Council of Europe asks UK to explain intimidation against the Guardian

22-08-2013 (updated: 26-08-2013 )

Ed Snowden whistleblower.jpg

Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland has asked UK Home Secretary Theresa May to explain the pressure that Downing Street had put on the Guardian newspaper over the Snowden case, warning of the potentially "chilling effect" on media freedom.

In the letter sent yesterday (21 August), Jagland, a Norwegian politician, laid out his concerns over two recent events in the United Kingdom – the detention by police at the Heathrow airport of David Miranda, the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, and the destruction of hard drives at the Guardian’s headquarters, which he said was “apparently under instructions of government officials”.

Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian newspaper which spearheaded revelations by US whistleblower Edward Snowden, recently revealed that the British authorities forced his newspaper to destroy material leaked by the former CIA employee, whose revelations uncovered a massive American eavesdropping programme that shocked the world and triggered a swathe of angry responses from Europe.

>> Read: UK requests destruction of sensitive Snowden files, EU silent

“These measures, if confirmed, may have a potentially chilling effect on journalists’ freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European convention of Human Rights”, Jagland wrote.

Article 10 of the convention lays out the right to freedom of expression but also refers to restrictions in the interest of national security and public safety and the prevention of disclosure of information received in confidence.

Jagland asked May to “provide information on these reports and comments on the compatibility of the measures taken with the UK’s obligations under the Convention”.

Viviane Reding, the European Commission vice president responsible for justice and fundamental rights, reacted on Tweeter to the Council of Europe's announcement, despite earlier statements by spokespeople from the EU executive saying Brussels could not comment on the application of national security legislation.

“I fully share Mr. Jagland’s concerns,” Reding wrote on Twitter.

But the Commission denied suggestions that Reding’s tweet could be interpreted as a request of information to the UK authorities. Asked by EURACTIV to comment, Commission spokesperson Olivier Bailly said fundamental human rights issues were a responsibility for the Council of Europe, not the European Commission.

“The tweet of Mrs Reding confirms that this is a legal responsibility of the Council of Europe,” Bailly said.

Positions

Background

Comments

19 responses to “Council of Europe asks UK to explain intimidation against the Guardian”

Anonymous says:

22/08/2013 at 14:19

Snowden exposed a crime being perpetrated against all the citizens of the world who communicate by electronic media – the invasion of citizens’ privacy by two rogue states, in violation of the 4th amendment of the USA Constitution and the right to a free press.
In the case of the News of the World newspaper, based in London, those reporters (and even policemen) who were responsible for snooping on voice-mails (such as those of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler), were prosecuted and jailed. Rupert Murdoch (an Australian) was forced to close down News of the World. This is how the British State behaves in relation to unauthorised access to private communication by public companies and private individuals. This is as it should be.
But in the case of Snowden’s expose of massive secret worldwide electronic surveillance by the British Secret Services, the British government chose to use bullying and intimidation agianst the citizen of another country. Even Vladimir Putin, who stamps on democracy, upheld the sanctity of the transit area of Moscow airport. Not so the British government, who do not respect the diplomatic neutrality of Heathrow’s transit area and shook down a citizen of Brazil and robbed him of his possessions. This is the usual colonial mentality shown by both the USA and UK governments to all citizens of developing nations, and increasingly towards their own citizens.
This is entirely what we expect from corrupt governments, which are run by murderers, thieves and liars for their own enrichment. Theresa May will be tried by the public. The results will show in the 2015 election.
At least Britain has a Democracy, which is more than can be said of the USA.

Anonymous says:

22/08/2013 at 17:05

I think it is perfectly morally reasonable to steal for a greater good. Snowden “stole” the NSA’s documents to highlight a greater wrong – illegal mass surveilance.

In the first commment on this article, lapazjim seems excercised that Snowden “stole”. I wonder if lapazjim is as excercised that we “stole” the Enigma codes in WWII from the Germans.

Sometimes, a wrong helps to uncover & highlight a greater wrong. This is one of those times.

Anonymous says:

23/08/2013 at 00:01

Quote
I wonder if lapazjim is as excercised that we “stole” the Enigma codes in WWII from the Germans.Unquote

What an absolutely stupid statement. During war time it is perfectly reasonable and if you just think about it for a minute, every day there are thousands of acts of industrial espionage by states and companies/individuals. Not to mention espionage being committed by every country on everyone else. Have you never wondered why the Russian and Chinese Embassy have so many staff. Time to stick our heads out of the window and have a sniff of the real world.

