The constitution was drafted in almost 20 years ago, in a completly different set of circumstances. Accession to the EU was not on anyone’s minds (nor did the EU exist in its today’s form), the understanding and content of several human rights provisions have been altered, etc. The world around us has changed, and Estonia has changed even more dramatically.

The Estonian constitution has been for me, and I suspect for most Estonians, the most fundamental basis for the existence of the Estonian state. I cannot really remember the first time I read it, but it was during school, and I think it was one of the things that made me decide to study law, instead of anything else. The constitution sets out clearly and powerfully why we have the state and what it does. I was most impressed with the Bill of Rights section, which I thought was a brilliant thing to have. Indeed, I was not and am still not so much interested in the institutions the constitution created, but rather the principles it provides.

Estonia is a part of the EU and this is not reflected well in the constitution. The constitution suffered its heaviest blow with the 2004 Amendment Act and its subsequent interpretation by the Estonian Supreme Court. Today, it is no longer clear to which extent the constitution applies in case it is in conflict with an EU legal act. A new Constitution should state more clearly and confidently the basis according to which Estonia belongs to the EU, and not only that, but the way it operates in today’s multilevel governance framework. This not only applies to the EU level, but also to the relationship between the state level and local governments. The latter subject (i.e. local government functions and their financing) have been one of the most contentious issues in Estonian politics for a long time. Therefore my first proposal would be to describe in a chapter the role of the Estonian state in this framework. The current constitution largely ignores the fact that governance is no longer limited to a single state entity, but is much larger concept.

The Bill of Rights needs updating. There have been many changes in recent decades in the understanding and development of human rights, including for example data protection rights. The family rights section should also be expanded to be more clearly inclusive of all types of relationships. For example, although the current constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriages, these relationships should be more clearly protected. A good, but not perfect, example could be found in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The provisions relating to the nation state should be reviewed. The constitution contradicts itself by providing those who are of Estonian nationality preferential treatment. The preservation of the Estonian nation in the preamble is one of the things that should go, and better protection be afforded to minorities. Multiple citizenship should be clarified in the constitution, the current blanket ban is unfair and dumb. The constitution would provide an opportunity for a truly new societal agreement to involve in the governance of the state also those who have been left out so far (ethnic Russians and other marginalised minorities) and move Estonia forward in the democratic path.

A few other things that I would also rather see changed:

1. Abolish compulsory military service. It has no place in today’s society: it serves no legitimate defence need and is burdensome for the individuals from the liberty perspective as well as the society as a whole.

2. Add innovative  things that pave the way for success, for example the right to access to Internet and the principle of Open Data.

The rules that govern us determine where we go as a society. I think there should be more discussion in Estonia on the most fundamental of these rules, especially on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Estonian constitution next year. Let’s face it: the current constitution and life in Estonia today have grown apart and need to be re-aligned. Otherwise we will see in future more and more incredible feats of teleological interpretation, which interpret a clause in the constitution to say the exact opposite of its text and that is not good.

I do not advocate shifting the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the society on the whole. It is clear that those individuals who were proven to commit a specific act deserve to be punished according to the law. However, in order to prevent such acts in the future, it is important to look at and analyse the causes of these events. The society should also look into things that are wrong and try to remedy these. This way, the horrific events could be turned into possibilities to make a better society. This does not mean that we somehow reward the criminals, because the motivation should not be fear of someone doing something similar again, but to eliminate the root causes of these actions.

Some people (especially those who like to see things in black and white terms) think that there are people who are evil and that is that. Those ‘evil’ people need to be tracked down and put to prison or even killed. That is not the way I look at things. I think people and life in general is much more complex. Goodness and evil are subjective, relative terms that could, at best, relate to specific actions in a specific ethical or moral framework, but not really to the whole of a person.

Faced with complex set of issues that shock or frighten, people tend to seek for strong leaders with simple, harsh measures. However, I think it is best to analyse the situation and also look at the root causes of these criminal events. Trying to ignore problems will not make them go away.

