By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

 

The human rights activist group Amnesty International issued a warning that Europe’s counter-terrorism measures are eroding basic human rights, and have been for the past two years.  The report released by Amnesty, titled ‘Dangerously Disproportionate: The Ever-Expanding National Security State in Europe,’ gives a detailed look into the anti-terrorism measures employed by 14 European countries, and explains how those measures impact basic human rights.  The report also warns that a security state is becoming the “new normal” in the 14 countries which were examined.

Amnesty attributes the restrictive measures to the recent string of terrorist attacks in Europe.  John Dalhuisen, Amnesty’s Europe director, explained that “Europe’s human rights framework, which was so carefully constructed after the Second World War, is being rapidly dismantled.”  Dominique Curis, Amnesty’s director in France, urged the need to “dismantle the paradigm that says there is the state of emergency or nothing in the fight against terrorism, that security equals restriction of rights equals state of emergency.”

Kate Allen, director of Amnesty’s UK branch, compared the restrictive measures to those of Big Brother from author George Orwell’s book 1984, calling the surveillance state from the book “alive and dangerously well in Europe today.”  Allen explained the understandable need for protection from such attacks, however such measures should not be implemented at the cost of fundamental human rights.

Activist groups such as Amnesty criticize the state of emergency that was enacted after the attacks in Paris, and has since been renewed five times, as “extreme.”  Government officials, however, view this as a necessary security measure in protecting against future attacks.  Manuel Valls, French Prime Minister and presidential hopeful, told reporters that “[t]his terrorist threat will last a generation.  Today we have to live with a kind of permanent state of emergency.”

Amnesty’s report is also at odds with independent reviewer of terrorism legislation David Anderson QC’s report.  Anderson believes that the anti-terrorism legislation is an appropriate and proportionate reaction to the current threat Europe faces.  European Union representatives have voiced their disagreement with the conclusions in Amnesty’s report as well, urging that human rights remain paramount in their eyes.

 

For more information, please see:

EurActiv — Amnesty: Fight Against Terror is Dismantling Human Rights in Europe — 18 January 2017

DW — European Counter-Terrorism Legislation ‘Dangerously Disproportionate,’ Amnesty Reports — 17 January 2017

The Guardian — UK Counter-Terror Laws Most Orwellian in Europe, Says Amnesty — 17 January 2017

Independent — European Anti-Terror Powers ‘Eroding Human Rights’ — 17 January 2017

By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

BERLIN, Germany — This past Tuesday, Germany’s highest court unanimously rejected a proposal to ban the far-right neo-Nazi political party.  In 2013, 16 German states submitted a petition to ban the party, citing an alleged racist and anti-Semitic agenda as reasons to support the ban.  The petition also claimed that the group’s views violate Germany’s constitution.

As reason for rejecting the proposal, the court ruled that the party does not pose a serious-enough threat to Germany’s democratic system.  In its verdict, the Federal Constitutional Court explained that they rejected the motion to ban the group as groundless because of a “lack of concrete evidence to make it seem likely that [the party’s] actions will lead to success…”  Per Germany’s constitution, a political party can only be banned if they pose an actual threat to democracy.  Andreas Vosskuhle, president of the presiding court, further explained that in the court’s eyes, a party which “has aims that run contrary to the Constitution is not sufficient grounds for banning a party.”

In September, voters ejected the National Democratic Party (NPD) from the legislature in the last German state in which it held seats.  The party is currently only represented on a local level, which Vosskuhle cites as a reason as to why the party does not have the means to carry out its actions.  “In more than five decades that it has existed, the [NDP] has not been able to achieve lasting representation in a state legislature,” Vosskuhle explained.  He does not see any “indications that this will change in the future.”

The court’s verdict has sparked great outcry.  Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, labeled the ruling as “disappointing” and believes that the ruling “allows the NPD to pursue its destructive, anti-democratic activities and to spread more anti-Semitic and racist hatred.”  The Central Council of Jews in Germany called the verdict “a lost opportunity to take action against an inhumane party.”  Christoph Heubner, Vice President of the International Auschwitz Committee, called the move a “reality-blind and untimely decision” which is going to send a disastrous signal to the rest of Europe.

The court’s verdict marks the second failed attempt of the German government to ban the NPD, as a similar bid was rejected in 2003.

 

For more information, please see:

Fox News — German Court Decides Against Ban of Neo-Nazi Party — 17 January 2017

New York Times — German Court Rejects Effort to Ban Neo-Nazi Party — 17 January 2017

The Times of Israel — German Court Criticized for not Banning Neo-Nazi-Linked Party — 17 January 2017

USA Today — Germany’s Top Court Rejects Bid to Ban Neo-Nazi Party — 17 January 2017