So what did he actually say? During a confirmation hearing in October, he said, “I may think that homosexuality is a sin but this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime.” Buttiglione also stated that the role of a woman is to bear children and be defended by her husband.
Mr Buttiglione is a candidate to a post of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, which among other things includes the formation of human rights policy in Europe. Yet he claims that gays are bad despite their other traits and that women are weak and their only purpose is to realize their biological calling.
However, E. Vareikis holds that R. Buttiglione is only supporting the values on which Europe was created. Such understanding of European values is at least wrong. If it is deliberate, then it is the propaganda directed against democracy and human dignity. Recent history reminds us that there were people who knew how to distribute roles to people of certain races, nationalities or religions. Referring to the words of Mr Buttiglione in an Italian periodical La Corriere della Sera, “I may be a nobody in Italy, but in Europe I will be someone”, one might guess that the opinions of this Italian candidate on the “values” are inspired by personal ambitions.
In his article, E. Vareikis maintains that gays are granted privileges in Europe, which prompts other “alternative figures” to demand positive discrimination. However, in fact, the only thing sought by the European gays (as well as women) is to live peacefully and have equal opportunities (as heterosexuals).
Tolerance of another person and their opinion is a core principle in democracy. Yet when the approval of a candidate to the post of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security is concerned, the MEPs and Europeans should have some guarantees that the achieved guarantees of implementing human rights will not be weakened. In this respect, Mr Buttiglione does not seem a reliable candidate. Luckily, the majority of MEPs hold to the same opinion.
Summary of the article by Henrikas Mickevičius in daily Bernardinai.lt
Please find the full article here.
Henrikas Mickevičius, the Executive Director of HRMI, believes that the mechanisms of human rights protection could help the Chechens, who are suffering isolation and brutality. He conducted a seminar arranged by the Council of Europe in Moscow where he met students from Chechnya. The students could arrive to Moscow only after receiving permits from the Presidents of both Chechnya and Ingushia, and underwent long humiliating checks before they were accommodated.
“It is hard to understand now what the average Chechen who is not a fighter would wish for,” – says H. Mickevičius. Few still speak about an independent state, but on the whole this vision is nearly faded. Obviously, Chechens no longer want war or chaos. They desire a better life and freedom of movement.
Speaking about Russians, they “call all Chechen fighters bandits, whereas, all the rest of the population are dangerous and ignorant”. Mickevičius had the impression that the majority of Russians were not likely to admit that Chechens are another nation with long traditions and culture. When NTV channel asked Chechen students about the hardships they were undergoing in their country, the seminar organizers did not allow them to speak much stating that Chechens should not complain.
Russians believe that remorseless pressure is the best method in the fight against terrorism. They think only terrorist acts can be effective in this fight. However, this causes a chain reaction and usually results in the restrictions of freedom of movement and other liberties, claims H. Mickevičius.
Meanwhile, although Chechens state that people are abducted, tortured, raped and killed, they are not aware of the human rights. The level of education is very low in the country because the war has been going on for a decade and the nation has been isolated. Uneducated Chechens are afraid and do not know where to refer for help. Their legal system is absolutely corrupted and ruled by money.
In the meantime, Russians do not consider these violations to be the violations of human rights. “The opinion that Chechens are blunt, ungrateful and… unpredictable prevails,” – maintains H. Mickevičius. It is hopeless to speak about the violation of Chechens’ human rights in Russia, he thinks.
However, international pressure could produce a spark of hope. If at least ten people from Chechnya could submit complaints to the European Court of Human Rights, this could make the Russian Government take some measures against the brutal and inhumane actions of its army or uncontrolled groups. In October, the European Court of Human Rights started to investigate the first cases from Chechnya, prepared by a person who has well examined the entire procedure and filed a case against the refugee treatment by the Russians.
Lithuania could contribute by offering its expertise in human rights to the Russian Government, stressing that Lithuania is concerned with stability and aid in human values. A Website disclosing the violations of human rights instead of providing useful information to terrorists could also show the support of Lithuania.
Find the full article in Lithuania at Atgimimas Weekly. 22-28 October 2004, No. 38 (815)
You claim that the publication of private telephone conversations has violated the rights of politicians and the business people. Don’t you think that since publicity is feared by the political figures, this publication was indeed necessary for the control of corruption?
All my opinions center on human rights. The fight against evil without rules might yield some results, yet in the long-term perspective the overall results will be sad. If we want to live in a stable democratic state, we should adhere to some standards without which the democracy cannot function. Perhaps in singular cases the public will receive less information but eventually the situation should improve.
The publication of the telephone conversations between the PMs and businessman A. Janukonis did not produce any constructive results, except that we now know that some politicians and businesspersons are corrupt. However, all others whose corrupted ties are still not exposed will submerge deeper into underground, and they will not use telephones and will be hard to disclose.