The European Court of Human Rights is a powerful court and its decisions are in general taken very seriously. Although some countries (Russia for example) have at times flounted the Court’s decisions, this is rather an exception to the rule. Moreover, in Estonia for example ECtHR case-law is usually considered as part of (or even superceding) our constitutional law. It is referenced in Supreme Court decisions and used a lot in legal analysis. Therefore any judgment of the ECtHR is indirectly an important addition to Estonian law as well.

It should be mentioned that the ECtHR case-law applies in 47 countries from Azerbaijan to United Kingdom, from Russia to Iceland (full list of signatories). All European Union Member States are a part of the Convention and EU treaties (its constitutional framework) also have great regard to the Convention. One needs to keep in mind that whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union only settles disputes relating to EU law for EU Member States (27 in total), the ECtHR has to be mindful of 47 different countries with diverse cultural backgrounds and attitudes.

That being said, the ECtHR has been innovative in its intrepretation of the Convention. It has refused to stay within the original meaning of the Convention and has used teleological or functional intrepretation (not strictly looking at the text, but the general purpose of the Convention), looking at the Convention as a ‘living document’.

Coming to Thursday’s judgment in the case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria there are several important aspects that should be highlighted and which also give some ideas about future developments. The case involved an Austrian same-sex couple who complained to the ECtHR that their rights have been infringed under the Convention because Austria has not allowed them to marry each other. In Austria, the law specficially states that marriage is for two persons of the opposite sex (a provision that has been unchanged since 1812), and from 1 January 2010 there is a new law allowing registered partnerships only for same-sex couples. The rights under the Registered Partnerships Act resemble those of the rights for married couples.

The applicants claimed the violation of several articles of the Convention. The most obvious one is Article 12, which provides for the right to marry and to found a family:

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

In its application of the article and subsequent case  law, the Court first found that wording of the article and intention in the 1950s was not to include the option of same-sex marriage. It went on to state that it cannot depart from that meaning unless there has been a significant social change in majority of states:

Although, as it noted in Christine Goodwin, the institution of marriage has undergone major social changes since the adoption of the Convention, the Court notes that there is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriage. At present no more than six out of forty-seven Convention States allow same-sex marriage (p.58)

The Court then analysed the issue in context of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its commentaries, which became binding on EU Member States 1 December 2009. In Article 9 of the Charter, reference to men and women were dropped, but commentary of it states that it is not meant to provide the right of same-sex marriage to all MS. The Court therefore held that there is no obligation for the state coming from Article 12 to provide the right to same-sex marriage, but did not completely exclude same-sex marriage from the application of Article 12 either:

Regard being had to Article 9 of the Charter, therefore, the Court would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. Consequently, it cannot be said that Article 12 is inapplicable to the applicants’ complaint. However, as matters stand, the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law of the Contracting State. (p.61)

The applicant also claimed that their right to family life under Article 8 was violated and they were discriminated against under Article 14, because prior to Registered Partnerships Act there were no possibility to have their relationship recognised by the state. There the Court took a large step forward. It had previously held that same-sex relationships were a matter of private life, not family life. However, emphasising the rapid advancement of same-sex partnerships and marriage in Europe, the Court changed its position:

94. In view of this evolution the Court considers it artificial to maintain the view that, in contrast to a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy “family life” for the purposes of Article 8. Consequently the relationship of the applicants, a cohabiting same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnership, falls within the notion of “family life”, just as the relationship of a different-sex couple in the same situation would.

Regarding discrimination and whether there could be discrimination between same-sex and opposite-sex couples (one can only discriminate between people if they are in “relevantly similar situations”), the Court stated that:

99.  While the parties have not explicitly addressed the issue whether the applicants were in a relevantly similar situation to different-sex couples, the Court would start from the premise that same-sex couples are just as capable as different-sex couples of entering into stable committed relationships. Consequently, they are in a relevantly similar situation to a different-sex couple as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship.

