One can even spread conspiracy theories without going to jail in Estonia

Prosecutor General Andres Parmas. Photo: Andres Haabu

Prosecutor General Andres Parmas said on the “Otse Postimehest” webcast that he sees no need for the government’s plan of criminalizing hate speech as the matter is already regulated on the legislative level. At the same time, Parmas understands the need to change legal acts following pressure from the European Union. He also says that law enforcement will need additional resources if hate speech criminalization happens.

NGO Institute for Societal Studies asked people to what extent they believe the prosecution and the Internal Security Service (ISS) meddle in politics in Estonia. No fewer than 35 percent of respondents said they consider it likely. How much of a headache is the fact that such a big part of society believes in these conspiracy theories?

It is definitely not a good sign. I’m sure that it is not the result of the activities of the prosecution and ISS but rather impudent attempts to manipulate public opinion. Some political forces have been throwing around such claims without any sort of proof. Inciting mistrust in your own country’s institutions constitutes playing with fire. We are lucky that it is 35 percent and not more. I hope our actions can convince those 35 percent of people that such claims are completely baseless.

How does it affect your work?

It does not affect our work directly. We need to answer questions like the one you just asked and work on relevant communication. The reputation of the institution and how our actions look matter beyond specific cases and incidents.

Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise gave a speech to judges to mark the Anniversary of the Republic in which she criticized the at times chaotic manner in which Covid restrictions have been introduced, suggesting that measures have lacked a logical basis and been unlawful and disproportionate. Which parts of her speech do you agree with?

I was very fond of the justice chancellor’s speech. Her talking points were hardly anything new. I have no other choice but to agree that restrictions need to be laid down lawfully and following due process. We are not in a catastrophic situation where we are all about to die. The crisis has been going on for over a year. We are dealing with the third wave of the virus by today and chaotic communication in terms of measures can no longer be justified. The same goes for measures lacking a logical explanation.

Could this practice persist on the constitutional or legislative level once the pandemic ends?

I do not think so. The rule of law in Estonia is strong enough to make sure nothing of the sort will happen once the situation normalizes. Things were done constitutionally and based on the rule of law before the pandemic crisis hit.

Therefore, you do not believe Estonian or European rule of law has suffered as a result of the crisis?

It has suffered. What is happening shows us how thin the ice under the rule of law really is. We can see, looking at old democracies that serve as an example for us, how little it took for the facade to be lifted and for practical considerations to take precedence over freedoms and rights.

President Kersti Kaljulaid did not touch on freedom of speech in her Independence Day speech. Was that a mistake?

I’m sure we could find other topics the president did not cover. I did not miss it, which is not to say it is not an important topic or one that deserves attention.

I’m referring to the bill that seeks to criminalize hate speech. Have you perceived the problem this initiative aims to solve in Estonian society?

Hate speech is already regulated on the level of legislation and not allowed. People need to remain polite and communicate relying on argumentation because insulting and badmouthing another person is also unlawful. A person can apply for legal protection against such acts by way of civil proceedings. Insults and slander are punishable offenses under certain circumstances.

Some say that section 151 of the Penal Code is not working in real life and needs to be complemented.

How is it not working? We need to ask ourselves whether expanding the phrasing of the section is what we really want. This would hold everyone more accountable for their words, not just the person saying unflattering things about you. The regulative element of hate speech is not built on any ideology or what someone likes or dislikes. It is universal.

You have said you do not support the bill to criminalize hate speech?

Like I said, hate speech is unlawful in Estonia today and punishable in criminal or civil procedure under certain circumstances. Expanding these elements is not a good idea. There are several reasons for this. It works to devalue criminal punishment. Secondly, it would require additional resources for law enforcement. We either need a bigger budget or it will happen at the expense of something else. For example, bicycle theft or fights in the city center – processing of these criminal offenses would inevitably suffer. On a more principled level, I cannot support making discussing certain topics a punishable offense.

However, another important aspect of this is that the European Union has launched infringement proceedings against Estonia and we will have to revisit the elements of the offense one way or another. But I believe we can find sensible ways of harmonizing our legislation with that of the EU to a greater degree.

Does the bill exist simply to comply with a European directive and avoid a fine?

Yes, we will have to change our legislation anyway. However, I would emphasize that this topic should not be over ideologized or seen as Estonia about to lose freedom of speech. Estonian legislation has regulated hate speech differently at various times, including a much more comprehensive treatment than currently. And lo and behold, we still have freedom of speech, it is possible to discuss various matters and people who feel differently are not being silenced. One can even spread conspiracy theories without fear of reprisal.

Could hate speech legislation come to limit creative freedom?

It is an extremely delicate matter. The question first surfaced in the case of [writer] Kaur Kender. Creative freedom is one of many. The minimum for every right is for it not to violate the rights and freedoms of others. Therefore, making absolutes out of creative freedom and freedom of speech is not right either.

Anti-corruption efforts have a prominent position in the coalition agreement. In your opinion, is the government prepared to really tackle corruption or is it just hot air?

I very much hope the government will really try to address the problem. These efforts have been around for a very long time in words, while that is often the level on which they have remained. Amendment proposals for boosting and improving the capacity of the Political Parties Financing Surveillance Committee (ERJK) were made back in 2019 but have gotten nowhere. We are still discussing it and really sweeping the topic under the rug.

Minister of Justice Maris Lauri (Reform) told Postimees that ERJK needs more manpower. What new capacities would it need?

One wider problem in Estonia is being unable to reach a person when needed. The state and agencies need to be able to get a hold of people if they need to. Another thing is that the committee cannot currently force third persons to surrender documents.

What does that mean?

For example, as concerns evidence of assets. Another thing I would point out is that the law today prohibits the use of public funds for elections campaigning. This is muddy. It would be more practical to say that public funds cannot be used for political activity. There are other things, such as that ERJK decisions could be executive documents based on which funds could be confiscated in enforcement procedure. That is not the case today.