Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine on Fire defies mainstream narrative on Russia-Ukraine war

 Article published in Travel Tomorrow

Ukraine on Fire presents a likely controversial overview of Ukraine’s political history leading up to the 2014 protests in Euromaidan and shedding light on today’s military developments in Eastern Europe.

Directed by Igor Lopatonok and produced by Oscar winner Oliver Stone, the 2016 documentary defies the mainstream media narrative on the geopolitical analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, spanning events from the World War II to the Cold War. The film features the international pressure over Ukraine — leading to an apparent coup d’état ousting the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich and culminates with the implications of NATO expansion.

In the documentary, Oliver Stone uses his critical lens on the Ukraine crisis, and more specifically on the role played by the US. Labelled as propaganda by the Western media, Russia’s argument of “denazifying” Ukraine as a justification for the invasion is analysed in Ukraine on Fire with the spotlight on a number of neo-nazis groups that, over time, seemed to have incorporated the Ukrainian National Guard.

Ukrainian Nazis joining forces with Hitler

In a throwback to World War II, the documentary denounces the estimated 80,000 Ukrainian ultra-nationalists — notorious for their cruelty towards the Polish, the Jewish and Russian people — who have joined the Schutzstaffel, the infamous Nazi SS.

In 1929, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was founded by Stefan Bandera, an ardent nationalist known by the CIA for leading a “reign of terror” and masterminding several ethnic cleansing operations, such as the 1941 Babi Yar massacre, where nearly 34,000 Jews were killed. However, after the war, Bandera fled to Europe, backed by the CIA for safe entry.

Cold War

“The CIA’s fingerprints can be found throughout the conflict,” the film stated, referring to the aftermath of the protests in Ukraine, both the 2004 and 2014 revolutions and events dating back to the Cold War. According to the documentary, CIA documents declassified in 2016 reveal strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.

Such ties would serve as a possible source of counter-intelligence against the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, Ukrainian nationalists were part of numerous military operations, including Operation Belladona, Operation Lynx, and Operation Trident. Yet, during the Nuremberg trials in 1945-1956, Ukrainian Nazis were spared from proper justice. “By 1951, the Agency [CIA] excused the illegal activities of OUN’s security branch in the name of Cold War necessity,” reads a declassified memo from the CIA.

The Ukrainian ultra-nationalist movement kept growing with names like Dmytro Dontsov, Andriy Melnyk and Roman Shukhevych shaping the neo-Nazi movement. In 1989, the Ukrainian nationalist organisation Narodny Rukh (People’s Movement) was created, serving as an incubator for neo-Nazi leaders against the Soviet Union’s trajectory towards the West guided by Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost policies.

Shortly before the end of the Soviet Union, in 1991, Oleh Tyahnybok founded yet another nationalist group, Svoboda, which ideology was the purging of Jews and ethnic Russians in Ukraine. As early as 2012, the BBC reported the danger of Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists, particularly Svoboda, and the EU passed a resolution condemning the group as anti-Semitic and xenophobic.

US ties with Svoboda

Despite the warnings from Europe, Victoria Nuland from the US State Department met Tyahnybok, Svoboda’s leader, in February 2014, ahead of the Euromaidan protests. The plot thickens when Nuland was caught on tape with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, masterminding an apparent coup d’état. “Now it would be great to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, f*ck the EU,” said Nuland.

Recalling his troubled tenure as a President (2010-2014), Viktor Yanukovich told Oliver Stone: “My high-level contact was VP Joe Biden. We had frequent phone conversations but the problem was that Mr Biden said one thing but they did different things in Ukraine.”

As for Mr Pyatt, the US Ambassador, Yanukovich said he received visits from Maidan representatives all the time. “We got the impression that the headquarters in charge of the whole process was in the US embassy,” said Yanukovich.

EU and IMF pressure

Throwing back to 2013, Yanukovich explained that Ukraine was going through a difficult economic period and the country was torn between turning to the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or Russia. With an existing trade agreement with Russia, Yanukovich sought to negotiate a new — and better — agreement, but both the EU and the IMF offered “unacceptable solutions”, he said.

