Romanian Jewish representative criticises president for challenging hate speech bill
Romania's parliament updated existing legislation outlawing the celebration of fascist leaders or imagery in June at the proposal of Jewish lawmaker Silviu Vexler, introducing prison sentences for the promotion of antisemitism and xenophobia via social media platforms.
The bill also raised jail terms for creating or belonging to racist organisations.
Romania had one of Europe's most violent antisemitic movements of the 1930s, the Iron Guard, known for political assassinations and pogroms. The country was also an ally of Nazi Germany until August 1944, when it changed sides.
The centrist President Nicusor Dan challenged the bill at the Constitutional Court, saying it raised freedom of speech concerns and arguing it did not include a proper legal definition of fascists or Iron Guard members, which would force judges to interpret the law arbitrarily.
The top court has rejected a similar challenge against the bill by hard-right parties.
"The impact of the Romanian president's act will directly or indirectly encourage continuing to promote Iron Guard ideology, the leaders of extremist organisations and inevitably antisemitism and all forms of extremism," Vexler said.
The presidency did not reply to a request for comment. The National Order of Merit which Vexler said he would return recognises important civil or military services to Romania.
Romania cancelled a presidential election in December after allegations of Russian interference – denied by Moscow - in favour of far-right contender Calin Georgescu, who was later banned from running in the May ballot re-run and has since been sent to trial for promoting Romania's wartime fascist leaders.
Dan ultimately won the presidential re-run against a hard-right leader who had replaced Georgescu.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Fundamentally objectionable' that Afghan relocation decisions lacked scrutiny
It was 'fundamentally objectionable' that Government decisions about thousands of lives and billions of pounds were made without scrutiny from Parliament or the public, a judge said in a later overturned decision to lift a superinjunction. A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022. Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including family members of the Arap applicants were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024. However an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the data loss was 'unlikely to profoundly change the existing risk profile of individuals named'. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) became aware of the breach in August 2023, after details were published on a Facebook group. The Government sought a court order to prevent details of the breach being published and were granted a superinjunction, which also stopped the fact an injunction had been made from being reported. Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge who oversaw most of the proceedings, gave three rulings behind closed doors – the last of which would have lifted the order after 21 days, but was overturned by the Court of Appeal. In his first decision in November 2023, the judge said that granting the superinjunction to the Government 'is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship,' adding: 'This is corrosive of the public's trust in Government.' Mr Justice Chamberlain said usually the Government would face 'the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy', from the press, MPs, peers and parliamentary committees. 'The grant of a superinjunction has the effect of completely shutting down these mechanisms of accountability, at least while the injunction is in force,' he said, adding: 'It is axiomatic in our system that decisions subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny are not only more legitimate, but are also likely to be better than ones taken in secret.' In early 2024, the High Court judge continued the superinjunction, finding there was a 'real possibility that it is serving to protect' some of those identified on the dataset. However, he noted that the Government was offering help 'to only a very small proportion of those whose lives have been endangered by the data incident', and that the decisions were being made 'without any opportunity for scrutiny through the media or in Parliament'. The judge ruled in May that the superinjunction should be lifted, finding there was a 'significant possibility that the Taliban already know of the existence of the dataset'. He also found in the – later overturned – decision that if the Taliban had access to the data, the secrecy could be depriving people who would not be relocated by the Government the chance to protect themselves. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'The one thing that can be said with confidence is that affected persons would be better off learning of the data breach by notification from the UK Government than from a knock on the door by the Taliban.' The judge also said that there were 'enormous sums' of public money involved in the response. He ruled: 'It is fundamentally objectionable for decisions that affect the lives and safety of thousands of human beings, and involve the commitment of billions of pounds of public money, to be taken in circumstances where they are completely insulated from public debate'.
