 |
||||
|
Please
take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and
submit your city & country location. We will use this information in
future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area.
U.S. Leads Effort to Criminalize Free Speech
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
It is puzzling that the West was so easily
duped into believing that dropping the "defamation of religion"
language was any kind of victory. The OIC's agenda can be implemented instead
through "hate speech" laws that already exist. Our Secretary of
State applauded the OIC, and far from demanding a "reservations
clause" of any kind, the United States sponsored a three-day,
closed-door meeting in Washington D.C., on implementing the resolution.
The Human Rights Council concluded its
nineteenth session on March 23, 2012 and adopted, without a vote, yet another
resolution aimed at restricting freedom of speech throughout the world. While
its title[1], as
usual, suggests it is about combating intolerance based on religion, its
plain language shows that, once again, speech is the real target.
One of its sponsors, the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference or
"OIC" ), has, for over a decade, introduced speech-restrictive
resolutions at the United Nations. In the past, these resolutions contained
explicit language about "defamation
of religions." Last year, however, when the OIC introduced
Resolution 16/18 without the term "defamation
of religions," the West's resistance to the OIC's efforts faltered
(discussed here).
The "defamation
of religions" concept had been easy for Western countries to rally
against, in part, because it seemed to attach rights to a concept (here, religion)
rather than to individuals. But, dropping that term was little more than a cosmetic
change leaving speech-targeting language behind and the OIC's speech-restrictive
agenda intact.
Resolution 19/25, like 16/18, specifically
"condemns" certain types of speech and "urges States to take
effective measures as set forth in the present resolution, consistent
with their obligations under international human rights law, to address
and combat such incidents." (emphasis added) In short, it is
an explicit call to action for states to curtail certain types of speech.
The "advocacy" (read: speech) that
the resolution "condemns" and calls on states to limit is "any
advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement
to discrimination, hostility or violence" using "print,
audio-visual or electronic media or any other means." This language
almost directly parallels International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights Article 20(2), which reads:
"Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by
law."
At the time Article 20 was being debated,
there was little doubt that it was about limiting speech; and indeed,
concerns were raised about the potential for abuse of the provision to limit
an essential right. Further, when the United States finally ratified the
ICCPR in 1992, it did so with an explicit
reservation to Article 20, reading: "That Article 20 does not
authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that
would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the
Constitution and laws of the United States."
The language of ICCPR Article 20 and
Resolutions 16/18 and 19/25 bears a striking resemblance to the "hate
speech" provisions that have proliferated throughout Europe and that
are already being used to silence speech (as the trials of Geert Wilders, Lars
Hedegaard, and others
demonstrate).
Further, conceptually, "defamation
of religions" and "hate
speech" were already linked in prior resolutions. It is puzzling,
therefore, that the West was so easily
duped into believing that dropping the "defamation
of religions" language was any kind of substantive victory. Although
the most recent resolutions stop short of Article 20's language, leaving out
"shall be prohibited by law," it hardly matters. The OIC's agenda
can simply be pushed instead through "hate
speech" laws that already exist. (By its own statements, the OIC has not
changed its goals, nor has it abandoned the concept.) The shift in wording
has simply lost us allies in resisiting it.
That a resolution without an explicit
reference to "defamation
of religions" but that retained "hate speech" language
would be more appealing to European allies is not surprising. Most European
countries have already adopted some form of "hate
speech" laws -- but to terrible effect -- on freedom of speech. With
regard to this issue, the United States had stood alone—"hate
speech" is currently not proscribed here, although we appear headed in
that direction: since the United States supported the resolution, how could
we expect our Western allies to resist?
Our Secretary of State applauded the
OIC and described efforts leading to Resolution 16/18 as beginning "to
overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom
of expression." Far from demanding a "reservations clause" of
any kind, the United States, instead, sponsored a three-day, closed-door
meeting in Washington, DC last December on implementing 16/18 —a
meeting in a series called the "Istanbul
Process." Taking its lead from the US, the European Union then offered to host the next session,
an initiative the OIC hailedas
a "a qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of
Islamophobia."
In short, a mere cosmetic change in a
resolution has resulted in a radical shift in the West's—and specifically
United States' and therefore Europe's —policy toward the OIC's efforts to
restrict free speech..
If we do not wake up, recognize the
implications of that policy shift, and reverse course, this "mere"
cosmetic change may result in a radical shift in the protections for freedom
of speech in the United States.
[1]
"Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and
discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on
religion or belief"
This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is
presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
|
||||
|
To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.legal-project.org/list_subscribe.php
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment