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
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps. The university has said that it's committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. ___ Rodriguez reported from San Francisco and Binkley from Washington.
BreakingNews.ie
31 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Presidential candidates can now be reimbursed up to €250k for election expenses
An order increasing the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election from €200,000 to €250,000 has been signed by Minister for Housing and Local Government James Browne. Election expenses are reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election who is elected or, if not elected, the total of their votes exceeds one quarter of the quota. Advertisement Section 21A of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election is €200,000. However, under the Act, the minister may vary the amounts having regard to changes in the Consumer Price Index. A review of the amounts typically takes place in advance of each election. Applying the CPI increase since the amount was last revised resulted in a potential increase to €252,700 which has been rounded down to €250,000. Section 53 (as amended) of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that spending by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed €750,000. It is not proposed to increase the spending limit, so it will remain at €750,000.
The Sun
31 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
