Classified information:

More people are moving out

The classified ads' columns in newpapers can provide an accurate barometer of trends in a community. A major trend currently on display in the Algarve is that more and more people – Portuguese and foreign nationals – are leaving the country because of the economic climate.

The publishers of the weekly Algarve 123 recently analysed the classifieds in their paper over the past 64 issues. They found that the phrase “for sale due to leaving the country/ moving abroad” is becoming increasingly frequent.

Algarve 123 is a tri-lingual paper with Portuguese and German readers, as well as English. The most common profile of those placing ads indicating they are moving out is a Portuguese, in their 30s. He or she is looking for work, but simply cannot find it here.

An article headed “Who'll be left?” in the current issue of the paper said of many advertisers: “They put the contents of their homes up for sale (furniture, household appliances, children’s toys even), as well as their cars. And we ask ourselves: can the country really afford to lose these active members of the population; these families who supposedly are (or should be) the basis of contemporary society?”

Ads over the past 64 weeks also reveal an increasing number of British, German, Dutch and even Brazilian citizens leaving the Algarve to return to their homeland, off-loading family pets among other possessions in the process.

A British client told the paper that “life is getting more and more difficult here” and that she was leaving because she feared it was going to get much worse.

A German reader who had a business in the Algarve for many years said she was leaving because she was 'sick and tired of the way the economy here doesn’t work'.

“This was just one example among many small businesses, shops and services that should be bringing dynamism and diversity to the Algarve. Instead, everyday, they’re closing down,” the paper commented.

It wondered if the Algarve is going to end up being inhabited only by retired people and the corrupt?

Freedom of expression
is neither free nor faultless

While there has been much international focus this week on the importance of freedom of speech, journalists have been under attack, physically and verbally.

“Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are pillars of an open and inclusive society,” said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Referring to the uprising in Egypt, she also called on the government there to unblock social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, that had been used to organise protests. The minefield territory of WikiLeaks remained for the moment in the background. For Clinton and many others, WikiLeaks is too free.

Are press freedom and freedom of expression basic human rights that we greatly value or abused luxuries that we take for granted?

In an article in the Guardian newspaper, the veteran British journalist Simon Jenkins contended that journalistic ethics are in a “mess”. He is right of course – and this applies not just to the 'mainstream' media in the UK, but to all types of journalism, including electronic newspapers and blogging, just about everywhere.

Jenkins focused mainly on the alleged hacking of voicemail accounts of prominent people in Britain. This much-publicised scandal remains unresolved. The full ramifications of electronic surveillance technologies and the internet mean that any clear application of the law is impossible, so a new map of ethical territory is needed, Jenkins suggested.

As he put it, there is now “a thoroughly confused boundary between the public and private realms, between openness and secrecy, publicity and privacy, rapacity and trust.”

Journalists should try to obey the law. But which law? “Official secrets law is a shambles. Privacy law is made up on the hoof. Court injunctions are improvised explosive devices.”

Continued Jenkins: “Journalists have claimed 'public interest' in defence of actions that others might consider unethical and lawyers illegal. The reality of the matter is that one person's brave investigation is another's illicit intrusion. Journalists may claim a licence to judge the public interest for themselves, but this requires public trust, which is wearing thin.”

He concluded that the job of the journalist will always be to pursue the story, pushing boundaries when a case for public interest can be proved. “But this pushing will attract public trust only where professional self-regulation can be seen to work, as it works up to a point for doctors and lawyers. For the moment, anarchy rules.”

In Portugal, after a long history of censorship and oppression, the current constitution guarantees free speech and absolute freedom of the press. The law includes the right of journalists to access government documents. Their freedom includes rights of expression and 'creativeness'.

Yet Portugal rates only 40th in the latest world press freedom index drawn up by the international watchdog organisation, Reporters without Borders. That's 40 out of a total list of 178, but Portugal is a long way down from the Netherlands, Ireland, the Scandinavian countries and Germany. The UK ranks 19^tth.