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Climate groups call for UK wealth tax to make super-rich fund sustainable economy
A growing number of climate groups are campaigning for the introduction of a wealth tax to ensure the transition to a sustainable economy is not done 'on the backs of the poor'. Last week campaigners from Green New Deal Rising staged a sit-in outside the Reform UK party's London headquarters as part of a wave of protests targeting the offices, shops and private clubs of the super-rich across the UK. The Pay Up campaign – backed by more than 20 civil society groups including Friends of the Earth, the National Education Union and Tax Justice UK – is calling on the government to bring in a series of wealth taxes as an alternative to spending cuts. It is one of a number of campaign initiatives focused on overhauling the tax regime being run by climate groups who say the revenue from the ultra-rich could fund investment, restore crumbling public services and help tackle the climate emergency. 'Fixing our broken tax system so that it finally taxes those who earn their income from assets and wealth at the same rates as the majority of the population, who earn their money from work, is the fair thing to do,' said Hannah Martin, a co-director of GND Rising. 'We must tax the booming fortunes of the super-rich to rebalance our economy and fund investment in our communities, our schools, libraries as well as much-needed climate action.' The campaign aims to highlight the growth in extreme wealth held by individuals and corporations in the UK. It calls on the government to introduce a 2% tax on assets over £10m, shut down tax loopholes and increase the tax paid on property and shares so that capital gains tax is equal to income tax. It is also urging the government to stop using public money to bail out big polluters such as failing water companies and fossil fuel firms. Tax experts at the Tax Justice UK campaign group say a 2% tax on wealth above £10m would raise £22bn every year, and the other tax changes advocated for by GND Rising could raise an additional £50bn in a single year. Martin said: 'Climate campaigners are calling for wealth taxes because we have been told for years that 'there's no money' to tackle climate change. But we can see along with the public there is enough money and it is being hoarded by the super-rich and polluting corporations. We need to unlock that wealth to tackle climate change and the cost of living crisis, and that means focusing on the government's tax policies to win that change.' There has been a growing clamour for a wealth tax in recent months from some economists, thinktanks and trade unions. In recent weeks prominent Labour figures including the former leader Neil Kinnock have added their voices. Opponents, the super-rich and their advisers and supporters, have raised concerns that such a move would result in the ultra-wealthy leaving the country, a narrative that has been amplified by a blizzard of news stories over the past year. However, experts say there is no evidence of a mass millionaire exodus from the UK, with the overall number of millionaires and billionaires having risen steadily over the past two decades. At the same time most people are faced with stagnating wages, rising living costs and decimated public services. Zack Polanski, who is standing to be the new leader of the Green party, agreed there should be a wealth tax to ensure the ultra-wealthy – who are also the largest emitters – pay their fair share to tackle the climate crisis. He argued that under the current plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050 the poorest in society were being asked to 'step up to tackle the climate crisis'. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion 'This is an emergency,' Polanski said. 'The government have a series of choices – and right now they are choosing to subsidise dirty and dangerous parts of the economy like aviation, oil and gas. They should instead ensure that the greenest option is always the cheapest. How dare they say there's no money left at the same time they also refuse to tax the super-rich?' GND Rising's Pay Up campaign staged a day of action last week during which more than 200 young people targeted sites connected to Britain's ultra-wealthy, including the billionaires Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos, the Reform treasurer Nick Candy, and the founder of Bet365, Denise Coates. It said it intended to step up its campaign for a fairer tax system over the summer. Martin said climate action 'must speak to the reality of people's lives and their anger at the inequality they are seeing in their communities'. 'The climate crisis and economy inequality are two sides of the same coin, because it's the same broken system making billionaires richer, fuelling the climate crisis, and leaving working people to pick up the bill.' She warned that unless climate campaigners showed that climate action was 'also about fixing inequality and the cost of living crisis, we risk our demands being dismissed as a 'nice to have' by politicians, ignoring the very real pain people are facing, and opening up our agenda to attacks by climate deniers like Reform'.
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
The UK says thousands of Afghans have been brought to Britain under a secret resettlement program
Thousands of Afghans, including many who worked with British forces, have been secretly resettled in the U.K. after a leak of data on their identities raised fears that they could be targeted by the Taliban, the British government revealed Tuesday. The government now plans to close the route, which the media had been barred by a court order from disclosing. 'I have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public,' Defense Secretary John Healey said in the House of Commons. Healey told lawmakers that a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to come to Britain after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was accidentally released in error in 2022 because of a defense official's email error, and extracts were later published online. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring disclosure of the leak, in an attempt to prevent the personal information being made public. The High Court issued a strict order known as a super injunction that barred anyone from revealing its existence. The government then set up a secret new program to resettle the Afghans. The injunction was lifted on Tuesday in conjunction with a decision by Britain's current Labour Party government to make the program public. It said an independent review had found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the country's Taliban rulers. About 4,500 Afghans – 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to Britain under the secret program, and about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a total cost of 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion). About 36,000 more Afghans have been relocated to the U.K. under other resettlement routes. Critics say that still leaves thousands more people who helped British troops as interpreters or in other roles at risk of torture, imprisonment or death. British troops were sent to Afghanistan as part of a deployment against al-Qaida and Taliban forces in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the peak of the operation, there were almost 10,000 British troops in the country, mostly in Helmand province in the south. Britain ended combat operations in 2014, and its remaining troops left Afghanistan in 2021 as the Taliban swept back to power, two decades after they were ousted. The Taliban's return triggered chaotic scenes at Kabul Airport in August 2021 as Western nations rushed to evacuate citizens and Afghan employees. Super injunctions are relatively rare, and their use is controversial. Unlike regular court injunctions, super injunctions bar reporting that they were even ordered The handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being sought by the government. Healey said he was not aware of any others in existence. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order had 'given rise to serious free speech concerns." 'The super injunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability, which operate in a democracy," he said. 'This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum.''
