fraud?

Borissov is a valued member of the European People’s Party and Bulgaria is of strategic importance to the EU due to its location. Bulgaria borders Turkey and Turkey scares people in the EU, because they associate it with migration and trafficking. EU politicians believe that Borissov can control these threats.

[…] once a country is an EU member, there are no consequences for non-compliance.

On paper, there are efforts to strengthen the rule of law in Bulgaria through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM).[2] When Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, they did not fulfil the accession criteria. This mechanism was supposed to put them on track but, sadly, it has been hijacked. The latest reports do not correspond to reality and portray Borissov and his reforms in a very positive light. Various parts of civil society have criticised the EU reports, but Bulgaria is a small country with a different language and alphabet so this criticism does not necessarily reach Brussels.

What is the problem with the EU’s mechanism?

The mechanism was a priori badly designed, and maybe the Eurocrats don’t even have the capacity to evaluate progress. The Commission usually focuses on technical, and less political issues, such as the workload in courts, the judicial inspectorate, and capacity building through anti-corruption strategies and legislation. If you set the bar low, it is easier to say that something has been achieved. The Commission neither focused on the big picture, nor on the longstanding challenges compromising the integrity and core values of the justice system: the excessive powers and lack of accountability of the prosecutor’s office, the subjugation of the judiciary by the executive, and the heavy politicisation of the Supreme Judicial Council. Success in the Commission’s terms does not correspond with the facts on the ground. Had it been that successful, Bulgaria would not be the most corrupt country in the EU according to all major indexes.

If you set the bar low, it is easier to say that something has been achieved.

There are strong reasons to believe that behind-the-curtain arrangements were made between the Commission and Borissov. Hristo Ivanov, former justice minister who resigned because Borissov did not support his proposals for an in-depth judicial reform, has spoken publicly on such complicity. In 2016, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker publicly promised Borissov he would lift the mechanism for Bulgaria despite ongoing scandals and the findings of the Commission’s own reports. On several occasions, the Commission’s methodology has proved flawed. For instance, attacks on the rule of law, such as legislation seemingly violating the Bulgarian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, were recognised as progress in reports on Bulgaria. This indicates that the government’s justifications were taken at face value. Meanwhile, the benchmark on judicial independence was closed as early as 2018 even as judges complained about harassments.

Not even the pre-accession Copenhagen criteria on democratic governance and human rights for potential EU members helped?

In the negotiation stage, the EU institutions had more leverage and some progress was made. But once a country is an EU member, there are no consequences for non-compliance.

The European Commission published its report on rule of law across Europe in September. Many people have criticised it as too soft. What was your impression?

I subscribe to the view: the reports appear one-sided and euphemistic. Everything in the Bulgarian country report is factually correct but it represents only 40 per cent of the picture. Key problems have been omitted and the nature of the current protests has been misrepresented. The report acknowledges ongoing protests against corruption, but it does not mention that the protest are specifically against the alleged corruption of Borissov and the prosecutor’s office. You have a stark contrast between Bulgaria’s rule of law report and the resolution by the European Parliament. The resolution was much more critical and detailed on the decay in the rule of law and systemic breaches of fundamental rights in Bulgaria.

Success in the Commission’s terms does not correspond with the facts on the ground.

Are Bulgaria’s issues with the rule of law similar to the situations with Hungary and Poland?

The rule of law decay in Bulgaria is certainly comparable to the rule of law crises in Hungary and Poland. One observes the same zeal to capture the judiciary, weaponise the prosecuting authorities, remove checks and balances, and curtail human rights. Nevertheless, there are key differences. Unlike Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary were stable democracies when they joined the EU. The assaults on the rule of law we now witness in Poland and Hungary were Bulgaria’s reality at the time of accession.

Many assaults on the rule of law we now witness in Poland and Hungary were Bulgaria’s reality at the time of accession.

Over the years, the Commission created the illusion that Bulgaria was making steady progress so that the international community felt no need to scrutinise developments in the country. In practice, the Commission seems to have provided an umbrella for Borissov’s regime. GERB’s quest for an arsenal of repressive tools was portrayed as commitment to fighting corruption by the Commission. The truth is that corruption cannot fight itself.

Unlike the leadership of Fidesz in Hungary, GERB present themselves as pro-European. They have not overtly engaged in anti-EU rhetoric, they have not made bold ideological claims about building an illiberal democracy, and they have not overtly refused to implement judgments issued by European courts. Instead, while pretending to promote EU values, they undermine them discreetly.