Quote Even Vladimir Putin, who stamps on democracy, upheld the sanctity of the transit area of Moscow airport.Unquote.

I wonder why that nice man, Mr Putin would do that? Could there by something in it for Russia? I bet he won’t have to get the information from the Guardian

As a Brit, without torturing myself or being overly simplistic, I find it all very easy. It goes like this:
An American, Mr Snowden has leaked stolen classified information to the Guardian newspaper and possibly put at risk the National Security of two countries (maybe more because I don’t believe that Germany is squeaky clean). I say maybe put at risk because countries must have secrets and most private citizens are not knowledgeable enough to question this without even more information being given. We simply must trust our Security Services and the oversight of them by our democratically elected leaders.

Why should I object to the Guardian Newspaper having this information because after all they are part of the Fourth Estate that holds our leaders and values up for scrutiny in a democratic state. I have no argument with that.
On the other hand the Guardian is a left wing newspaper which many believe to have questionable views on National Security, the EU etc. etc.. 0
They are also when it all boils down to basics a for profit organisation and stories like Snowden and Wiki-leaks do add greatly to circulation and the bottom line.

Do I think that I can trust the Guardian in these circumstances, certainly not! When the Journalist and his partner are gathering information to give to a filmmaker I am even more worried and concerned about some of our high minded friends (Guardian Editor).

As I understand it today the police have announced that Mr Miranda’s Computer has been found to have thousands of stolen and sensitive documents. Job done and if we still have it available slap a ‘D’ notice on the Guardian

Like Philby, Burgess, and Maclean (British cold war spies) Mr Snowden has destroyed his family life to the extent that he will never be able to go home again as a free man. Is that Bravery or Stupidity!

Anonymous says:

26/08/2013 at 10:53

It’s ‘Twitter’…not ‘Tweeter’.

Anonymous says:

27/08/2013 at 11:43

One thing is to bring a newspaper in front of a court, for a suspect crime, and another is to use government / secret service goons to intimidate people in airports and force destruction of evidence (hard drives). I am sure we can agree that these are two VERY different things? If the Guardian, its journalist, or the journalist’s partner, had committed any crime (or so it was suspected) certainly the way to deal with this would be to prosecute them properly, without destroying evidence and without harassing other nationals in a transit area. But I suspect that due process of law was not appreciated in this case, as the independence of the judiciary might have uncovered unpleasing facts…

It’s governments who should fear citizens and newspapers, not the other way around.

Paolo

Anonymous says:

27/08/2013 at 20:08

The question is why is this unknown foreigner from the eussr sticking his nose into it, what does it have to do with him?

Anonymous says:

27/08/2013 at 23:32

The real question is, was Barry Davies born with such racism and xenophobia, or was it instilled into him later?

Let’s imagine I apply to join a club on Pall Mall, say the Atheneum. After some waiting, and on the recommendation of others, I am admitted. The others are so happy they even decide to give me a special treat, half the annual fee for several years. As soon as I am in the club though, I start saying that I don’t like the rules, they are unfair, they suit the older members better than me, and I would like them changed. I also up the ante the moment my 50% discounted annual fee is brought back to normal, and start complaining about the fact that the club does not admit the people I like but what the management board likes, etc. etc.

Would I be a popular member of the club, or would I be blackballed at the first occasion? Well, that’s what Barry Davies would like the UK to do in the EU. That’s what the UK has done in fact: I do not think it is only a coincidence that the europhobic feelings were allowed to flourish a few years ago, when the UK’s special discount membership fee expired…

We all would like to apply, in the club, the rules that suit us, and not the others. Why can’t the UK have Australians, instead of those pesky Rumanians… well sorry Barry, these are the rules of the club, you don’t like them, you resign from the club. Totally, though: and then we’ll see where the City goes…

But the issue at hand, for once, is not the EU, but the slavish behaviour of the UK with the US: why else would UK authorities keep Assange prisoner in a consulate for months (with 24/7 police that would be better used in patrolling some crime-ridden areas), harass transiting persons, destroy evidence without due process of law? Maybe to ingratiate the US, whom Britain will desperately need if europhobes like Mr Davies actually manage to self-harm their own country? The road to hell is paved with good intentions…

Anonymous says:

28/08/2013 at 01:12

Paolo, I think you need to up your game with your analogy/stories, this one is very poor.