The Court took the practical approach and stated that because Austria had provided the registered partnership option, it can only be at fault if it did so too late. The Court stated:

105.  The Court cannot but note that there is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes.

106.  The Austrian Registered Partnership Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2010, reflects the evolution described above and is thus part of the emerging European consensus. Though not in the vanguard, the Austrian legislator cannot be reproached for not having introduced the Registered Partnership Act any earlier.

This should give pause for thought to all those European states which still do not provide any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. By citing the “emerging European consensus” the Court could conceivably pave the way to in not too distant future saying that the consensus has emerged. The fact that the Court might be on the way to finding that should be evidenced also by the close four to three vote on finding no violation of the Article. In their dissenting opinion judges Rozakis, Spielmann and Jebens stated that they considered that there indeed was a violation of Article 14 together with Article 8 in this case:

8. Having identified a “relevantly similar situation” (paragraph 99), and emphasised that “differences based on sexual orientation require particularly serious reasons by way of justification” (paragraph 97), the Court should have found a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention because the respondent Government did not advance any argument to justify the difference of treatment, relying in this connection mainly on their margin of appreciation (paragraph 80). However, in the absence of any cogent reasons offered by the respondent Government to justify the difference of treatment, there should be no room to apply the margin of appreciation. Consequently, the “existence or non-existence of common ground between the laws of the Contracting States” (paragraph 98) is irrelevant as such considerations are only a subordinate basis for the application of the concept of the margin of appreciation. Indeed, it is only in the event that the national authorities offer grounds for justification that the Court can be satisfied, taking into account the presence or the absence of a common approach, that they are better placed than it is to deal effectively with the matter.

9. Today it is widely recognised and also accepted by society that same-sex couples enter into stable relationships. Any absence of a legal framework offering them, at least to a certain extent, the same rights or benefits attached to marriage (see paragraph 4 of this dissent) would need robust justification, especially taking into account the growing trend in Europe to offer some means of qualifying for such rights or benefits.

On a final note, the applicants also claimed the violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (i.e. the Right to Property), because of disadvantageous tax treatment but failed to substantiate that more. It could be intresting to see the Court’s evaluation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 in light of same-sex couples not having the same financial benefits as opposite-sex couples do.

This year’s PÖFF human rights programme includes great documentaries and films as well as exciting discussions.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.  John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

In the memokraat blog, the Short Guide to Catching Trolls (Lühike trolliküti käsiraamat ehk ettepanekud online diskussioonitehnoloogia arendamiseks Eestis) was posted discussing the issue of trolling at the reader comment sections of Estonian online news media sites. I briefly participated in the debate, but now will provide here an overview of some issues and questions that I have been thinking about since then.

1. Defining the troll. The Guide defines troll as someone who posts insulting comments in an online environment with the purpose of provoking others and disturb the discussion. What constitutes an insult, provocation or disturbance is subjective to a certain level and depends on the cultural and social background of a person. My comments for the Guide as posted in the comment thread could be considered trolling as at least some people thought that part of my arguments were arrogant (when I suggested that people who are so thin-skinned that they could not tolerate hostile commentary should not read it), the style I write and express my opinions is usually a little provocational and some people might think that it disturbed the discussion. Thus in a wide reading of the definition I am a troll and so is nearly anyone who does not conform to a certain subjective criteria defined by the owner of the site. The banning of such trolls as myself results in discussions that are perhaps non-insulting and uncontroversial, but at the same time also rather valueless in terms of expanding the scope of discussion and bringing in alternative views.

2. Defining the problems? The trollhunters claim that the problems are caused by the technology used for commenting at Estonian online news sites. They claim the technology used is to blame for the exclusion of certain other people (who in a bizarre twist are claimed to be unable to freely use their freedom of speech because they are afraid of others also using it but critically), that this leads to radicalisation of public opinion and intolerance and distorts public opinion. All these claims lack evidence, studies or any research: we are expected to accept these premises as self-evident, when they are actually not.

The biggest unsupported assumption the authors of the Guide make* is that the root of all evil is anonymous commenting, which may or may not be the case.