Portugal's reputation was tainted last year when the Lisbon-based weekly Sol was fined €1.5 million for defying a court injunction not to publish details from phone conversations recorded in a police surveillance operation.

The report implicated Prime Minister José Sócrates and other people close to him in an alleged attempt by Portugal Telecom to buy a controlling stake in the privately-owned television station TVI. Reporters without Borders expressed outrage and denounced the court rulings as “judicial harassment”.

In April last year, a Portuguese MP snatched audio recorders from two journalists to whom he had granted an interview in the parliamentary library. He stormed out of the room with the recorders in his pocket. Later, he explained his action by claiming that the journalists' questions amounted to “unbearable psychological violence”.

Reporters without Borders said it was “surreal behaviour that one normally sees only in the most authoritarian countries”.

Efforts by some Portuguese politicians since the introduction of the current constitution to bring about more media control, and recent defamation prosecutions that critics say impinge upon freedom of expression, need to be carefully watched by all who value “pillars of an open and inclusive society”.

Awaiting trial, Serena Wylde campaign for change in libel laws

Algarve holiday homeowner Serena Wylde has had some sleepless nights but not the slightest remorse over the letter of complaint about a Portuguese lawyer that has landed her in court facing a charge of aggravated criminal defamation.

On the contrary, she regards her experience at the hands of the law here as a sort of call-to-arms. She is angry and points out that “anger produces energy.” She has launched a campaign to highlight all kinds of injustices in cases involving ethics, human rights and politics. (For the background to her own case, see my last blog).

Ms Wylde, 59, is a retired businesswoman. Married to a retired Portuguese bank executive, she is highly intelligent, tenacious and passionately concerned with ethics, truth and justice.

After a criminal process was opened in 2007 over her letter of complaint to the Portuguese lawyers' regulatory body, the Ordem dos Advogados, she began studying law herself. She is in the process of studying for a masters degree.

Not all Portuguese lawyers are in her line of fire. She has nothing but praise for the professionalism and punctiliousness of her Lisbon-based defence lawyer, Francisco Teixeira da Mota. This formidable advocate has successfully prosecuted Portugal for violation of Freedom of Expression at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg no less than five times, the latest just before Christmas.

Defamation is broadly defined as a statement that gives a false, damaging impression of someone to others. In verbal form it is called slander; in written form it is libel.

In her own words and reported here for the first time, this is how Serena Wylde views the situation regarding defamation in Portugal compared to the UK. While there are differences, a most important fact to bear in mind is that the law in Portugal does not exist in isolation; a person convicted of a criminal offence in Portugal is automatically recognised as a criminal in the UK and elsewhere.

Serena Wylde says:

<  Vexatious libel litigants in Portugal have little to lose, because:

1. It costs relatively little to bring a criminal libel case in Portugal as it is essentially paid for by the Public Prosecution Service. (Judges themselves who bring libel cases enjoy favourable terms…and are exempt from paying any court costs!)

2. In Britain litigants who bring false actions for libel are ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs and expenses, and if found to have lied are prosecuted for perjury and given a jail sentence. No such consequences hang in the balance in Portugal.

3. Even when the European Court of Human Rights determines that Portugal is in breach of Article 10 governing Freedom of Expression (which it invariably does) and orders the State to reimburse the applicant all fines and damages paid plus expenses incurred, the Portuguese litigant still gets to keep his/her “compensation” as the bill is footed by the Portuguese taxpayer!

There are therefore few deterrents to discourage spurious claims. Hence, libel actions are used as a highly effective intimidatory and persecutory weapon to silence critics, whistle-blowers and consumers alike, leaving the hapless individual who has spoken out with a European Criminal Record and the claimant with a profit! A win-win situation for any malicious litigant.