“A significant rise in utility rates, for electricity and natural gas. This would mean a lot more expenses for the people, while their income would stay at the same level,” said Yanukovich about the IMF’s proposal. Ukraine suggested other solutions, but these were officially rejected by the IMF in November 2013.

Kyiv was left with Russia, which said it was ready for partnership if their interests were taken into account. Interviewed by Oliver Stone, the Russian President Vladimir Putin said that an agreement with Ukraine “would mean that EU goods would enter the Russian market without any negotiations”, which was not tolerated by the EU.

Talking about the trade agreement proposed by the EU, Yanukovich said that Ukraine couldn’t go ahead because it “required essential economic expenses and Europe didn’t provide any loss balancing.”

Euromaidan

After Ukraine’s decision to move towards the East for trade partnerships, the documentary reveals the manufacturing of a protest, with Euromaidan right behind the corner. As the November 2013 protest started in Ukraine, three new TV channels went on the air and suddenly became stunningly popular. Spilno TV was launched on November 21, Hromadske TV went live on November 22 and Expresso TV followed on November 24. These channels went viral supporting the protests, which were asking for an alignment with the EU and encouraging more and more people to go to Maidan.

Eventually, the protests led to overthrowing the President Yanukovich after an apparent coordinated action between the US and Ukrainian nationalist groups. Such outcome was reported by the filmmaker as the result of a successful staged revolution which included “money, the media and techniques”.

NATO expansion

A crucial element featured in the documentary is NATO’s military threat bordering the Russian Federation. NATO has not stopped expanding since the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from 17 countries in 1990 to 30 today, several of which were once part of the Soviet-led Warsaw pact.

“Why do we react so vehemently to NATO’s expansion?” asked Putin. “We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can’t resist the pressure of the USA.”

Putin stressed the military threat that NATO membership poses to Russia, saying that “anything at all can appear in such country such as missile defense systems, new bases, or, if necessary, new missile strike systems.”

Putin’s lack of sense of security has been compared to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the US drew a red line in respect of the installation of medium-range missiles 70 km from its border and the world was at the brink of nuclear war.

“This is a very dangerous topic. It’s a topic of war. War between the US and Russia would be complete madness,” said Yanukovich referring to NATO expansion.

Described by critics as Russian propaganda, Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire 2016 documentary presents verifiable claims that bring a different perspective when reflecting on the military escalation in Ukraine and have recently been voiced by the US political scientist John Mearsheimer.

European Commission announces 2021 work programme

The Commission’s 2021 work programme, presented by EU Commissioner Maros Sefcovic today, largely takes into account the corona recession that has hit hard the global economy. Sefcovic said that EU action and coordination were required in order to avoid turning an “economic crisis into a social crisis”. 

“The European Commission (EC) will continue its efforts to secure a future vaccine for Europeans and to help our economies recover, through the green and digital transition,” said Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen.

Under its communication, the EC stated that “we have the investment to match the vision and the ambition” focussing on the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument along with a reinforced EU budget for 2021-2027. “Our economies need continued policy support and a delicate balance will need to be struck between providing financial support and ensuring fiscal sustainability,” it further reads the EC’s announcement.

 “In 2021, we plan to table 86 major initiatives, in 44 packages, defining for the entire decade,” shared Sefcovic on social media.

Carbon border adjustment and sustainable transport

The 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals as well as the Paris Agreement will stand as the guiding tools of the EC action. On this note, some of the new steps announced by the EU executive include a proposal on a carbon border adjustment mechanism to help motivate foreign producers and EU importers in order to reduce their carbon emissions as well as a series of measures on smart and sustainable transport, including a revision of the regulation on the trans-European transport network and of the directive on intelligent transport systems.

Circular economy

The Commission proposed to continue the implementation of the circular economy action plan, looking at eco-design and sustainable products, in particular circular electronics, including improving the collection, reuse and repair of mobile phones, laptops and other devices. The EU executive also set the intention of following up the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the farm to fork strategy. 

Digital transition

As for the digital transition, a roadmap will be tabled with clearly defined goals for 2030, such as for connectivity, skills and digital public services. With regards to Artificial Intelligence, the Commission will develop legislation covering its safety, liability, fundamental rights and data aspects. A new European digital identity is also on the EC’s agenda “to make it easier to do tasks and access services online across Europe”.