3. Freedom of speech in an online setting. It is true that freedom of speech is not absolute and the exercise of it also requires responsibility for one’s opinions. However, for acts that bring criminal liability there already is a possibility to identify almost anyone online so the anonymity is only superficial. Thus it is possible at least in theory to make people accountable for their words also now.

50 years ago internet did not exist and therefore the human rights standards we have need to be adopted to the internet era. Certain principles remain the same, but the internet might change the content of certain rights subtantially, including freedom of speech. Offline analogies do not always work in the global unregulated internet with low barriers to entry.

4. Self-regulation is not always best when dealing with human rights issues. The trollhunters state that the least they want is state intervention or regulation. They propose a system of self-regulation, whereby the parties who control the commentary space make an agreement which is then adopted and implemented. In my mind it is dangerous when private entities make deals that involve limits to freedom of speech, because questions of accountability and transparency rise. I also believe that this might be even worse than state regulation, because the state is much more bound by international human rights obligations. So in cases that involve human rights I think it is preferential to have state regulation, rather than allow for private parties who control substantial public discussion space to make their own agreements to limit certain aspects of online activities. In many many spheres self-regulation is possible and works very well, but I am not sure if this is it.

—

In general terms there is another fundamental point why I think any regulation of online commentary space is not beneficial. Net neutrality means that content providers should not restrict specific parts of the internet depending on subjective criteria. The internet has flourished partly because of the freedom it provides and the abscence of walled gardens. What the trollhunters want to create is a walled garden, admittedly with very low walls, but still access to commenting would become more limited.

I also disagree that this discussion should be framed in terms of media freedom. Online commentaries do not constitute media or journalism in my opinion, it is a separate issue and therefore references to media and press freedom indexes do not really matter. The public debate in the matter has also included mostly people from the media sphere and not other areas who have framed the debate in their own terms.

Short rebuttal of the trollhunters critique of anonymity online:

1. The whistle-blower effect. The trollhunters claim that an anonymous tip option might be sufficient cannot be accepted because it is media-centric and would require an interested journalist to pursue the topic and lack of self-censorship in the media. Anonymous hints cannot replace anonymous commentary, they are different things. The trollhunters agree that certain levels of anonymity might be necessary for informing the public, I say it is essential.

2. Balance between insulting and constructive comments. This depends on the topic, but in most cases I would say based on my experience that insulting comments do not prevail over more insightful ones. Again, there are no studies made or statistical data available other than Delfi claiming that insulting comments are only a fraction of the total body of comments. Even if the majority of comments would bring nothing to the debate, is it worth not having the few that do?

3. Censorship. The trollhunters here refer to the right of newspaper editors to choose what to publish. The commentary space is not in my understanding part of the newspaper and can function without it. The fact that newspapers have always edited their stories have been due to physical lack of room in the paper and the need to provide a concentrated overview. The internet does not have these physical limits and there is nothing lost with adding to concentrated overviews and officially sanctioned opinions other stuff as well. The claims of this leading to mob censorship are speculation.

4. Impact of insulting anonymous comments. It is true that some people are more sensitive to criticism and insults than others, but again, there is no need to censor everyone because of this. Some views are controversial and people get offended. If I want to claim that there is no god, then this is offends people and I will be branded a troll. I believe that online commentary space must allow for expression of those less conformist views, which are not published by newspapers. I disagree that it is right to take away the freedom of expression from one group for the benefit of another.

5. Strength or importance of message. See above. I still refuse to accept the approach that it is somehow justified to prefer one group of people to another in terms of who may or may not express their views.

6. Vox populi, vox dei. I agree with the trollhunters that there needs to be no correlation between general public opinion and views expressed in comments, but I think it also depends on the topic. Likewise, I have seen no statistics which confirm that people believe that views expressed in online commentaries represent the general views in the society.

7. Video game violence argument. The idea is that people can insult others virtually so they will not do it offline. I think there is no correlation here, but no studies have been provided saying one thing or the other. The anger people have is in my own opinion a consequence, and not a cause of the processes in the society.

