8
EESTI ELU reedel, 15. jaanuaril 2021 — Friday, January 15, 2021
The Eastern Partnership Conundrum Toomas Lukk, Ambassador of Estonia English-language supplement to the Estonian weekly “EESTI ELU” Tartu College Publications Founding Chairman: Elmar Tampõld Editor: Laas Leivat 3 Madison Avenue, Toronto, ON M5R 2S2 T: 416-733-4550 • F: 416-733-0944 • E-mail: editor@eestielu.ca Digital: www.eestielu.ca
Who violated whose rights? Mr. Trump’s suspension or permanent ban from social media such as Twitter, Face book, Instagram, YouTube, and others has erupted into a vigorous debate about censor ship and freedom of speech. Obviously Mr. Trump and his supporters have called foul. Even an internationally recog nized champion of human rights and democratic freedoms such as Alexey Navalnoi, who has been on the Kremlin’s hit list, has said that Trump’s Twitter ban was an “unacceptable act of censorship”, based on emotions and “personal political pre ferences”. In 2014, after its invasion and annexation of Crimea, Russia banned the websites of Navalnoi and other opposition groups who were openly critical of the Kremlin’s. The sites were banned for “making calls for unlawful activity and participa tion in mass events”. Sounds similar to Twitter’s reason? No. Navalnoi didn’t call for insurrection and vio lence. Twitter is not the govern ment that can convict and mete out penalties. In fact social me dia bans and suspensions have been equated with the rights of independent publishers/editors who can, at will, accept, reject or change (sometimes by agree ment only) any author’s submis sions. And this right has never been argued. Similarly, a publisher/editor’s right to place disclaimers along side articles is standard prac tice. It’s somewhat equivalent to warnings placed by platform owners to caution people about the veracity of the information in any one social media posting. Mr. Trump was livid when some platforms flagged his messages of dubious truthful ness. The US Constitution’s First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship. It does not guarantee freedom when this is restricted by pri vate entities. Twitter, Facebook and others are private entities and the First Amendment has no bearing at all, contrary to what Trump’s supporters claim. (Ironically, the ultra-conser vative supporters of Mr. Trump have traditionally never been staunch supporters of freedom of expression. Their outrage this time could well be a matter of
convenience rather than prin ciple.) Are supporters of Twitter and other social media, in their cen sure of Trump, using a double standard in justifying the ban ning by US digital platforms and at the same time labeling the blockade of Navalnoi a sup pression of free speech? No. Simply put, Navalnoi and other Russian dissenters were banned for CRITICIZING the govern ment’s illegal behaviour, namely Crimea’s annexation and attack against Ukraine. Trump was banned for INCITING illegal behaviour. Mr. Trump’s detractors say wait a minute, this should have been done long ago. Not only for the past two months, Mr. Trump has encouraged strongarm behaviour and emboldened violence-prone groups for years. He certainly enabled, even urged the storming of the Capitol this time. Critics of social media help ing to spread misinformation have for several years warned that Mr. Trump’s reckless use of words could eventually lead to hate and violence. In fact, some even go so far as to say that certain social media could be held complicit in the attack against the US Congress. There is no doubt that Twitter, especially, allowed Trump, through his thousands of postings, to ratchet up his at tacks on his rivals and oppo nents, put his presidential weight behind widely debunked conspiracy theories and foment unrest internationally. Twitter enabled Mr. Trump, giving him a convenient megaphone. This allowed millions of Americans to be pulled into an enraged un reality. It seems dangerous to limit legitimate debate and intellec tual diversity by banning certain selected sources of controversy. However there is no doubt that the owners of social media plat forms have the legal right to control content. The USA is in a democratic crisis and Trump is feeding the flames of vio lence. Surely there is an acknowl edged red line between un fettered public dialogue and public safety? The question still remains whether the platform owners are the right adjudica tors of who is allowed to ad
As one of the world’s most ethnically diverse and multi cultural nations, it is in Canada’s DNA to support those who want to follow the path of democracy, rule of law and human rights. The European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative must remain an inclusive effort of strategic importance in build ing a common space of sta bility, economic growth and well-being. Canada’s engage ment with Eastern Partner ship countries complements the efforts of the European Union and its Member States. Last year marked the 10th anniversary of the European Union’s (EU) Eastern Partner ship (EaP) initiative designed to strengthen cooperation between the EU and its partner countries (Continued on page 9)
vance their message? But who, then, would have the power of enforcement? Certainly not the federal government, the leader of which was instrumental in causing the crisis. Are there acceptable guide lines for limiting free speech? This writer has been a firm advocate of the freedom of ex pression be the content radical, extreme, bizarre, reckless, of fensive, even vile. But freedom of speech is not absolute to the point that many think it is. In a liberal democracy, it has been generally agreed that the government cannot restrict or penalize speech because of its content or viewpoint. It has to remain outside the forum of ideas. But some forms of speech are absolutely illegal in the same liberal society, and justifiably so: child pornography, fraudulent advertising, employ ment ads discriminating by race, incitement to violence, promoting criminal transaction, infringement of copyright, data used to make atomic weapons, etc. These are regulated or cen sored by government due to a compelling interest, public con cern or they threaten national security. One question still remains. Should media be held account able for knowingly helping to spread lies? For years, Twitter in essence allowed Trump to vulgarly attack his rivals, spread conspiracy theories, provoke other nations. Twitter has in fact been complicit in Trump’s tyranny. In a democracy, free dom of speech and Twitter’s freedom to help disseminate the most reprehensible messages is protected by law. One may then legitimately ask, should people also have the right to be protected against relentless lying by those in power? LAAS LEIVAT
Nr. 2
Government of the Republic of Estonia
The government led by Jüri Ratas has resigned but will continue its activities until a new government assumes office STENBOCK HOUSE, 14 JANUARY 2021 – Today, Prime
Minister Jüri Ratas officially announced his decision to resign on his own initiative, which will lead to the resig nation of the entire government. “I sincerely thank the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia, Isamaa, and Estonian Centre Party for their coopera tion and contributions since the government took office. I am also sincerely grateful to the people of Estonia for their sup port and feedback, which is important for every government,” said Prime Minister Jüri Ratas. “During its term, the current government has accomplished significant goals and made re markable progress in improving life in Estonia. These in clude, for example, the two extraordinary pension increases, raising research and development funding to 1 per cent of our GDP, and the successful negotiations on the EU’s next long-term budget and the recovery plan for Europe. The big gest civil crisis in reindependent Estonia, the coronavirus crisis, and the first emergency situation in the spring also de manded a great contribution and dedicated work from all of us,” said Prime Minister Jüri Ratas. “The coming months and years will pose significant challenges for the new govern ment in resolving the ongoing health and economic crisis and improving the lives of our people and the country as a whole. People in all corners of Estonia must feel that our lives are getting better each day.” The resigned government will continue its activities until a new government assumes office. The resigned government will avoid making any decisions of principle or decisions increas ing the expenditure of the state budget, unless it is strictly necessary. Yesterday, the prime minister notified President Kersti Kaljulaid and the Riigikogu of his resignation on his own ini tiative. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, the president has two weeks to appoint a candidate for prime minister and give them the task of forming a new govern ment. Within fourteen days after receiving the task, the can didate for prime minister presents the principles of forming a new government to the Riigikogu, after which the Riigikogu decides whether to authorise the candidate for prime minister to form the government or not. Having received the authority, the candidate for prime minister has seven days to present the membership of the government to the president, who then appoints the government to office within three days. The Government assumes office by taking an oath before the Riigikogu. The coalition government of the Estonian Centre Party, the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia, and Isamaa, led by Prime Minister Jüri Ratas during his second term as prime minister, assumed office on 29 April 2019. Jüri Ratas also led the previous government coalition as the prime minister, which in addition to the Centre Party also included the Social Democratic Party and Isamaa (23 November 16 – 29 April 2019). Additional Information: Government Communication Office press@riik.ee valitsus.ee
P.M. Jüri Ratas with P.M. Justin Trudeau in Ottawa in 2018. Photo: Ülle Baum