Unlike in Britain, where it is considered essential that libel cases be determined by a jury, and thus it remains the only civil case still to be decided by twelve members of the public, in Portugal the decision rests at 1st instance with one judge.

The offence of aggravated defamation is an inversion of democracy because it provides for greater punishment where the plaintiff is a judge, public official, lawyer or member of the clergy; insulating from criticism and scrutiny the very people who exercise power over other people’s lives, and therefore need to be subject to greater, not less, scrutiny and accountability.

The only legitimate purpose of libel laws is to protect reputations from unwarranted attack and the dissemination of false statements of fact. A reputation is an objective, definable concept and hence the European Convention refers to the balancing of the rights of freedom of expression and protection of reputation.

In Portugal, criminal libel proceedings can be initiated on the flimsy and totally subjective argument that “one’s honour has been offended”, regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism or the veracity of the statement, and the Portuguese version of Article 10 of the Convention has substituted the word “reputation” for the term “honour.”  >

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
  ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Controversial trial of English holiday homeowner suspended

To the bewilderment and dismay of many international observers, an Englishwoman, Serena Wylde, was due to stand trial in Lagos tomorrow (Tuesday) as a result of making a complaint to an official regulatory body of the Portuguese legal profession.

Then this afternoon, the court in Lagos confirmed that Ms Wylde’s trial date has been suspended. The decision followed an urgent application made by her Portuguese lawyer questioning the impartiality of the trial judge.

Shortly before the suspension announcement, the British organisation Fair Trials International issued a statement saying “it beggars belief” that the trial was being held. “The prosecution flies in the face of free speech and puts those in positions of power beyond reproach,” said the organisation's' chief executive, Jago Russell.

Ms Wylde, who owns a holiday home in Praia da Luz, faces a possible nine-month jail sentence because of a letter she sent in confidence in January 2005 to the bar association, Ordem dos Advogados.

In her letter she called for disciplinary action to be taken against a prominent lawyer in Lagos, Pimenta de Almeida Borges. It arose from a dispute she had in 2004 with a neighbour about a gate and a garage. Mr Borges had been acting for the neighbour.

Ms Wylde claimed that she and her neighbour settled their dispute out of court in August 2005 and that Mr Borges was instructed accordingly, but he carried on legal proceedings away. This caused considerable anxiety for both her and her neighbour, said Ms Wylde.

She told the regulatory body in her letter that Mr Borges had acted in “an improper and unscrupulous manner”. She asked that his conduct be investigated. In June 2006, Borges also wrote a letter of complaint to the regulatory body – about Ms Wylde, claiming she had defamed him.

While still investigating the matter, the regulatory body forwarded Ms Wylde's letter to the public prosecutor's office which began proceedings against Ms Wylde for aggravated criminal defamation. The first inkling she had of this was in February 2007 when two policemen arrived at her Praia da Luz home and told her to report to the office of the Judicial Police (PJ).

Mrs Wylde, a 59-year-old businesswoman from Putney in London, has a close connection with Portugal. She has a Portuguese husband and speaks the language. Both of her parents, from whom she inherited her holiday home, are buried in the Algarve.

Mr Borges is the son of a former Supreme Court judge. He comes from a prominent family in Portugal and has described himself in correspondence with the prosecutor 's office as “a well-to-do and cultured individual”. He is seeking €50,000 in damages, although he admits “it is difficult to fix a sum to indemnify the offence suffered by one who exercises his profession with such honour, dignity and seriousness”.

Fair Trials International is taking a rather different view. They believe “this type of criminal action has the effect of placing the legal profession in Portugal above reproach and outside of any effective regulation”.

Fair Trials International added: “Serena Wylde took the responsible route of making a complaint when she encountered what she considered to be inappropriate actions by a lawyer. She did this, not to further her own interests, but to seek to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to protect others from unprofessionalism. As a result she is being put through a harrowing and completely unjustified ordeal”.