8. Moderated comments loses valuable discussion. This is subjective. If in some specialist finance related forum it works and likeminded people can express themselves better and feel good about it then fine. I do not think that discussion space for general public should work the same way (the danger to stifling of dissent and danger of conformism).

9. Too many comments to moderate. I think the notice and take-down system works pretty well.

10. Topic already discussed. Nothing to say here. Everything should be open for discussion.

11. Notice and take-down. Probably the system could be improved, I think it is disproportional to ban all anonymous comments due to imperfections of the notice and take-down system.

12. Turn to police. In case there is no real threat police should not be involved. If a person says to another that go jump off a cliff then this obviously is not a real threat. Again, in those cases where there is real threat police should be involved. It does not mean that all anonymous comments need to be banned because police does not do their work.

13. Economic factor. I am not sure if the commenting option is ecnomically beneficial or not, but of course that should not be the prevailing argument for or against limiting free speech online.

14. Freedom of speech is why comments are kept. Not a convincing argument, I agree. But I do think that once they have been introduced, stopping the ability to comment wold be problematic as it has almost become a service of general public interest.

15. Historical perspectives. There has been no time like this and therefore parallels with the past might or might not provide insight into dealing with the issue at hand.

* As pointed out by Daniel, I have put words in the mouths of the trollhunters that they think that anonymous commenting is the root of all evil. The trollhunter guide does not state this and it was an exaggeration on my part. However, I still think that the general tone of the Guide seems to connect anonymous expression with the existence of insulting and derogatory comments. I guess it would be fair to say that the authors consider it as a not an insignificant part of all evil

The movement has three ‘principles’:

• The main principle of democracy is “one person, one vote”
• A child is a citizen
• Therefore a child must have a right to vote

One can agree with the first and the second, but not the third. Not even the proponents of the idea want to do that and have toddlers selecting parliament members, they want to give extra votes to the parents or guardians of those children. That is a terrible idea.

Giving parents extra votes for having children is contrary to the principle of direct elections. In a democratic country a person can take part in the “government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives (my emphasis).” The idea of direct elections means that we can choose our representatives directly and freely. A child is unable to freely choose his or her representatives, which means that the principle of direct elections is not followed.

Why is the principle of direct elections so important? Any delegation of the right to vote to someone else is incompatible with democratic minimum standards as it can easily lead to disenfranchising parts of the society. If we give children the right of indirect voting, then this means that we could also perhaps delegate the votes of the mentally ill to their caretakers, prisoners to their families or any other group who cannot vote, but is still a citizen. None of these would even be freely chosen representatives, i.e. children could not choose which wise adult they give their vote to, it has to be the parent or guardian.

In my opinion the fact that such a movement has received quite a substantial support, even by some well-respected journalists, speaks volumes about the weakness of Estonian democracy.

The social consequences would be significant. Spouses disputing who gets to decide how to vote, children disawoving their parent for voting ‘for’ them. The childless, women who are no longer able to give birth and homosexual families are relegated to second class status, where more and more will be taken from them to support the ‘natural’ family. This kind of Estonia I do not want any part of.

Instead of giving more votes to young people, it actually takes them away from them. People tend to marry and have children later, in their late 20s and 30s, which means that the voice of the people in the age range of 18-24 is even lower as they probably do not have children yet.

Of course, the whole idea of having more children in a global world faced with serious overpopulation means that by trying to ensure the continuity of the Estonian nationality, we slightly diminish the survival chances of the entire planet. If all nations of the world adopted having more children of their nationality as the Kantian categorical imperative “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” we would end up with rapidly overpopulating the globe, making it a much much worse place to live, or potentially destroy humanity altogether. I would not wish for my children and children’s children the fate of constant war over rapidly diminishing natural resources and failing ecosystem. This kind of ‘selfish’ national thinking is dangerous.