Taxation and Capital Markets

Moving towards taxation issues, the EU executive said it will continue working for an international agreement for a fair tax system that provides long-term sustainable revenues. In case this attempt fails, the Commission will propose a digital levy in the first half of next year. A revision of competition rules is also on the EU’s agenda in order to ensure they are fit for the changing market environment, including the accelerating digitalisation of the economy.

The Commission is also eager to make progress on the Capital Markets Union and the Banking Union. For this matter, the EC proposed to revise the framework for handling EU bank failures, take measures to boost cross-border investment in the EU and step up the fight against money laundering. This will come together with legislation on sustainable corporate governance in view of fostering long-term sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour. The notorious green bonds were also introduced to push for sustainable financing. 

Social measures

The European Pillar of Social Rights will be the compass of Europe’s recovery when it comes to social matters. This includes a new European child guarantee aimed at reducing child poverty and inequalities, by ensuring access to health and education for all children.

Also, a new communication will be tabled for a revamped EU’s humanitarian aid, which will focus on new ways of working with EU’s partners and other donors.

A new biomedical agency

The Commission is also set to update the new industrial strategy for Europe to take into account the impacts of the corona recession. Also, a new pharmaceutical strategy will look at the security of Europe’s supply chain and ensure citizens can rely on high quality medicines.

A revamped Schengen

Additionally, they will propose to establish a new agency for biomedical advanced research and development and a new strategy for the future of Schengen and stronger Schengen rules.

The new pact on migration and asylum will also be subject of assessment. In this context, the Commission will propose a number of measures on legal migration, which is set to include a “talent and skills” package.

Fair taxation: Member States update EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions

EU Member States added two countries – Barbados and Anguilla – to the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. Both jurisdictions were added to the list due to tax transparency concerns. At the same time, the EU has now completely delisted the Cayman Islands and Oman, since they have now delivered on their pending commitments to remove a harmful tax regime and increase tax transparency respectively. Today’s update keeps the number of constituents of the EU list at 12: 

American Samoa

Anguilla

Barbados

Fiji

Guam

Palau

Panama

Samoa

Seychelles

Trinidad and Tobago

Vanuatu 

US Virgin Islands

Under the EU listing process, jurisdictions are assessed against three main criteria – tax transparency, fair taxation and real economic activity. Those that fall short on any of these criteria are asked for a commitment to address the deficiencies within a set deadline, and run the risk of being added to the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions if these commitments are not met. That said, because of the coronavirus pandemic, Member States again decided to grant certain extensions to some countries on the current ‘grey list’ to fulfil the commitments they have taken. 

This is the first update of the list since the Commission announced plans in July to review the geographic scope and criteria of the listing process, and to evaluate the defensive measures currently being applied by the EU and individual Member States against listed countries and territories. 

EU’s plastic strategy at risk, warn EU Auditors

Article published in Brussels Morning

Today, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) published a review claiming “there is a significant risk that the EU will not meet its plastic packaging recycling targets for 2025 and 2030.” At stake is the EU Action to tackle plastic packaging waste under the European Green Deal (EGD). In the EU, more than 60% of plastic waste still comes from packaging, but only 40% of that packaging is recycled. 

Describing the new recycling targets for plastic packaging as “a daunting challenge”, Samo Jereb, the Member of the ECA responsible for the review, pointed out how the EU must reverse the current practice “whereby we incinerate more than we recycle.” He noted pointedly that by “resuscitating single-use habits amid sanitary concerns, the COVID pandemic shows that plastics will continue to be a mainstay of our economies, but also an ever-growing environmental threat.”

The European Commission (EC) adopted its plastics strategy in 2018, updating the 1994 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and doubling the current recycling target to 50% by 2025 and to 55% by 2030.

However, according to the ECA, nearly a third of the Union’s reported plastic packaging recycling rate is achieved through reliance on shipments to non-EU countries for recycling. As of January 2021, under the soon to be enforced Basel Convention, most plastic waste shipments will be banned. This, combined with the lack of capacity to treat plastic waste within the EU, constitutes another risk to achieving the new targets.

