8 Jan 2026 | Belgium, Europe and Central Asia, Hungary, News
It should now be clear to everyone that the year 2026 will be marked by the march of the far right further into the mainstream of European politics. Each of the major European powers now has an ultra-nationalist party capable of taking at least a share of power in a democratic election. In Italy it has already formed the government.
What’s more, these Far Right revivalists claim they are defending the key enlightenment value of free speech – although they can be highly selective in its application.
The movement is driven by its hostility towards a well-defined common enemy, not Russia or China, but the European project itself. “The real threat does not come from Moscow or Beijing or from troll farms in St Petersburg. It comes from Brussels.” This, in a nutshell, was the message of the Battle for the Soul of Europe, a conference organised in the Belgian capital in December by MCC Brussels, a thinktank devoted to the downfall of the European Union.
MCC stands for Mathias Corvinus Collegium, a Hungarian institution with close links to Viktor Orbán (Corvinus himself was a 15th century expansionist king of Hungary). Politico has described the organisation as, “The EU’s most prominent hard-right pressure group.” The speaker was Norman Lewis, a visiting fellow at MCC Brussels and a former director of management consultants PwC, who perfectly embodies the ease with which the corporate world can embrace so-called National Conservatism.
The repeated message at Battle for the Soul of Europe was clear and coherent, if somewhat monotonous: European civilisation is under threat from the combined forces of mass immigration and wokery. Patriots of sovereign nations need to wake up and fight for the Christian values of the West and make peace with Russia. Just a week after the conference, US President Donald Trump made it clear that his national security strategy is based on precisely the same principles.
Many participants felt their voices were being silenced by the liberal European establishment.
Virginie Joron, MEP for the French far-right party Rassemblement National (National Rally) expressed her horror that, in her view, the Macron government was planning to label disinformation and “malicious advertising” with the help of the NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and she said felt this was an attempt to target French TV channels sympathetic to the far right. Joron’s views reflect a feud going back several years. In 2024, RSF claimed there were concerted attempts to discredit them – for defending French law on fact-based broadcasting – led by the right-wing media group Vivendi with the support of far-right politicians.
Joron went on to attack Google, George Soros and the EU’s planned Centre for Democratic Resilience as part of a wider threat to free speech disguised as initiatives to tackle fake news. She claimed there now exists a cartel of authorised speech run by Brussels and militant NGOs. “No to the Macron-Brussels globalist Ministry of Truth,” she said, in a final rhetorical flourish.
If this weren’t hyperbolic enough, the French MEP was followed on stage by Adam Starzynski, the editor of Visegrad 24, an online pro-Orbán, pro-Trump news outlet. Starzynski claimed the censorship of stories about Hunter Biden, the son of the former US President Joe Biden, represented “the suppression of news on a whole new scale.” But he did not stop there, for Starzynski, UK far-right anti-immigration activist and convicted criminal Tommy Robinson was a dissident figure in the fight for free-speech rights.
Almost to a man and woman (and there were certainly no non-binary categories here), there was a disciplined “line to take”. The one dissenting voice at the conference, Vaclav Klaus, had been a genuine dissident during the Cold War and later became Prime Minister and President of the Czech Republic. Klaus has impeccable anti-European credentials and began by saying that Brussels was “everything a democrat should disagree with”. He added that it had been a tragic mistake to confuse Europe with the European Union. For him, Europe was just a conglomeration of nation states which sometimes had common interests.
But he took issue with the very concept of the conference: “There is not a common history of Europe,” he said. People should not artificially invent a European “soul”.
The new European Far Right baulk at being called “fascists”. But this is something of a distraction. Most are happy to be considered “hard right” or “patriotic right” or “National Conservative”.
They are for the most part, united and disciplined, where their liberal opponents are confused and disorganised. Their message is simple, clear and seductive. And now it has the backing of the White House it cannot be ignored.
10 Nov 2022 | FEATURED: Martin Bright, News
Imagine a country where the authorities target investigative journalists as spies, and outlaw news and campaigning organisations that receive foreign funding. At Index on Censorship, we have been writing about such countries since the darkest days of the Cold War.
Now, a coalition of organisations promoting free expression and the rights of journalists is raising serious concerns about sweeping measures contained in new legislation here in the UK.
openDemocracy – alongside the National Union of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and Index on Censorship itself – has asked for an urgent meeting with security minister Tom Tugendhat to discuss our joint submission to the parliamentary committee scrutinising the new National Security Bill. (The bill is currently at report stage in the House of Commons, due to go to the House of Lords next.)
An unusual bout of consensus appears to have broken out in Westminster over this particular piece of new legislation. In part, this is due to the British government’s tactical retreat from a full-scale overhaul of the 1989 Official Secrets Act – which would have caused concern for libertarians on the government benches.
The importance of national security in a time of global instability is something we can all understand. And a toughening of measures to crack down on bad foreign actors is relatively easy to sell.
But it is wise to be vigilant when parliamentary consensus occurs – especially when citizens are being asked to trade personal freedoms in exchange for promises of greater security. Civil liberties risk being squeezed between a government desperate to show its toughness in the face of presidents Putin and Xi and an opposition keen to burnish its security credentials.
