Warning - distressing images.
They are distressing because the Eurogroup did nothing to prevent it.
Sedley LJ "Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 732 which is persuasive in all jurisdictions"Mr. Kealy was prepared to accept that blame could not attach for a breach of the peace to a speaker so long as what she said was inoffensive. This will not do. Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy".
And
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.“ Article 10 – Freedom of expression1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
It is clear that instead of responding to the above video or agreeing to act to prevent such things from occurring again, the Eurogroup decided not to listen to Mel Royal. This does not distract from the fact that the Intergroup have done nothing constructive about the Romanian situation at all. Indeed, their last weak letter to the Romanian president lies unanswered. The question is what are they being paid for?