Commission’s delicate ambitions

On 11 March, the European Commission (EC) published its “New Circular Economy Action Plan” listing some 50 actions to combat the ever-growing plastic waste being generated by humans. One of the most positive actions is the pledge to develop new measures on making products more sustainable. To achieve this, on 15 September, the EC launched the “Sustainable products initiative” which aims at revising the Eco design directive. 

The objective is to not only to design a good strategy but also how to operationalize it effectively from a financial and infrastructural perspective. Frans Timmermans, the EU Commissioner in charge of the Green Deal, will elaborate on this at the Budapest Climate Summit when he talks about how the Commission intends to deliver on its green goals.  Soon, the EU executive is expected to launch a renewed sustainable finance strategy, a crucial initiative that will outline how to underwrite the sustainable transition.

In 2018, the EC put forward “A European Strategy for plastics in the circular economy — Local and regional dimension” in line with the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Shortly afterwards, In December 2018, the Commission created the Circular Plastics Alliance to help plastics value chains boost the EU market for recycled plastics to 10 million tonnes by 2025. 

In 2015, Jean-Claude Junker’s Commission delivered the circular economy action plan, which outlined the bloc’s first ecological objectives. These covered the cycle from production and consumption, to waste management and the market for secondary raw materials. The EU’s circular economy gained momentum with the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2016. 

Rethink Plastic Alliance calls for more

However, despite all the green initiatives and its green ambitions, NGOs ask for more from the EU exectutive. 

The Rethink Plastic Alliance welcomed the Commission’s plans to curb plastic pollution but it showed reservations, in particular with regards as to how the Commission intends to set a policy framework for bio-based and biodegradable plastics. “These plastics, which are too often pushed as a solution, are mostly applied as single-use materials with similar environmental impacts to conventional plastics, especially in the ocean,” they warned.

The Alliance accused the Commission of confounding consumers by referring to a “direct substitution of conventional plastics with bio-based and biodegradable plastics” claiming that it will “amount to greenwashing.” The plastics network called on the EC to develop EU legislative measures to address pollution from all primary microplastics.

EU’s watchdog remains sceptical 

The EU’s watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has raised questions regarding the overall “official version” of the EGD. “The fingerprints of industry, and in particular the fossil fuel industry, can be seen all over the EGD,” the CEO reports in a research paper.

“In spite of all its rhetoric, the EGD does not seek to transform, but rather to accommodate, the status quo. It does not rethink the economic system that is the root cause of the climate, ecological, and financial crises. It continues to promote economic growth while seeking to manage the environmental and social impact,” the CEO analysis declared.

The EU watchdog body noted that the EGD is the number one most lobbied-on topic in Brussels, pointing out how, in the first 100 days after the Green Deal was announced on 11 December 2019, key members of the Commission in charge of the deal met with business interest representatives 151 times, roughly 11 meetings a week. “They only met 29 times with public interest representatives, which is about two meetings a week,” CEO commented.

“The fossil fuel industry wants the EGD to focus on ‘solutions’ that allow them to keep their business model, based on the extraction and production of fossil fuels, or at least to control the energy transition as much as they can, making sure they can keep profiting from it.”

However, the update of the EC’s legal framework for plastic recycling in 2018 does reflect the EU’s increased ambitions and it could help boost plastics recycling capacity. The scale of the challenge facing Member States should not be underestimated. EU auditors strongly call on concerted action to get the EU on a good track within the coming five-to-ten years.

Von der Leyen delivers first State of the European Union

Today, the Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen addressed her first “State of the European Union” (SOTEU) speech before the European Parliament. The annual discourse, which started early in the morning, focused inevitably on the COVID-19 crisis and its impact in Europe. On top of a rather unpredictable health crisis and an imminent Brexit, Europe is now dealing with violence on its neighbourhood and recurring migrant crisis insists on showing Europe’s fragilities.

“Next week, we will put forward the New Pact on Migration. We'll take a human and humane approach. Saving lives at sea is not optional and those countries who fulfill their legal and moral duties or are more exposed than others, must be able to rely on the solidarity of our whole EU,” said von der Leyen.