In regard to human rights, the standard set during the impeachment of Rolandas Paksas is wrong. It harmed the President and it may harm someone else who comes next.
Still the PMs are public figures, so the public should probably know why they discuss the laws with the businesspersons and then amend the laws to cater for the latter’s needs? After all, it can hardly be considered a national secret.
The European Court of Human Rights treats all telephone conversations as a private affair. Therefore, any publication of these conversations, be they between public figures or not, on a mobile or fixed line telephone, counts, as a rule, as the violation of human rights. Thus, if we create a precedent of telephone conversation publication in certain cases, it may later be expanded to cover any conversations. So, if we do not react now, we will make a step towards police state.
Was this precedent really created during the impeachment of R. Paksas?
The case of R. Paksas was slightly different. The opponent was dismissed incorrectly and this created an unhealthy and hysterical situation. We already had a precedent when the corruption scandal in the Parliament occurred and it was readily used again. Perhaps it could be explained by the lack of competence or ignorance of the politicians. The public demands information and the Commission on Anticorruption gives up. That can be understood but not justified.
However, I absolutely do not understand the position of the Deputy General Prosecutor and the Head of Vilnius Department of the Special Investigation Service, who encouraged the publication of the said telephone conversations. Either it is an absolute lack of competence, or commissioned acts. It is likely that they were used, I believe.
Unfortunately, law enforcement officers in Lithuania really lack knowledge about human rights, which they consider as an impediment. The results of such mentality can already be visible today.
Why are the human rights of politicians protected more vehemently than those of regular people? Your institution does not arrange any press conferences for the interest of common people either.
Yes, you are right, but one should realize that the problems we address now threaten the stability of the State which naturally causes civic concern. We have tools to protect the right to democracy, so why should we not do that? Besides, we are implementing other projects of which we have not yet informed the public. On the other hand, we are not a populist institution to cater for the wishes of the society. We address the essential issues that may have an impact on future.
The public survey showed that people are satisfied with the publication of the telephone conversations. Do you think they do not see the violation of human rights?
Perhaps people lack long-term view. Most of them today are concerned only with their private interests and are quite intolerant. Even well-known figures like to throw accusations in public. But it is not justice when they call for punishment only.
Legality is not a necessity.
The tradition of monitoring private telephone conversations in today’s Lithuania should not be addressed as just a vanishing inheritance of the USSR era. Unauthorized or ill-authorized wire-tapping cases might be found in today’s Western democracies as well. Let us remind you of the scandal in Brussels in 2003. A system of modern wire-tapping equipment was found on the premises of German and French delegations. Similar accidents appear in Lithuania as well. Let’s remember the cause celebre in Panevėžys in 2002 when a set of surveillance equipment was found in the premises of the city mayor.
Illegal monitoring of private conversations is a powerful weapon in the areas where reputation is of general importance – politics and business preeminently. General ideas consultant of “Alna infrastructure decisions” Jaroslavas Perepelica:
“It is not a problem to fabricate a conversation of several unrelated pieces and insert some additional sound, e.g. a trolleybus noise. After doing this, it takes really impressive equipment to detect the fabrication”.
Of course, various rules for preventing unjustifiable wire-tapping do exist. There is a finite list of institutions that are authorized to monitor telephone conversations as listed in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Law on Operational Action and Law on Telecommunications which set the rules on wire-tapping. The basic rule – wire-tapping is to be conducted with help of companies of telecommunications in accordance with agreements signed by governmental agencies and the companies for this purpose.
However, these laws are not always upheld. The use of illegal equipment for wire-tapping is both effective and accessible. Mr. J. Peperelica claimed that 10 000 dollars will usually be sufficient if you want to buy a system of secret wire-tapping equipment in Russia. Such a system might enable you to record a private conversation in 10 kilometers range outside the city. The range varies depending on distance from the closest station of mobile connection. Within the city, the range is significantly reduced.
Between safety and privacy
The threat to the right to privacy in democratic societies increased after September 11th, 2001. In relation to the threat of terrorism, new tendencies might be seen in jurisprudence for both the USA and the European Parliament. In the USA, the Patriot Act has increased authority of FBI and Justice Department in the spheres of wire-tapping, electronic surveillance and other types of information gathering. The European Parliament has imposed an obligation of preserving conversation-related information on telecommunication companies. The main consequence of such reforms is a considerable shift in policies to increasing safety of society, often at expense of the right to privacy.
Taking this into account a question might arise whether reports of HRMI on the exaggerated use of conversation-monitoring equipment aren’t just a waste of words. The Executive Director of HRMI Henrikas Mickevičius would not accept such thesis: “Those strikes of terrorists have not made the old problems of the protection of human rights unsolvable. On the contrary, those problems have become even more relevant. Fighting terrorists should not become an excuse for neglecting traditional human rights. This problem raises a big concern in the Western world.”
