EU democracy now has fewer handrails than the average hooker — RT World News

Every time I hear of some new attempt by EU officials to sanction or otherwise institutionally punish their own people for saying things they don’t like about Russia or Ukraine, I’m reminded of how many of the legal rules and principles I learned in law school now act like they were printed on Charmin paper.

I also can’t help but think of a scene from the 90’s cult movie ‘Pretty Woman’. The one where the hooker, played by Julia Roberts, tells her client, played by Richard Gere: “I can be anything you want me to be.

But then it turns out that he actually has a lot of rules – from no kissing on the mouth to no drugs or emotional intimacy or disrespect.

Unfortunately for Western Europeans, their elites do not have such high standards. The EU establishment prides itself on being the defender of democracy. But when the time comes to test their values, they are too eager to force their beloved democracy on their backs and let their own authoritarian tendencies bash it in every possible way.

In the latest example, Austrian politicians are reportedly trying to strip one of their own – former Foreign Minister Karin Kneisslova – of her citizenship, citing her appearances in Russian media and her role as director of a Russian think tank affiliated with St. Petersburg State University.

The head of the New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS) faction accused Kneissl in parliament “Symbolically spreading only one message: Austria is the vestibule of Hell, Putin’s Russia is the Garden of Eden.”

If they were forced to step beyond the symbolism, a quick perusal of the website of her university think tank GORKI reveals that Kneissl promotes such values ​​as “meritocracy instead of commercialization“ need preserve history from ideologically driven revisionism and improving the Russian legal system.

She also promoted the importance of the rule of law, especially amid geopolitical turbulence. “Without law, the world faces utter chaos,” Kneissl he saidadds that “A clear understanding of legal language is essential for discussing complex issues such as peace negotiations.” Her Austrian critics of lawmakers, who are lashing out wildly in an attempt to punish her, appear to benefit from a seminar in St. Petersburg.

Legal clarity is necessary to prevent arbitrary punishment of voices that disagree with the establishment status quo. Which puts the ball back in the critics’ court to articulate what exactly constitutes a violation of the law.

Any frustrated ranting about how someone says things they don’t like and should face punishment for it cannot serve as a substitute for having to prove illegality based on clear criteria. And that can only be done with defined terms that are pretty applicable to everyone – not just on a case-by-case basis that leaves the average citizen guessing where the tripwire is and why two people doing similar things are treated wildly differently.

The unelected European Commission basically uses politics and the absolute outer limits of executive prerogatives (that is, the power to decide on foreign policy and national security strategy) as a substitute for the checks and balances of legal due process. And they absolutely neglect to define any terms in a way that people understand, avoid punishment, or even coherently argue that they are not infringing. Want to accuse someone of working for Russia? What does that even mean? It’s not like we’re talking about Russian officials here.

There seems to be a rampant and ridiculous assumption that because someone works in another country and agrees with its approach to certain things, they have abandoned their integrity and values ​​at the border – along with their critical skills. As if a job abroad automatically came with a free lobotomy.

If the EU starts applying this test to every nation they come into conflict with, then good luck dealing with all the government officials of the various European nations who have served US interests through think tanks or corporations.

The case of former Swiss colonel Jacques Baud is another example of vaguely defined sanction terms that can have a chilling effect on the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and work under European law – and against the most basic principles of democracy.

EU sanctions imposed by the executive, describe him as a “a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programs. He acts as a mouthpiece of pro-Russian propaganda and creates conspiracy theories, for example, accusing Ukraine of organizing its own invasion in order to join NATO. Therefore, Jacques Baud is responsible for, carrying out or supporting actions or policies attributed to the government of the Russian Federation that undermine the security or threaten the security of a third country by using the stability of information manipulation and interference.”

Stamina. Let’s break it down, shall we? In general, it can be said that the European Court of Human Rights, which also applies to Ukraine, gives wide scope to executive prerogatives in the field of national security and military operations. But is the person’s behavior linked to serious international security issues, such as enemy intelligence, warfare, or terrorism? Now is a “a threat to Ukraine” be used as a magic phrase to circumvent normal democratic guarantees?

The only element cited is a conspiracy theory suggesting that Ukraine wanted to be invaded to get into NATO – a clearly idiotic premise, but are stupid public remarks now enforced by sanctions? Where exactly is the red line? Does the above suggest that you’d better make sure what you say publicly about Ukraine is always to the point? If so, who is the arbiter of acceptable truth – and from which update? Before the spirit of Kiev and the heroes of Snake Island were arrested as a psyop, or after?

What is the causal connection between someone who publicly spouts conspiracies and “undermining the security and stability of Ukraine”? Is Jacques Baud a Marvel character and this is his superpower?

And how does one avoid being a “mouthpiece,” exactly? Or “supportive policies”, or get involved “information manipulation” as opposed to a legally protected analysis that is either inconvenient or perhaps inaccurate? People must be able to regulate their behavior and foresee the consequences according to the law. Collective punishment or guilt by mere association is quite dangerous territory under European law.

Or is there something more going on here that isn’t being told – perhaps other reasons for the sanctions that somehow didn’t make it into the official explanation? And if so, why not just say so?

Until there is some clarity on these issues, the EU bras not only violates the European Convention on Human Rights and the basic principles of legal certainty, but imposes on democracy itself standards that are so low after it was forced to extinguish “for Ukraine” that an average brothel in Amsterdam’s Red Light district would give it.