Let’s put a couple of markers down which bears some relationship to reality.

The Club we joined and were accepted into was the EEC and we were asked to pay rather a lot of money. Fair people might say excessively high compared with other countries and our economy at the time. Mrs Thatcher did negotiate (that means there was agreement with all the other members) and our membership was indeed reduced so that we were only the third highest contributing nation.

The trouble is that the Club has changed so much with changes to voting (reverse majority voting)and rules that are designed to make things very difficult for the UK when we disagree with others. You would do well to realise that many of your fellow members would like to see changes in the way the EU does things. It is not just the UK that is the awkward squad.
The EU (whether the UK remains or not) needs root and branch reform and I despair when I read facile comments on EU blogs that suggest the answer to all our problems would be to have an elected President of the Council. This of course would change nothing without the whole structure being visited and changed.

Really Paolo the only well informed part of your post that we can all agree on is that if the UK cannot reach an accommodation with the EU we should of course leave. Where you and I would part company on that is that whether your like it or not, and you clearly don’t, the EU and the UK will still have a negotiated trading relationship. Your paymaster (and some would say Ringmaster) Germany will ensure that happens probably with a little assistance from France and Italy who also like our ££££’s when we buy your BMW’s, Mercs, VAG, Siemens, Bosch etc., etc., etc.

It is not for me to defend Barry Davies, he is perfectly capable of that himself. If however we take your analogy of the Club where the richest members pay the highest fees to subsidise the poor members, while they get on their feet and then we take it a stage further. When the poor members are not using the club they have the right to insist that the Rich members take them home to their houses, feed them and nurture them for as long as they see fit and under no circumstances would you be allowed to give a family member any help or assistance which was not available to your new compulsory house guests. Now Paolo do you think that one would fly? (note to self: that was a stupid question as I think Paolo would think that was fine!). However I will point out that in any advanced society if the rules are not working your change them (even if the non payers don’t like it).

Let us now move on to your next point which of course arises because you clearly do not understand the argument that you tried to articulate earlier. If you are in breach of the rules you get into trouble – it’s the rules. If you look at the situation with Mr Assange which like you I happen to think is wrong. But hey ho, its the rules. The UK is still signed up to the European Arrest Warrant and the Swedes have asked for him to be extradited to Sweden to answer questions about possible rape. It’s the rules Paolo, we can’t let him just bugger off, even the UK courts have said that.
When it comes to National Security fortunately that has nothing to do with the EU or the Council of Europe and it is for us to decide how we handle a foreign national who is stupid enough to transit through Heathrow Airport with a Laptop and memory sticks loaded up with Stolen Secrets relating to our Country and our oldest Ally. So that is one American citizen (journalist and lawyer) and his Brazilian partner who are not going to register to highly on my sympathy scale.

That old chestnut again, the US of A! We are giving the EU grief so it all our fault for being friends with the USA. Now I don’t always agree with how Americans handle their foreign policy or their internal justice system at times, but in my opinion they are a trust worthy ally who have when push came to shove backed us up when things were a bit grim. When we decided to stand upto Hitler in the last unpleasantness with Germany, it was clear we could not do it on our own and we needed them to help us dig mainland Europe out of the smelly stuff.

In summary I’d trust them before many on the European mainland.

Anonymous says:

28/08/2013 at 10:24

Paolo there is nothing racist,or xenophobic about not wanting people from another nation telling you how to run your own country, the problem is in thinking that you are superior to the people of that country and expecting them to do as you say, so the foreigner of the eussr telling us how to run our nation is the racist and xenophobic stance not mine. I expect my elected politicians, of my nation, to place the needs of my nation first, which includes all the immigrants who live here.

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 08:12

You can’t have a medieval form of government (monarchy) and a modern democratic state simultaneously. It’s that simple.
So, now we see the true face of the so called “democracy” in the UK.

And those people dare to speak about a lack of democracy in the EU!

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 08:31

Paolo,

I read euractiv regularly and I can tell you: these commentators are indeed xenophobes and most probably neo-Nazis. You can see their anti-immigrant rants in comments to almost every article about the theme on euractiv.

It’s not a coincidence what they all europhobes too.

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 10:09

Otto, it probably escaped your notice, but the UK parliament just voted on Syria. Surprisingly they voted for no military action, and the decision will stick. So perhaps “the true face of the so called “democracy” in the UK” is perfectly clear even to you.

