Essay by Eric Worrallski
Threats of criminal sanctions for facilitating the spread of climate denial?
Read more: European Parliament (backup copy here)
European Parliament 2019-2024 P9_TA(2023)0219 TEXTS ADOPTED Foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2023 on foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation (2022/2075(INI)) The European Parliament – having regard to its decision of 10 March 2022 on setting up a special committee on foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation (INGE 2), and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of offices1, and its decision of 14 February 2023 amending its aforementioned decision of 10 March, and adjusting its title and responsibilities2, … A. whereas Parliament adopted a resolution on 9 March 2022 laying down its recommendations based on the report of the first special committee on foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation; whereas among its recommendations, this report called for the adoption of a coordinated strategy against foreign interference; whereas the Commission produced a document following up on these recommendations, suggesting among other things that such a strategy de facto already exists in the form of various kinds of interinstitutional coordination; B. whereas the European Parliament is the only directly elected body among the EU institutions and is at the forefront of EU political discussions on fighting foreign interference, information manipulation and hybrid threats in our democracies, including in the EU institutions; whereas recent events have highlighted that Parliament is a target of diverse and aggressive foreign interference campaigns; C. whereas the President of the Commission announced in her September 2022 State of the Union address that a Defence of Democracy package would be presented by the Commission, scheduled for adoption in the second quarter of 2023; whereas this package would include a legislative proposal to protect democracies from third-country entities exercising activities in the EU that may affect public opinion and the democratic sphere, a review of actions under the European democracy action plan (EDAP) and measures to ensure secure and resilient elections, including, among others, cybersecurity measures in electoral processes; … I. whereas the aim of those interference campaigns in the Western Balkans is to negatively influence the growing euro-Atlantic orientation and stability of individual countries, and so change the orientation of the region as a whole; whereas Russia is using its influence in Serbia in an attempt to destabilise and interfere in neighbouring sovereign states: in Bosnia via the Republika Srpska; in Montenegro via the country’s pro-Serbian sentiments as well as the Serbian Orthodox Church; and in Kosovo by exploiting and inflaming existing disputes in the North of Kosovo; whereas Russia therefore still has notable influence in the Western Balkans, with the power to interfere in regional attempts at reconciliation, integration and reform towards democratisation; … W. whereas China has invested almost EUR 3 billion in European media firms over the last 10 years, without an adequate response from the EU and its Member States; whereas China’s example could be followed by other states with similar authoritarian political ideologies, entailing considerable risks for the integrity of European democracies and interference by other countries in the EU’s domestic affairs; whereas a number of Chinese state-run Confucius Institutes, which spread propaganda and interfere in academic institutions, are still functioning in the EU; whereas Chinese broadcast media represent and disseminate the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) ideology; whereas Chinese bot accounts are increasingly active on social media and in social networking, serving the needs of the Chinese authorities; … 38. Underlines that the increase in climate change denialism can be linked to a wider embrace of conspiracy theories in the public discourse that is based on the deliberate creation of a counter reality and the rejection of science, and which includes false ideas about everything from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine to COVID-19 vaccines; emphasises the role of foreign actors in disseminating disinformation about climate change and EU climate policy, which is undermining public support and is also being used in the narratives of domestic actors who exploit climate disinformation for their own political ends; 39. Supports the call made by leading climate experts at the 27th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 27) for tech companies to tackle the growing problem of disinformation, and in particular to accept a universal definition of climate mis- and disinformation that encompasses the misrepresentation of scientific evidence and the promotion of false solutions, to commit to the goal of not publishing any advertising that includes climate mis- and disinformation and greenwashing, and to share internal research on the spread of climate mis- and disinformation and greenwashing on their platforms; 40. Calls on platforms to take measures to enhance transparency and prevent and ban the placement of advertising promoting climate change denial and apply them to conspiracy theories and disinformation; recognises that there is an urgent need to demonetise the spread of the disinformation economy around climate change; 41. Notes with concern that many of the most high-traction amplifiers