The European Court of Human Rights rejected the complaint of the Icelandic citizen sentenced to a fine for the criticism of the introduction of classes promoting the LGBT ideology in schools. The ECHR stated that the man used ‘hate speech’, even though the European Convention of Human Rights does not specify this concept as a reason for restricting the freedom of speech. This term is not used in any act of international law, either. The Icelandic man had to pay around EUR 625 for his Internet post.
In 2015, the municipal council of the town of Hafnarfjörður, Iceland, adopted a resolution on the introduction of classes promoting the LGBT ideology in primary and secondary schools. One of the Internet users criticised this idea in his comment to the article on the website of a local radio station, accusing the town authorities of ‘the indoctrination of children’ and calling homosexuality a ‘sexual deviation’.
Soon afterwards, the Icelandic association of LGBT activists submitted a denunciation against the author of the comment to the prosecutor, accusing him of having committed the offence of defamation of a sexual minority. The court of first instance acquitted the Internet user, finding his opinion to be within the limits of the freedom of speech. However, the Icelandic Supreme Court overturned this decision and sentenced the man to a fine of 100,000 krona (the equivalent value of around EUR 625). In the court’s view, the comment of the person concerned was ‘severely hurtful and prejudicial’, particularly because he could have expressed his objection to the decision of the municipal council in a different way.
In 2018, the Icelandic man brought a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, claiming the violation of his right to free speech. In June 2020, the ECHR found the complaint to be ‘obviously inadmissible,’ stating that the man’s comment constituted ‘hate speech’.
‘It is another decision in which the European Court of Human Rights uses the vague concept of “hate speech” towards opinions criticising the promotion of homosexuality in public space. This proves an alarming tendency to make breaches in the freedom of speech guaranteed in Article 10 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by means of questionable and imprecise interpretations. The freedom of speech may be restricted in strictly defined cases listed in Article 10(2) of the Convention, which contains no reference to “hate speech” – in addition to which, none of the acts of international law uses this concept. However, the Court not only approved, but even regarded as “obvious” the restriction of the freedom of criticising the promotion of homosexuality in public space – in this case, schools – stating that it was justified by the “defence of the right of homosexual persons to privacy”. It is difficult to understand such justification, since the comment did not refer to the private life of homosexuals, but to the introduction of classes promoting the demands of the LGBT movement in public primary and secondary schools,’ commented Karolina Pawłowska from the Centre of International Law of Ordo Iuris Institute.
Case of Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl v. Iceland, ECHR’s decision of 11.06.2020
· Amendments to the Public Order Bill are under way in the British Parliament.
· It concerns so-called "safe access" zones around abortion clinics in the UK.
· Similar legislation is currently in effect in Northern Ireland, where areas are created within 150 meters of these facilities, where it is forbidden not only to protest against abortion, but even to pray quietly and talk about alternatives to abortion.
The World Health Organization is continuing work on the so-called "anti-pandemic treaty. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body - INB, appointed for this purpose, has published another draft of the document, to take the form of a convention, agreement or other WHO international instrument in the future, with the aim of pandemic prevention and preparedness. Although the draft is still only a prototype for a future agreement and many gaps have been left, already in this form it proposes solutions worth noting.
· The European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling for the establishment of a tribunal for crimes of aggression against Ukraine.
· The new tribunal would deal exclusively with the crime of aggression against Ukraine and would complement the International Criminal Court.
· The ICC has jurisdiction to try war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Ukraine, but cannot rule on the crime of Russia's aggression against Ukraine itself.
The WHO's Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is continuing work on a draft of the so-called "anti-pandemic treaty. The next draft replicates the document's previously stated goals, such as establishing a central role for WHO in coordinating health policy and coordinating scientific information. During discussions, the need to take into account so-called reproductive rights was emphasized.