WHILE Cyprus may be a component part of the European Union, you have to wonder how far this new state of affairs has entered the consciousness of our politicians. Take the recent ill-tempered outburst by the Justice Minister, Doros Theodorou. Journalists and MPs have raised legitimate questions about the conduct of the President in relation to his knowledge of the Matsakis case prior to the recent European elections. Theodorou responded with the time honoured, if wearisome, strategy of playing the patriotic card. Not only are those who raise legitimate concerns accused of engaging in ‘vile behaviour’ but a conspiracy to systematically undermine the President is said to be uncovered.
All very familiar, you might say. Just the rough and tumble of politics. But let us also note that, as Justice Minister, Theodorou went on to claim that the presidents in all other countries are respected and protected in law – except in Cyprus. This prompts a question – does he now propose to introduce legislation to protect the office of President from ‘insult’?
Before the minister starts thinking seriously of this course of action, he should not only get his facts straight, but he also ought to take note of general European practice. Theodorou is plainly wrong when he claims that presidents elsewhere are protected in this way. While ‘insult’ laws remain on the statute book in some European countries, they are laws that are now no longer exercised. Where the use of these laws remain popular is in countries outside the European Union, which are dominated by an illiberal or authoritarian political system such as Cameroon, Peru or Kazakhstan. In countries such as these, ‘insult’ laws do not just stop at ‘offensive’ language. More often they are used to stifle fair reporting and commentary on the conduct of public officials, including presidents.
As a report from the World Press Freedom Committee suggests, “Insult laws designed to protect ‘honour and dignity’, rather than reputation, are often used to punish truth as well as falsehood, opinion is as well as factual assertions… Everyone – even Presidents and Prime Ministers – has every legitimate right to protect his or her reputation if it is unjustly attacked. But no special laws are needed for that purpose.”
Is the Justice Minister unaware that the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held the view that public figures need to be afforded less, not more, protection from defamation or ‘insult’ than ordinary citizens if there is to be a free and vigorous debate that is needed in a democracy? It is ironic that it is only after a few weeks that the Republic of Cyprus has enjoyed membership of the wider European family that the Justice Minister should glance enviously at the sort of legislation which the rest of Europe has long thrown on the rubbish heap. I assume our lawyer President is sufficiently familiar with Cypriot law to know that legal remedies already exist in civil libel and slander legislation to provide recourse if he believes he has been defamed. By what right does any citizen demand special privileges, in this regard at least, before the law? Presidents should not be encouraged to think of themselves as if they were mediaeval kings.
Let us not forget that the very idea of ‘insult’ laws springs from the ancient concept, exercised in Europe many hundreds of years ago, of the divine right of kings – a doctrine which asserted that the monarchy could do no wrong. Let us always remember, in a country that aspires to being European, that those who have sought public office are the servants of the citizen, not its master.