Before the impossibility of ignoring the pandemic that has affected worldwide economies, societies and ways of living, von der Leyen’s introductory notes focused on the challenges that COVID-19 have brought to Europe and how to get out of this health crisis with greater resilience. “We need to built a stronger European health Union,” delivered the president during the speech on Wednesday. Von der Leyen announced the upcoming empowerment of the European Medicines Agency and the ECDC, as well as a discussion regarding health competences. A Global Health summit was announced for the next year, in Italy.

Overall, a more resilient Europe means stronger economies and welfare systems ready to respond to people’s needs. Von der Leyen tried to reassure roughly 440 million citizens that instruments such as the Multiannual Financial Framework will boost the continent’s shape and help member states to get back on the recovery track.

Despite the significance of each of the Commission’s endeavours, the European Green Deal has attracted particular attention as it is poised to revamp the entire economy and finance in Europe. In fact, the EU is striving to be the first climate-neutral continent in the world and it hopes to inspire other nations to follow the lead.

The digital upgrade in Europe is another top priority. In late July, the EU’s Innovation and Research Commissioner Mariya Gabriel informed that developing digital competencies throughout the EU as well as encouraging gender equality in the bloc’s digital economy are two key areas that the Commission will seek to promote as part of the upcoming revamped Digital Education Action Plan.

Essentially, overall recovery will need strong policy direction, as well as investment. This prediction was outlined in greater detail in the Communication on Europe’s Recovery Plan. It was further reflected with new proposals mentioned in the Commission’s Letter of Intent to the European Parliament and Council on the occasion of the SOTEU. Finally, these will feature as part of a well-developed Commission Work Programme for 2021, to be adopted in October 2020. 

The SOTEU was first introduced ten years ago, after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. Since then, it became a famous yearly ceremony, connecting the work developed by the EU and its citizens. 

EU toolbox to guide Member States on the ethical use of mobile apps to fight COVID-19

On April 15th, the e-Health Network branch of the European Commission published the EU toolbox: “Mobile applications to support contact tracing in the EU’s fight against COVID-19”. This communications aims at guiding Member States on how to best use mobile apps to tackle COVID-19 while safeguarding data privacy.

The common approach aims to exploit the latest privacy-enhancing technological solutions that enable at-risk individuals to be contacted and, if necessarily, to be tested as quickly as possible, regardless of where they are and the app they are using. It explains the essential requirements for national apps, namely that they be:

• voluntary;
• approved by the national health authority;
• privacy-preserving - personal data is securely encrypted; and
• dismantled as soon as no longer needed.

Mobile apps have potential to bolster contact tracing strategies to contain and reverse the spread of COVID-19. EU Member States are converging towards effective app solutions that minimise the processing of personal data, and recognise that interoperability between these apps can support public health authorities and support the reopening of the EU’s internal borders.

Member States agreed on April 16th that COVID-19 mobile applications should not process the location data of individuals, because "it is not necessary nor recommended for the purpose of contact tracing".

"Collecting an individual's movements in the context of contact tracing apps would create major security and privacy issues," states the EU toolbox adopted by EU countries and supported by the European Commission.

The EU toolbox was delivered following the European Commission’s recommendation, released on April 8th, on apps for contact tracing. This recommendation reflects on a common Union toolbox for the use of technology and data in order to combat and exit from the COVID-19 crisis, in particular concerning mobile applications and the use of anonymised mobility data.

The recommendation sets out a process towards the adoption with the Member States of a toolbox, focusing on two dimensions:

• A pan-European coordinated approach for the use of mobile applications for empowering citizens to take effective and more targeted social distancing measures and for warning, preventing and contact tracing; and
• A common approach for modelling and predicting the evolution of the virus through anonymised and aggregated mobile location data.

Additionally, on April 16th, the Commission published the EU approach for efficient contact tracing apps to support gradual lifting of confinement measures. Also on April 16th, the European Commission published guidance on the development of new apps that support the fight against coronavirus in relation to data protection. 

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, Member States, backed by the Commission, have been assessing the effectiveness, security, privacy, and data protection aspects of digital solutions to address the crisis. Contact tracing apps, if fully compliant with EU rules and well coordinated, can play a key role in all phases of crisis management, especially when time will be ripe to gradually lift social distancing measures.

The Commission guidance sets out features and requirements which apps should meet to ensure compliance with EU privacy and personal data protection legislation, in particular the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive. However, the guidance is not legally binding. It is without prejudice to the role of the Court of Justice of the EU, which is the only institution that can give authoritative interpretation of EU law.