of climate change denial and attacks on climate action have ‘verified’ status on various social media platforms, including Twitter, allowing them to spread mis- and disinformation under this privileged status to millions of followers and that such amplifiers are often based outside of the European Union; calls on Twitter to implement stricter checks when selling its ‘blue check’ marks; … 48. Denounces Twitter’s backward steps in the fight against disinformation since its change of ownership; deplores, in particular, the fact that Twitter has significantly reduced the number of staff responsible for disrupting disinformation, including those responsible for global content moderation, hate speech and online harassment; deplores the recent reinstatement of suspended accounts without a proper assessment and particularly the reinstatement of violent right-wing and openly fascists accounts, including those that deny the outcome of the US presidential elections in 2020; strongly repudiates Twitter’s decision to stop enforcing its policy against COVID-19 disinformation; … 115. Reiterates the importance of the EU’s ability to defend itself from disinformation attacks and to counteract foreign interference; calls in that regard for sufficient funding and for possible investment and legislative gaps to be addressed; calls on the Members States to update, if necessary, their legal frameworks to introduce a legal basis on which to penalise foreign interference from high-risk countries; welcomes the introduction of such a legal basis into Belgium’s draft penal code, which will allow for the better protection of the European institutions on its territory; 116. Calls on Member States and the Commission to consider how to counter disinformation from individual actors inside the EU, such as influencers on social media or politicians promoting disinformation on behalf of high-risk states, etc.; highlights the potential need to develop a sanctions regime against perpetrators engaging in FIMI inside the EU; …
Just one question Euro-tyrants: If climate skeptics are funded by Russia and China, why is demonetisation of climate skeptics such a priority?
Surely if climate skeptics were funded by hostile foreign governments, demonetisation would have no impact on our activities.
The document claims China has invested almost €3 billion in EU media organisations over the last decade. Why would the recipients of such largesse care about whether they were demonetised by social media?
Demonetisation only impacts people who have to raise their own money – independent, democratic critics of catastrophic EU climate policy failures, such as the European war on agriculture, and the complete failure of EU sanctioned member state green energy programmes such as Energiewende to deliver affordable energy and energy security and independence.
In my opinion the EU’s bumbling incompetence, the EU’s inability to draft a coherent narrative, let alone a coherent policy document, their own words have revealed this tyrannical policy initiative for what it is – a clumsy, heavy handed attempt to shut down free speech and legitimate criticism of the European Union.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From paragraph 39:
“and in particular to accept a universal definition of climate mis- and disinformation that encompasses the misrepresentation of scientific evidence and the promotion of false solutions”
That would eliminate all zealots claiming dangerous climate change.
Change a few words in that Resolution and it could have been delivered in the German Parliament in 1934.
I’m reminded of the EU’s fellow travellers in Australia: “Seek Higher, Seek Higher!”
So much of the statement reflects truth, and then they jump rapidly into fantasy when they claim the disinformation campaigns of adversarial foreign nations are promoting denial of the change catastrophe dogma. Why would they reach that conclusion when the following points are obvious to anyone with a brain that works:
If you want to know who is in control, just note who you cannot criticize.
Hmm. It’s the Pope, innit?
Nobody criticizes the Pope?
Why would Putin want to waste any time and money spreading propaganda against fracking when the US and EU are doing a pretty good job undermining themselves? I do not believe Putin is anywhere near as stupid as the Western politicians and mainstream media keep trying to make out. The fact they keep trying so hard to denigrate and dismiss him is possibly because they realize he is far smarter than they are. The fact is they are inveterate liars who have convinced themselves like the naked emperor.
The Soviet Union and now Russia have been behind most of the anti-fraking, anti-fossil fuel groups from the beginning.
When they put one of us in Court, we will have the forum to prove they are disinforming the World themselves! Bring it on.
See, the only thing wrong with that statement is “When they put one of us in Court,” – they have given themselves the power to defund and deplatform anyone they want without having to justify that in a court.
The courts get to decide who is and who isn’t an expert.
I saw a story about a couple and their toddler being sentenced to life in prison for having a Bible. This was in North Korea.
Sounds like the EU and other Governments setting out to stifle “misinformation” are well on their way to following in North Korea’s footsteps.
Criticism of the authoritarian state (EU and other socialist regimes) is either a crime subject to penalties or grounds for psychiatric intervention.