It certainly has been an ordeal for Ms Wylde. She said in 2009: “It is devastating to be charged with a criminal offence. In my case this happened because I told what I believe to be the truth and it has been turned against me by those who don’t want to hear it. This ordeal has made me question every reference point of my daily security, and even my own sanity.”

Britain's former Justice Secretary, Jack Straw said in December 2009 he had discussed the case with Portuguese State Secretary Jose Magalhães and would "follow it up" . Straw said he was using the case as an example of why close cross-border co-operation in justice and home affairs issues was crucial in Europe. "Nobody asked me to intervene - I just raised it because I saw a news item on television about the situation and decided to pursue it," he said.

It was hoped the case would be dropped. But no. The legal action has been brought by the State, with Mr Borges as a civil claimant. Now that it has been suspended, the challenge to the conditions for a fair trial will be assessed by a higher court in Évora. If successful, a different judge will hear Ms Wylde's case

From Boliqueime to Belém Palace
- Algarvian re-elected as President


Aníbal Cavaco Silva, born and bred in the modest Algarve village of Boliqueime, has secured occupancy for the next five year in Lisbon's Belém Palace, official residence of the President of the Republic of Portugal.

Of the two main candidates in Sunday's presidential election, there was never any doubt that voters would go for the centre-right economist rather than his main rival, Manuel Alegre, a celebrated leftist poet. As expected,Cavaco Silva, 71, won emphatically.

Cavaco Silva is well qualified to be Portugal's head of state at this time of extreme financial difficulty. Ironically, it was failure as a schoolboy living in Boliqueime that seems to have set him on the path to academic achievement and political success.

The President was born in Boliqueime just off the N125 main road, north of Vilamoura and Albufeira, in 1939. His family dealt in locally harvested dried fruits. His father also ran the local filling station.

The story goes that the young Aníbal did not shine at school. When he failed an exam as a 13-year-old, his grandfather decided the lad needed a shake up. He is said to have “punished” him by forcing him to work the land with an enxada (traditional heavy hoe). This seems to have done the trick because Aníbal went on to become an outstanding student, graduating with a degree in economics and finance in Lisbon in 1964. He later gained a doctorate in economics in the University of York.

During his subsequent career, he held professorships, senior positions within the Bank of Portugal, served as finance minister and twice as prime minister at the head of the Social Democratic Party.

Former presidents of Portugal have been dictators. Others have been mere figureheads. Cavaco Silva has chosen to use his high office to wield influence while avoiding party polemics and not directly interfering with the running of the country.

During his first term as president, Cavaco Silva has backed the efforts of Socialist Prime Minister José Sócrates to stabilise Portugal's economy without resorting to an EU bailout and all the strings that would entail.

The centre-right party Cavaco Silva once led has become increasingly critical of the socialists' economic performance. Opposition members of parliament are demanding the prime minister's resignation if Portugal is forced to resort to a bailout.

In theory, the next general election is still two years away, but there are doubts if the government can hang in until then. The president's official powers are limited but one of them is the right to dismiss a prime minister and dissolve parliament if he thinks fit.

Carvaco Silva is not without critics, of course. Many Portuguese, especially the young, are disillusioned by his support for the government's austerity measures to tackle the country's budget deficit, thus identifying himself with wage cuts, tax rises and worsening unemployment. Still, it is clear that the majority of Portuguese voters want a confident professional economist to preside during the undoubtedly difficult months and years ahead.

This man of humble birth certainly does not lack confidence. He once said in a newspaper interview: “When I make a decision, I never have doubts, and I rarely get it wrong”.

Did Portugal's PM “beg” for help?

It seems that someone in either the Portuguese Prime Minister's office in Lisbon or the German Chancellor's office in Berlin has been telling whoppers.

Politicians and those around them are generally not held in high esteem when it comes to straightforward honesty, but the story of a reported telephone conversation last week between José Sócrates and Angela Merkel suggests blatant lying rather than political obfuscation. Or could it be that one of Britain's most respected newspapers, the Guardian, has got it all wrong?