The present guidance addresses only voluntary apps supporting the fight against COVID 19 pandemic (apps downloaded, installed and used on a voluntary basis by individuals) with one or several of the following functionalities:

• Provide accurate information to individuals about the COVID-19 pandemic;
• Provide questionnaires for self-assessment and for guidance to individuals (symptom checker functionality);
• Alert persons who have been in proximity for a certain duration to an infected person, in order to provide information such as whether to self-quarantine and where to get tested (contact tracing and warning functionality);
• Provide a communication forum between patients and doctors in situation of self-isolation or where further diagnosis and treatment advice is provided (increased use of telemedicine).

This guidance does not cover apps aimed at enforcing quarantine requirements (including those which are mandatory).

By the end of April 2020: Member States with the Commission will seek clarifications on the solution proposed by Google and Apple with regard to contact tracing functionality on Android and iOS in order to ensure that their initiative is compatible with the EU common approach.

White Paper on Artificial Intelligence

The European Commission has launched on February 19 a White Paper on “Artificial Intelligence – A European approach to excellence and trust” which is open for consultation until May 19. This document builds up on existing documents such as the “Report: Artificial Intelligence a European perspective” from 5 December 2018, the “Coordinated Plan on AI” from 7 December 2018, and the “Political guidelines for 2019-2024” launched by the new president of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

With this White Paper, the European Commission aims to be at the forefront of the next (industrial) data wave by creating a so-called "ecosystem of excellence" and "ecosystem of trust" to boost the uptake of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and address the risks associated with certain uses of this new technology.

The White Paper on AI outlines Europe’s plans to regulate the Artificial Intelligence sector, adding to and expanding on the Commission’s aims to better prepare Europe for the digital age. Additionally, the White Paper contains the Commission’s framework for a formal regulatory body focused on AI, but doesn’t propose specific rules or laws to be adopted.

Overall, the White Paper recognises the opportunities AI presents to Europe’s digital economy and its different sectors, and presents the Commission’s vision for a coordinated approach to promoting the uptake of AI in the EU and addressing the risks associated with certain uses of AI. 

The Copyright Directive's Article 13: An Orwellian Nightmare #SaveYourInternet

On January 2018, the European Council didn't convene to discuss what was supposed to be the last round on the discussions around reforming the Copyright Directive. This outcome indicates that the final adoption of this law will likely be delayed. Good news considering the  disastrous consequences of the adoption of Articles 11 and 13. Policy-makers are starting to doubt that the adoption of the Directive will happen before the upcoming European elections, in May 2019.

After the Council's results and public opinion pressure, Greens/European Free Alliance German MEP Julia Reda announced the outcomes of the Council's reunion saying that it is "less likely" that the controversial Articles 11 and 13 will be adopted. However, Reda let the alarm on, stating that these two articles are not dead either. The S&D British MEP Catherine Stihler told the EUobserver that the "meme ban" is still on the table in the EU copyright bill. "My kids look at that and think: how can you possibly even thinking about banning memes," said Stihler.

Do you enjoy scrolling around 9GAG? Forget it as it is under Article 13. Below is one of the countless memes all over the web. They are fruit of the work of independent creators who just want to banter around. Banning memes on the web it's almost like banning stand-up comedy shows George Carlin-style. It's outlawing and suppressing the magnificent art of using word play, opinions, exaggeration, irony, sarcasm and another comic themes to playfully humiliate. And according to Julia Reda, it's incompatible with existing EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The adoption of these two catastrophic articles would drastically change the internet as we know it while imposing a gloomy cut on our freedoms of expression. Simple acts like linking a source in an article would not be allowed under Article 11. As for Article 13, it would basically censor indiscriminate content using bots and algorithms. How scary is this?

Julia Reda's announcement on Twitter, January 2018:

Hopefully, the meaning of the recent non-adoption of this bill implies that internal disagreement is shaking things around, and Articles 11 and 13 are at the core of this contention. As Green MEP Julia Reda put on her blog: "national governments failed to agree on a common position on the two most controversial articles, Article 11, also known as the Link Tax, and Article 13, which would require online platforms to use upload filters in an attempt to prevent copyright infringement before it happens." 