The new legislation is designed to address serious new threats that have only emerged since the start of the 21st century. There is no question that the growth of the internet has posed challenges to UK security. This, combined with the direct hostility of Russia and the growing geopolitical significance of China, has led to concern in Whitehall about the suitability of existing legislation.
The Home Office claims that the new bill “completely overhauls and updates our outdated espionage laws” – a bold assertion. It also promises a “range of new and modernised offences, with updated investigative powers and capabilities”. These, it says, will “ensure those on the front line of our defence will be able to do even more to counter state threats”.
Such language is designed to instil maximum reassurance in the face of a terrifying and unspecified threat from a hostile foreign government.
But where are the limits to such legislation?
Public interest defence
Our coalition has identified several areas of concern, but chief among them is the chilling effect the new legislation will have on the practice of investigative journalism. The absence of meaningful free-expression protections means that whistleblowers in government will be further deterred from disclosing official wrongdoing.
The new legislation makes it clear that those in receipt of information or documents deemed to benefit foreign powers will face the most severe penalties – up to a maximum of life imprisonment. Although ministers gave assurances under questioning that these measures are not designed to target journalists, such protections are not written into the legislation. The decision to prosecute would ultimately lie with the attorney general of the day.
In the face of such sweeping measures, we are demanding the introduction of a public interest defence to increase protections for those exposing genuine wrongdoing in the sphere of national security.
Fundamental to the concerns of our coalition are the so-called “foreign power conditions” woven throughout the new legislation. Our fear is that the measures are so broadly drawn that journalists and free-speech organisations could be swept up in a future crackdown.
The scope of the National Security Bill as presently drafted is so vast that any organisation receiving foreign funding – including foreign news services – could be caught up by it.
Democracy depends on vibrant and critical journalism. The UK government should resist the desire to sacrifice media freedom on the altar of national security.
This piece first appeared on OpenDemocracy.
18 Oct 2017 | Campaigns -- Featured, Malta, media freedom featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Daphne Caruana Galizia
Sixteen press freedom groups condemn the killing of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and demand an immediate and independent investigation into her death.
“The murder of a prominent investigative journalist in broad daylight in an EU Member State underscores the seriousness of this crime. Daphne Caruana Galizia’s work as a journalist to hold power to account and shine a light on corruption is vital to maintaining our democratic institutions. Her killing is a loss for her country and for Europe”, Hannah Machlin, project manager for Index on Censorship’s data platform Mapping Media Freedom, said.
Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed when the car she was driving exploded in Bidnija around 15.00 on 16 October in what is thought to have been a targeted attack..
“The barbaric murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia is an attack on journalism itself. This crime is meant to intimidate every investigative journalist,” Dr Lutz Kinkel, Managing Director of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, said.
“Because Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and parts of Malta’s political elite were targets of Galizia’s disclosures, we strongly recommend an independent investigation of this case. The killers have to be found and put on trial.”
The blast left her vehicle in several pieces and threw debris into a nearby field. Half an hour before the powerful explosion, the journalist posted a comment about a libel claim the prime minister’s chief of staff had brought against a former opposition leader over comments the latter made about corruption.
Galizia filed a police report 16 days ago saying she was being threatened.
Galizia had conducted a series of high profile corruption investigations and has been subject to dozens of libel suits and harassment. Because of her research, in February, assets were frozen following a request filed by Economic Minister Chris Cardona and his EU presidency policy officer Joseph Gerada.
On 24 August opposition leader Adrian Delia filed a lawsuit against her over stories linking him to offshore accounts totalling to £1 million earned from alleged prostitution in London flats. On 11 March Silvio Debono, owner of the real estate investment company DB Group, filed 19 libel cases against her after Caruana Galizia published a number of articles about his deals with the Maltese government to take over a large tract of high value public land.
Galizia also conducted an investigation linking the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his wife Michelle to secret offshore bank accounts to allegedly hide payments from Azerbaijan’s ruling family, which were unveiled in the Panama Papers. She worked on this investigation with her son Matthew Caruana Galizia, a journalist for the Pulitzer prize winning International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who has had his posts on allegations of wrongdoing by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his associates censored on Facebook.
On 17 October 2017, her family filed an urgent application for the Duty Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera to abstain from investigating Caruana Galizia’s murder because of the court’s “flagrant conflict of interest”. In 2011, the magistrate initiated court proceedings against the journalist over comments she had made about Magistrate Herrera.
Seven reports of violations of press freedom were verified in Malta in 2017, according to Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project. Five of those are linked to Caruana Galizia and her family.
The murder has brought widespread condemnation from the international community including statements from Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jaglan and OSCE’s Media Freedom Representative Harlem Désir.
We, the undersigned press freedom organisations call for:
— An independent and transparent investigation into the killing of Daphne Caruana Galizia
— Protection for her family members and for other Maltese journalists who have been under threat
— Measures to protect the environment for independent and critical journalism to ensure that reporters can work freely
———————————————————————
Article 19
The Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
The Center for Investigative Reporting
Committee to Protect Journalists
The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Index on Censorship
International News Safety Institute (INSI)
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
Ossigeno per I’nformazione
Platform of Independent Journalism (P24)
Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1508321261018-6a10a188-6c0b-6″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]