The journalist sometimes mentioned alongside Jan Kuciak and Daphne Caruana Galizia, both murdered in Europe in recent years, is Victoria Marinova, a Bulgarian news presenter. Does her case raise alarms regarding the safety of journalists, activists and human rights campaigners in Bulgaria?

Bulgaria is deeply divided about her murder. The prosecutor’s office says that the case is solved, but they probably just covered up the story. Many reputable journalists do not believe that the right murderer has been caught.


Bulgaria has a history of physical assaults against inconvenient journalists – the perpetrators are usually not found.

Journalism is dangerous in Bulgaria. During the protests, the police has not only used violence against the protesters but also against journalists. Photographic evidence and testimonies show journalists being beaten up and threatened with violence. A cameraman was hospitalised. Bulgaria has a history of physical assaults against inconvenient journalists – the perpetrators are usually not found. Moreover, state authorities often abuse their powers to scare those who are critical of the regime. In 2018, a journalist from Bivol, the Bulgarian partner of the Organised Crime and Corruption Research Project, called the police to prevent the destruction of evidence regarding the abuse of EU funds. In the end, the journalist was arrested. Others have received obscure charges or been harassed by the tax authorities.

Is there sufficient independent news in Bulgaria?

Bulgaria ranks 111th on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index. Most media are directly or indirectly controlled by Borissov or his partners. Borissov and his partners are celebrated, while opponents are accused of misconduct. Inconvenient judges, businessmen or civil society members are tarnished in the media. Independent outlets are few and information is hard to find. We mainly rely on social media these days. Sadly, even those are censored: key civil society members have seen their profiles blocked and posts deleted – most likely because trolls report them at a mass scale.

Is there a progressive alternative in Bulgaria?

The only real opposition in parliament is the Bulgarian Socialist Party. All other parties in parliament – right-wing formations such as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO)-Bulgarian National Movement, the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria, Ataka, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, and Volya – are openly or covertly allied with Borissov. However, some potential alternatives outside of parliament are gaining visibility in the protests. The Democratic Bulgaria coalition – composed of Democrats for Strong Bulgaria, Yes, Bulgaria!, and the Bulgarian Greens – is gaining ground because of its stance against corruption and calls for judicial reform. It appeals to centrist voters as well as classic right-wingers. Some of the key organisers of the protests – the so-called “Poisonous Trio” – have combined forces with former ombudsman turned opposition leader Maya Manolova and may provide an option for centrist and left-wing voters. Citizens are insisting on early elections so that new faces can enter parliament, push for reforms, and correct Borissov’s behaviour if he stays in power.

Is there support for progressive alternatives?

Citizens of diverse backgrounds will support these alternatives. Key members of Bulgaria’s intelligentsia are supporting the protests. Young people are also very visible. Due to the coronavirus, many Bulgarian students who study abroad spent their summer in Bulgaria and seeing all these young faces was very refreshing.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Bulgaria is the poorest country in the EU. 22 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. A huge social group is mainly concerned with surviving and it is hard to talk about values and justice when they don’t have food on the table. These groups are often more reluctant to support more progressive ideas.

How can progressive European forces such as the Greens/EFA help drive change in Bulgaria?

The European Greens have been surprisingly active in the fight for the rule of law and against corruption in Bulgaria. They are the only European party that took an overt stance against Bulgaria’s corruption. Green MEPs traditionally support protests in Bulgaria, Ska Keller attended the anti-corruption protests dedicated to saving the Pirin National Park from construction and damage a few years ago. This year, Daniel Freund joined the anti-corruption protests. All Green MEPs supported the resolution on Bulgaria, and they were very active during the debates on the rule of law at the European Parliament. This is somewhat ironic, given that we do not have a Green MEP ourselves. I hope we will have one soon. The Bulgarian Greens have a good reputation for sticking to their principles and hopefully will manage to grow their constituency.

FOOTNOTES

[1] According to the survey results 72 per cent of Bulgarians worry that the final results of elections are manipulated (contrast with the 56 per cent EU average), 81 per cent of Bulgarians fear that votes are being bought or sold (contrast with the 55 per cent EU average), and 72 per cent of Bulgarians believe people are coerced to vote a certain way (contrast with the 52 per cent EU average).

[2] The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) is a joint commitment between the EU and the participating member states, it was established at the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate the countries’ efforts in the areas of judicial reform, organised crime and corruption.

HEY CANADA
'Normal Christmas out of the question,' says Trudeau as Toronto imposes lockdown

Issued on: 21/11/2020 - 

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gives a news conference at Rideau Cottage, as efforts continue to help slow the spread of coronavirus, in Ottawa, Canada, on November 20, 2020. © Blair Gable, REUTERS

Text by:FRANCE 24

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday that Canada's hospital system could be overwhelmed by a possible quadrupling of new Covid-19 cases by year end as its biggest city Toronto prepared to impose a lockdown.