Anatomy of blackmail
Several businessmen from Lithuania said to HRMI that they only have important conversations outside in order to protect themselves of secret use of wire-tapping equipment. “Can we call this paranoid atmosphere normal?” – rhetorically asks H.Mickevičius. HRMI continues to receive other complaints concerning the growth of wire-tapping in Lithuanian society. Laws regulating the application of operational actions are still far away from perfect. “In Lithuania, civil services are given much freedom in this sphere. However, this is exactly the sphere where great legislative precision is necessary. Explicit information on the reasons and duration of possible surveillance must be broadly available” – stresses the executive director of the Institute.
H.Mickevičius, executive director of HRMI: “Is it normal when businessmen must go outside to talk of important matters in order to protect themselves from the secret use of wire-tapping equipment?”
Barrister Gytis Kaminskas agrees: “There are many problems in the field of regulation of wire-tapping in Lithuania today. Most of them fall under the imperfection of the system of supervising agencies. I know several instances when wives succeeded in getting excerpts of their spouses' conversations from police or other governmental agencies. These facts lead us to conclude that the information in these cases was obtained illegally, since no authorization to act in such a way could be secured. This sphere is much more rigorously regulated in legal systems abroad. Human rights institutions pay great attention to governmental actions in this field and play a tremendous role in preventing unnecessary restrictions of the right to privacy in the use of wire-tapping. Those are also the main reasons of greater stability and transparency of governmental actions abroad. In Lithuania, acts regulating wire-tapping are changed annually.”
Formerly authorization for wire-tapping was provided by the Solicitor-General. Today a reasoned decision of a judge is sufficient. However, judges often do not investigate the reasons for wire-tapping. Why? G.Kaminskas answers: “We may imagine an elementary situation. There are cases of corruption against judges as well. How do these appear? Apparently, conversations of judges are monitored as well. Taking this into account, we can only imagine the power that police-related agencies acquire. In the case these agencies are not given authority by a judge, they can try to get such permission by blackmailing that judge on the basis of previously wiretapped information concerning his trespasses. This might be an imaginary situation, but it is nonetheless possible.”
Ambiguous laws
Recordings of wire-tapped conversations should not be totally rejected. The use of them is permitted even by the Court of Strasbourg. “However, the Court, by accepting such evidence, analyzes if it was obtained nonviolently, whether it is authentic, and, above all, if it is not the only evidentiary material. Judicial decisions cannot be based only on wiretapped recordings” – stresses H.Mickevičius.
According to G.Kaminskas, illegally made records of conversations cannot be used as evidentiary material during civil proceedings in Lithuania either. Authorization for wire-tapping by governmental agencies is not necessary only in cases when a citizen records his own conversations. It is often the only way for the citizen to prove acts of threatening or blackmail.
However, illegally made recordings might be used for other purposes than testimony. For instance, unauthorized wire-tapping might help to detect and prevent those trespasses, the existence of which cannot yet be proven during judicial proceedings. This would certainly be a positive outcome. Nonetheless, can we be sure that unrestricted operational activities might not be used for wrong objectives, insecuring each and every one of us?
Experiment of forgery
Human Rights Monitoring Institute, in cooperation with IT specialists, has organized an interesting experiment in which possibilities of falsifying telephone conversations were expressly demonstrated. For this purpose, only a laptop and publicly available programs on the internet were used. The executive director of HRMI, H.Mickevičius, demonstrated a short conversation with an IT specialist. The conversation was recorded and falsified by transposing words.
The possibility of sending mock SMS was also shown. By using programs found on the Internet, it is possible to display the phone number of another person for an SMS you send. According to G.Kaminskas, this kind of falsification might even cause familial dramas and become a measure to deceive courts in divorce cases.
Experts stressed that falsifying telephone conversations or illegally changing the sender of SMS and electronic documents is even easier using professional equipment. Examinations can never absolutely guarantee that one or another unit of information is not falsified. “We do not say that it happens. We say that it is not impossible. For this reason we should not overvalue this kind of evidentiary material. Governmental agencies seem to get used to the easiest way. Recording conversations is definitely easy. However, traditional means of averment should play more important role.” – explains H.Mickevičius.
J.Peperelica adds: “The ease of falsifying can be seen in today’s movies of Hollywood. It is so easy to change voice, picture or scenery. The possibilities to falsify do exist. It is only a question of time and endeavour.”
Source: Delfi, Inga Saukienė, “Laikas”, article “Walls have ears?” 2004, 23rd July.
© 2012 Human Rights Monitoring Institute