The Guardian reported that Sócrates last week phoned Merkel and “begged for help”. Sócrates wanted to know what he should do about Portugal's financial crisis. Quoting “witnesses”, the Guardian said Sócrates sounded desperate and eager to please.

The conversation took place amid the backdrop of Portugal being widely tipped to be the third eurozone country after Greece and Ireland to need a German-led bailout.

Sócrates promised to do anything Merkel wanted, with one big exception. He insisted that Portugal did not want, or need, a eurozone bailout, with the extremely tight strings that would entail.

According to accounts circulating in Berlin, Merkel left Sócrates to wait on the line while she sought the views of two high-powered visitors - Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French head of the International Monetary Fund, and Giulio Tremonti, the highly regarded Italian foreign minister.

The IMF chief was dismissive. The Portuguese plea was pointless, he said, because Sócrates would not follow any advice he was given. So Merkel gave Sócrates a "cynical" brush-off that the Guardian interpreted as symptomatic of rising tensions within the EU.

Fascinating stuff – except that the story was totally false according to the Portuguese Prime Minister's office. A spokeswoman for Sócrates, Mafalda Costa Pereira, was adamant that the phone conversation did not take place. “It is not true,” she said. A source told the Portuguese newspaper Expresso that the last time Sócrates spoke with Angela Merkel was at the last European Council meeting.

So who's fibbing? We'll let you know in the unlikely event of someone owning up.

Safety and security for tourists

The mass evacuation of tourists from Tunisia has been a timely reminder that Portugal in general, and the Algarve in particular, is a far safer place for holidaymakers than many competing destinations in North Africa and elsewhere.

Riots and violent demonstrations have severely disrupted the capital, Tunis, Hammamet, Douze and other places popular with tourists. This has lead to a state of national emergency, the ousting of widely hated President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and, by the way, the ruination of a great many Thomas Cook, First Choice and independent holidays.

Tunisia was seen as one of a growing number of countries in North Africa and parts of Europe developing new tourist industries and doing their best to lure holidaymakers away from more traditional destinations such as southern Portugal.

The fact is that while some of these emerging tourist destinations have been offering cheaper holidays, lower prices usually mean lower quality and often inferior amenities and services.

Meanwhile, in the face of a slump in bookings due to the international economic crisis and unfavourable exchange rates, the Algarve tourist industry continues to try to keep costs as low as possible while maintaining high standards.

It is in the fields of national and regional security, plus mandatory standards of health and safety that Portugal can claim to be second to none. The Algarve is an important component in a country based on law and order, exuding genuine hospitality to visitors, especially those from its major market, Britain, with which it has a special relationship for centuries.

It is significant that while the Tunisians have just forced their president into exile, accusing him of heinous crimes against his own people, the Portuguese are preparing to re-elect their much-respected president to a second five-year term in office.

Portugal's fully-fledged revolution back in 1974 was characterised by carnations in gun barrels and no direct violence on the part of the revolutionaries. Tourism has developed hugely since then to become the Algarve's number one economic activity in the absence of any further serious political unrest, natural disasters or the climatic extremes that have dogged many other places.

During a visit at the beginning of the 19^th century, the English romantic poet Robert Southey described the Algarve as 'Paradise', with a capital 'P'. Even without political suppression, racial tension, devastating earthquakes, mudslides, floods, oil spillages, volcanoes or war, a small 'p' seems sufficient in these days of global economic crisis.

From Britain alone, nearly 1.63 million visitors a year come to Portugal to relax. In its advice to travellers, the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office notes that “most visits are trouble-free” and “crime remains comparatively low”.

We mustn't gloat because of the misfortunes of others any more than we should be complacent about our good reputation for safety and security. But the events in Tunisia in recent days show yet again that, even amid fairly gloomy economic forecasts for 2011, things here could be a lot worse.