Trudeau implored Canadians to stay home as much as possible as a second wave of the novel coronavirus rips across the country, forcing several of the 10 provinces to reimpose curbs on movement and businesses. Cases continue to spike in Canada and authorities complain some people are being more careless about taking precautions.

"A normal Christmas is quite frankly right out of the question," Trudeau said. Earlier, Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam said in the worst case scenario, a spike to 60,000 daily cases, would occur if people became more sociable. Even if current restrictions on gatherings are maintained, new daily cases will jump to over 20,000 by December 31 compared with less than 5,000 now.

I’ll be working from home as much as possible in the coming days, too. Because it’s up to all of us to do our part. We know what to do. We know it isn’t always easy. But we know it works. If you don’t have to leave your house, then don’t. #StayHome— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) November 20, 2020

"Cases across the country are spiking massively ... we're really at risk of seeing case loads go up and hospitals get overwhelmed," said a clearly upset Trudeau.

He dismissed the idea of Ottawa invoking emergency powers to reintroduce the kind of widespread national shutdown that provinces imposed earlier in the year, saying, "I'm not looking to bring in a federal hammer to try and do things."

Toronto lockdown

However, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced on Friday that Toronto – Canada's most populous city and the heart of the financial system – as well as the nearby region of Peel would enter into lockdown on Monday.

"The situation is extremely serious and further action is required to avoid the worst case scenario," Ford said at a press briefing.

Effective Monday November 23, Toronto Public Health and Peel Regional Health Unit will move to Grey-Lockdown level.

Please continue to follow public health measures.

Learn more about Grey-Lockdown level: https://t.co/0Yinu7leCU pic.twitter.com/RQTvqAHW1D— Doug Ford (@fordnation) November 20, 2020

The lockdown, whose restrictions include a ban on indoor private gatherings, will last at least 28 days and violators can be fined CAN$750 (€483).

Outside gatherings will be limited to 10 people, as will religious services, funerals and weddings.

Hair salons and other personal care locations as well as gyms and casinos will be closed.

Schools will remain open, but restaurants and non-essential stores will only be open for pickup and delivery.

"We can't risk overwhelming our hospitals," said Ford, with Canada's most populous province having just passed 100,000 coronavirus infections.

Today’s #COVID19 #Epidemiology in Canada Daily Update: https://t.co/2586g1O35R pic.twitter.com/dfLrb7A6Ib— Dr. Theresa Tam (@CPHO_Canada) November 20, 2020

Officials predict that by November 30 the total Canadian death toll could be between 11,870 and 12,120, with the total cases between 366,500 and 378,600. Canada has recorded a total of 315,751 cases and 11,265 deaths so far.

Separately on Friday, a federal official said Canada expects to receive six million doses of Pfizer and Moderna's Covid-19 vaccines by March 31, 2021, though when the shots can be used will depend on regulatory approval.

Iain Stewart, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, told a parliamentary committee that because the vaccines were new, manufacturers need to scale up to meet the overall demand.

"All countries are interested in the very first vaccines, and the companies are trying to distribute out to multiple countries at the same time, so the amounts start out small and then they build over the course of the coming year," he said.

(FRANCE 24 with REUTERS and AFP)

Protect the living, honour the dead: Ending violence against women in France

Ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on November 25, we bring you a special documentary on the scourge of domestic violence. Every year in France, more than 220,000 women are victims of violence inflicted by a partner or ex-partner. This abuse usually takes place behind closed doors and takes many forms: beatings, rapes, sexual mutilations, kidnappings. Tragically, last year saw more than 150 femicides. FRANCE 24's Mélina Huet followed four women – a policewoman, a lawyer, a gynaecologist and an activist – who are trying to change the status quo.

Thai students and dancing dinosaurs rally in Bangkok

Issued on: 21/11/2020 - 

Thai protestors dressed as dinosaurs rally with students for reform of the education system Mladen ANTONOV AFP

Bangkok (AFP)

Thousands of high school students upset about Thailand's lacklustre education system rallied alongside protestors dressed as dancing dinosaurs in Bangkok on Saturday.

It was the first mass gathering in the kingdom since Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha warned authorities would use all laws, including harsh royal defamation charges, to crack down on pro-democracy protesters.

Since August, emboldened by a broader political protest movement sweeping Thailand, a group called the "Bad Students" have campaigned for the resignation of Education Minister Nataphol Teepsuwan, demanded cultural change, equality, a curriculum overhaul and relaxation of strict rules.