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 10:14

Otto you clearly have no idea of how the British system works, unlike the Austrian German and Russian monarchs, who held autocratic power until WW1, and the Japanese emporer who held it until WW2, the British monarch has not held much power at all since the internegum which began in 1649, so it would appear that it is you that wishes to live in the past, not the British people. Clearly a system that has worked well for the British people for 263 years is beyond your comprehension, and because we do not like the democratic deficiency tht even foreign politicians refer to in the eussr does not mean that we can not decry the lack of democracy in the eussr who after all elected any of the commisars under the control of the unelected barrosso, and who voted for rumpy or any of the others in the myriad of presidents who get paid vast sums of money to do nothing of value to anyone but themselves, in fact every one of them is a failed politician, now anyone in favour of this set up must be happy to live in an anti democratic intolerant governance, those of us who believe in democracy are not.

Tell Me Paolo why should anyone want to have a bunch of unelected failed politicians run your nation. there is nothing xenophobic about wanting to have a self governed independant nation, not governed by foreigners, it is the neo nazi’s that want to set up a european nation, just as the original nazi’s did. there is no reason why we should damage our nations economy to support the unemployed dregs of other nations impoverished by eussr legislation either.

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 10:24

It is utterly wrong that 407,000 non-UK nationals are receiving benefits. The fact that this has risen by more than 118,000 since 2008 is especially worrying and I believe that a fresh approach must be taken to tackle this soaring cost.

Lets be clear: British taxpayers should not be paying for the benefits of those who chose to come here.

We must take back control of our borders. Our open border policy as per our membership of the European Union has meant that almost 50,000 migrants from Eastern Europe are now claiming benefits in Britain. This must stop.

We welcome migrants, but only those who we need and who bring expertise to Britain. In a time of extraordinary economic hardship for our own citizens, taxpayers cannot subsidize the lives of those from other countries.

It is clear that extending open borders next year to Romania and Bulgaria is likely to only increase the burden on British citizens. I am against this and wish the government would act to quell the flow of foreigners from the failing eussr nations to damage our nation.

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 11:02

Charles_M,

totalitarian regimes usually support each other. Russia and China are against the military action in Syria too. So, no surprise here.

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 12:03

Otto, your country is about to be the salvation in Syria then? Or is it facing up to Russia and China? I can’t take you seriously

Anonymous says:

02/09/2013 at 13:10

Well following our democratic intervention into the political intention to take military action in Syria it seems that both the USA and France have been shocked into taking the same route as we did, there is no way Merkel would dare to send German troops in to a war zone without the backing of the UN or her own parliament so it seems that we did the right thing.

Anonymous says:

03/09/2013 at 00:27

Barry Davies for once is right about one thing: that the British benefit system is ridiculous, and open to abuse, not only by Eastern Europeans of course, but also by the Britons themselves.

The solution however is not to discriminate based on nationality, which is not allowed under EU rules (sorry Barry, until you are part of the club you go by the rules, all of them, no Europe a’ la carte), but it is a rationalisation of the benefits system, and if necessary discrimination based on residence, not citizenship.

For example, a very simple rule could be that to claim benefits in any given city/county, you must have lived in that city/county for, say, 3 or 5 years. Or even in that part of the UK, say in Scotland or NI or England. That would make it much harder for EU migrants to abuse the system.

And course the UK government could, at any time, deny benefits to non-EU citizens, say Pakistani, Indians, Australians, Nigerians and the lot, which I suspect are a much bigger burden on the benefit systems than Rumanians and Bulgarians. And it could start fixing some absurdities, such as granting child benefits to all, including very rich people and non-doms who do not pay income tax in the UK!

As usual, one should have his own house in order before blaming other of all the ills in the system…

Anonymous says:

03/09/2013 at 10:43

Paolo as usual you haven’t grasped the jist of the problem, there are British people who are being denied benefits, basically to save the country money, but somehow the cutbacks don’t seem to stop foreigners turning up here and claiming them. I am also sorry that our politicians dropped us into the eussr without any mandate to give away governance of the nation, but why should we abide by rules we didn’t sign up for we didn’t sign schengen so we shouldn’t have to abide by it. I agree that benefits should be based on residence, and that should mean a period of residence, not just turning up at the border. Actually the largest burdon on the benefits system is the eussr nationals, other nationals come to work not to beg on the streets. As usual the problems in my own house are down to the system.

Council of Europe asks UK to explain intimidation against the Guardian

Positions

Background

Further Reading