I believe Estonia and Estonians have a bright future ahead if we are open and welcoming others among ourselves and our culture.

P.S. The campaign website also includes the homophobic statement that “men and women love each other, and out of that love children are born”, implying that two men or two women could not possibly love each other and found a family.

Annex:

Here is a short overview of the international obligations of Estonia in terms of electoral law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 60th anniversary of which was recently celebrated, should be seen as one of the cornerstones of the world order today in terms of democracy and human rights. Article 21 states, that:

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The same principle is reiterated within Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is in principle obligatory for all states to follow:

Article 25

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is binding for Estonia, states:

Article 3 – Right to free elections

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

There is also the Declaration on Free and Fair Elections of the Inter-Parliamentary Council, which spells out the direct elections principle.

Go to www.berlininriga.com for more information about the events.

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Google had announced their opposition to the constitutional amendment last month. 

By conventional wisdom, it is usually a tricky thing for corporations to be involved in what may be perceived as political matters, as there is the worryl that potential customers may be put off by this. However, I think that this paradigm is changing and people want to consume products by companies that have a positive brand value. Apple and Google have generated a lot of good karma for themselves, hopefully more companies will follow suit and step up for what they think is right. In the long run it brings more loyal customers and therefore also profit.

The current doctrine of international law does not allow for independence for these regions. This principle was breached in the case of Kosovo, and this has also fueled Russian resolve to attack Georgia and try to take South Ossetia and Abkhasia. It is clear that the agressor in Georgia’s case is Russia which has embarked on a development route, which can be described as a neo-Fascism with neo-Soviet crust. However, things should not have been made so easy for them by allowing Kosovo to become independent.

In the EU the role of the Member States is diminishing, there are common values, common principles regarding rule of law, democracy, human rights, etc, which are respected in all of these states. Thus is does not matter much where you live or which nationality you are. The same situation must be strived for in other countries with conflict situations as well. The international law and principles should be strong enough to guarantee a minimal level of protection for all human beings, regardless of where they live.

If we were to accept the example of Kosovo and agree now also to the “right” of South Ossetians to become independent (and merge with Russia), there will be no end for conflicts, both internal and full wars. The world has become a much more dangerous place and it is the job for the community of democratic countries to act decisively to guarantee the peace. Otherwise who knows which country will be next…

I hope that people covering the games do not overlook the huge human rights problems and rule of law issues China is encountering, and do not fall prey to China’s propaganda machine. Amnesty International has opened a special website called the China Debate, highlighting the most egregious problems such as repression of activists, detention without trial, censorship and the death penalty. We have heard the outrage of the media that the foreign journalists have been unable to reach some western websites, which is bad, but does not even begin to describe the way China treats its own people.

The attitude of the Chinese officials should not be too unfamiliar to anyone who has contact with the Soviet propaganda machine. Some examples of the propaganda are compiled as follows (the English used in translations would make this post funny, if the whole situation was not so sad).

In China, evil cults are apparently illegal: 

In recent days, some foreign journalists kept questioning organizers of the Beijing Olympics why a few websites, such as those preaching Falungong, cannot be opened here. /—/

The Chinese laws forbid anyone to spread illegal information, such as preaching an evil cult like the Falungong, or do anything that harms national interests through the Internet.

It is good to know that openess to foreign journalists is not a makeshift “puff of wind”:

Liu Binjie, the General Administration of Press and Publication minister, said openness to the foreign media was a long-term policy rather than a makeshift “puff of wind.”

“China’s open door to the foreign media will not close after the Games,” he told Xinhua./—/

In response to some Western human rights organizations’ claims that to interview in China is dangerous, Liu said they were defaming the country “with stereotypes constructed from hearsay and prejudice in their mind, regardless of the reality.”

“They are blind to China’s democratic progress and efforts in enhancing media transparency over the past few years,” he said. “Foreign journalists in China will see the real situation with their own eyes.”

Yes, let’s hope that the journalists see and report the real situation.

Read also: Naomi Klein: The Olympics: Unveiling Police State 2.0