Ahead of Saturday's rally three student leaders were summoned for police questioning and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights said there were now four juveniles facing potential prosecution.

But despite the threats the youngsters remained defiant as they danced alongside half a dozen T-Rex characters representing Thailand's "political dinosaurs" and bounced around giant "asteroid" balls.

"We have to come out and make our voices heard to force change," Leaf, 15 told AFP.

Many students wore coloured wrist bands to indicate they were underage, so older protesters could protect them.

"School is not a safe place (for girls)," one student's placard said.

Hundreds of protesters at the rally wore rubber duck hair clips, a reference to pro-democracy protesters using inflatable pool toys to shield themselves from police water cannon and tear gas on Tuesday.

- Anger over poor teacher quality -

Many protesters were upset families have to fork out extra money on tutoring because of the poor quality of teaching.

"I spend so much for my daughter's tutoring fees and need to enrol her in a faraway school so that she could get a good education. It should not be like this," said Supaporn Pratumrat, 41, who attended the rally with her daughter.

Izzy 18, went to the US on an student exchange last year and said students there were able to have fun and pursue their hobbies after school but many Thai students don't have that luxury.

"In Thailand some students go to extra classes from 4pm to 9pm," he told AFP.

Since July, Thailand has been rocked by youth-led protests demanding a new constitution, unprecedented calls to reform the untouchable monarchy, and for Prime Minister Prayut, who came to power in a 2014 coup, to resign.

Police used tear gas and water cannon against protesters outside parliament on Tuesday and 55 people were injured including six people shot during scuffles between democracy activists and hardline royalists.

A day later protesters graffitied the outside the national police headquarters and threw paint at the complex.

The government's decision to give police the green light to pursue royal defamation charges against pro-democracy protesters is likely to increase tensions ahead of the next major rally scheduled for Wednesday.

"Destroying public property, unprecedented violation of the monarchy, I personally cannot accept this," Prayut said on Friday night.

In Thailand lese majeste charges are routinely interpreted to include any criticism of the monarchy -- including content posted or shared on social media.

Anyone convicted of defaming, insulting or threatening the king, queen, heir or regent faces between three and 15 years in prison on each count.

Meanwhile, Berlin is keeping an eye on events in Thailand.

"If the democratic movement was crushed by the army or the security forces, and victims were killed, then I do not believe that the king of Thailand can continue to stay in Germany," German Social Democratic parliamentarian Nils Schmidt told German channel ARD.

New French law banning images of police sparks civil rights concerns, protests

Issued on: 21/11/2020 

Protesters in Paris against France's proposed security law. 

© Stephane de Sakutin, AFP
Text by:Romain BRUNET

France’s parliament voted to approve a controversial law Friday that will ban the publication of images of on-duty police officers as well as expand the use of surveillance drones and police powers. Journalists’ groups, human rights activists and unions – including Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International’s French branch – organised protests in Paris and other French cities on Saturday.

Article 24 of France’s new security bill would make it a criminal offence for anyone to disseminate images that might “harm the physical or mental integrity” of police officers. People found guilty could be punished by a year in prison or a fine of up to €45,000.

Critics of the bill say it threatens to make it more difficult for journalists and others to report on police brutality or other infractions, with journalists’ groups, human rights activists and unions organising the protests in French cities.

Facing a backlash, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin tried to assuage public fears in comments to parliament on Friday. Journalists and members of the public can still “film and broadcast” images of police officers even “without blurring their faces”, he said. It is only when the images are shared with comments “intended to harm” or incite violence that they would fall afoul of the new law.

Media organisations had criticised Darmanin for telling a press conference on Wednesday that journalists covering protests or demonstrations should inform the authorities beforehand to “avoid confusion” if police are forced to respond to violence.

Alice Thourot, an MP for President Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche (LREM) party and the co-author of the controversial clause, also tried to quell concern.

“The bill will not jeopardise in any way the rights of journalists or ordinary citizens to inform the public,” Thourot told French daily Le Figaro, adding that it only “outlaws any calls for violence or reprisals against police officers on social media”.

MPs are scheduled to vote on the bill as a whole on Tuesday. It will then go to the Senate, France's upper house.

In response to claims that Article 24 would have unintended consequences on press freedom, the government added an amendment ahead of Friday’s vote specifying that the clause “will not be an obstacle to the right to inform the public”. The offence outlined by the text “will only target the dissemination of images clearly aimed at harming a police officer’s or soldier’s physical or psychological integrity”, the amendment reads.

But the article’s passage has raised eyebrows, coming as it does after a summer of mass public protests against police brutality and accusations of systemic racism.