A total of 11 countries voted against the compromise text proposed by the Romanian Presidency: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Croatia, Luxembourg and Portugal.

How did the parties in the European Parliament vote under the Copyright Directive in July and September 2018?

September 2018

July 2018

Both in July and September 2018, the European Parliament voted different set of rules that, according to digital activists, will entirely change the internet as we know it. As we see it, the majority of the Conservatives were in favour of ban content as well as a slight majority of the Socialists. The most controversial articles under the Copyright Directive include the already mentioned Article 11, also known as the Link Tax and Article 13, or Upload Filters.

After the Romanian presidency cancelled on January 18 the supposedly final negotiation of the Copyright Directive between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, it will be up to the Romanian presidency - chairing the presidency of the Council of the EU since January 2019 - to draft a new text in order to gain a qualified majority. The adoption is not foreseen to happen before the European elections in May.

Expert Opinion regarding Article 13 (via Julia Reda)

• Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users. – 70 internet luminaries including World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales 

• This [law] will lead to excessive filtering and deletion of content and limit the freedom to impart information on the one hand, and the freedom to receive information on the other. – 57 signatories representing fundamental rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders 

• States and intergovernmental organizations should refrain from establishing laws or arrangements that would require the “proactive” monitoring or filtering of content, which is both inconsistent with the right to privacy and likely to amount to pre-publication censorship. – United Nations Human Rights Council report

Expert Opinion regarding Article 11 (via Julia Reda)

Independent academics unanimously criticise the proposal:

• “A bad piece of legislation … would likely impede the free flow of information that is of vital importance to democracy … likely to harm journalists … likely to exacerbate existing power asymmetries in media markets … no protection against ‘fake news’ … no sound economic case for the introduction of such a right” –169 scholars working in the fields of intellectual property, internet law, human rights law and journalism studies 

• “There is independent scientific consensus that Article 11 […] cannot be allowed to stand.” –Leading European centres researching IP and innovation law 

• “Unnecessary, undesirable, would introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty and be unlikely to achieve anything” –37 IP professors and scholars 

• “An interference with freedom of speech”, “may well set back the function of the press as public watchdog” –Prof van Eechoud 

• “Contrary to the objective of creating a Single Digital Market”, “detrimental for authors’ interests”, “a negative impact on small publishers”, “risks having undesired repercussions for the acceptability and legitimacy of the copyright system as a whole” –Uni Strasbourg 

• ”Will not foster quality journalism”, ”adversely affects authors economically”, ”directly affects the online communication of the European population”, ”will not create additional revenues for press publishers” –Prof Peukert 

• “will ultimately privilege large incumbent (US-based) online news providers, such as Google”, “Small (European) entities and startups will be prevented from entering this emerging market” –European Copyright Society 

• “The final result … may … be further market concentration and less information diversity.” –Prof Senftleben 

• “We [advise] that the press publishers’ right be abandoned” –Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union on behalf of the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee 

Several stakeholders who are supposed to benefit from the proposal have rejected it:

• “would be a serious blow for investigative journalism and present a giant step backward in the fight against misinformation” –Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project 

• “An attack on innovation” … “unhelpful, counterproductive and not in the interest of all publishers” … “bad for competition, media pluralism and for internet users” … “Serious negative effects on the quality of the press, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression” –European Innovative Media Publishers (also here) 

• “Such proposals make it harder for us to be heard, to reach new readers and new audiences. They create new barriers between us and our readers […] It will be harder for us to be present, discovered and accessed by our readers online. It will be harder for our readers to engage with our stories online, to share links or our headlines with their friends. It will be harder for us to grow, develop new sources of information and innovate in our business.” –Alliance of independent publishers, including the publishers of 900 periodicals in Spain and 155 local newspapers in Italy 

• “[The plan] will stifle and drown the process of digital transformation” –Major Spanish daily El País 

• “[The plan] risks […] putting all EU-based publications at a competitive disadvantage.” –71 independent publishers 

• Many more quotes from industry insiders here

Don't feel powerless. If you want to raise your voice against this unconstitutional law, join the struggle and tell your MEP to STOP COPYRIGHT CENSORSHIP here.