Activists have alleged that police brutality was responsible for the killing of Adama Traoré, a Frenchman of Malian origin who died after his arrest in the Paris suburbs in 2016. An autopsy commissioned by his family said that he died of asphyxiation. The official health report released in June said he died of heart failure, clearing three police officers of responsibility.

Several instances of alleged police violence were revealed by videos broadcast on social media. Cédric Chouviat, a delivery driver in Paris, suffered a heart attack and died in January after police put him in a chokehold. Several Yellow Vest protesters were bludgeoned inside a Burger King in Paris in December 2018. Images of both incidents originally surfaced on social media, prompting public outrage.

‘A freedom-killing law’?

Anne-Sophie Simpère, an activist for Amnesty International France, said the amendment is not enough and that the government should withdraw Article 24 in its totality.

“It is a freedom-killing law that would threaten freedom of expression, the right to demonstrate and the right to privacy,” she said.

France’s official rights ombudsman, Claire Hédon, also said Article 24 should be withdrawn, describing it as “unnecessary”. She added that several other clauses in the text were “likely to contravene human rights”, including the right to privacy.

Article 22 of the security bill would allow police greater latitude in the use of surveillance drones. Simpère said drones could now be used in more circumstances that are not subject to regulation. The development of facial recognition technology “raises further concerns”, she said, adding that drones should only be used “if there is a legitimate need and a clear objective”.

Amendments to ban the use of facial recognition technology in drones were rejected on Friday morning.

Addressing parliament, Thourot pointed out that there is currently no “legal framework” regulating the use of drones. Article 22 will allow them to be used only by security forces for purposes including the “prevention of terrorist acts”, she said.

Another clause in the security bill would give local police new powers, including the ability to record minor offences such as traffic violations and to carry out identity checks. Currently, only the national police has these powers.

The security bill would also reform regulations of the private security sector, notably ahead of the 2023 Rugby World Cup in France and the 2024 Paris Olympic Games. In particular, it aims to “drastically reduce” the number of subcontractors in the industry to tackle what Thourot has called the “Uberisation” of the industry. The legislation would encourage the employment of retired police officers by allowing them to combine their pensions with pay from security work.

In addition, the bill would allow the broadcast of recordings from police body cameras so that social media videos of police officers could be cross-referenced with them. Supporters of the proposed legislation say that videos of police that are posted on social media are often truncated and frequently present the actions of officers without the necessary context.

Stanislas Gaudon, the head of the Alliance police union, told FRANCE 24 that such images would help protect police who are carrying out their duties.

“We hope to use image body cameras in these instances to show the truth about what happened” when there are claims of improper behaviour by police officers, he said.

Rights groups, press freedom advocates protest against French security bill

Issued on: 21/11/2020 -

A woman holds a placard reading 'Democracy in danger' during a rally to protest against the 'global security' draft law seeking to limit filming of police officers on duty, near the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, on November 21, 2020. 

© Stephane de Sakutin, AFP

Text by:NEWS WIRES

Thousands protested in Paris and other French cities Saturday against a security bill that would outlaw the publication of images of on-duty police officers. The government says the law is aimed at protecting officers from retribution while critics say it would violate press freedom and the ability to document police abuses. 
ADVERTISING


Rights campaigners and journalists organizations staged street protests in Paris and other French cities on Saturday against a security bill that they say would be a violation of the freedom of information.

The proposed measure would create a new criminal offense of publishing images of police officers with intent to cause them harm.

The government says it is intended to protect police officers from online calls for violence. Critics fear that, if enacted, the measure would endanger journalists and other people who take videos of officers at work, especially during violent demonstrations.

Saturday's protests were called by Reporters without Borders, Amnesty International France, the Human Rights League, journalists’ unions and other groups.

Some slogans from the #StopLoiSecuriteGlobale rally:
“your laws, our shame”
“your weapons, our cameras”
“blurred democracy” and... “say cheese”. pic.twitter.com/vkSCg7ETgz— mike woods (@mawoods) November 21, 2020

The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and France’s human rights ombudsman have also voiced concerns this week over risks that the measure would undermine fundamental rights.

In response to the criticism, Prime Minister Jean Castex announced Thursday an amendment to the measure in order to specify that it "won’t impede the freedom of information” and that it will focus only on images broadcast with “clear” intent to harm a police officer.
Protestors in Paris are angry at controversial new security law


Offenders would face a maximum penalty of up to one year in prison and a 45,000-euro ($53,000) fine.

The proposed law is championed by lawmakers of President Emmanuel Macron’s party, which has a majority in the National Assembly.

Lawmakers are scheduled to vote Tuesday on the bill, which also includes other security measures. It will then go to the Senate.