Freedom of Speech is a fundamental human right. It is coming under concerted attack, according to this piece from the independent Danish think-tank CEPOS. The author argues that what it cannot do directly – that is, criminalize criticism of Islam – nations and organizations like the Saudi-based OIC try to do indirectly through the UN. The author has some harsh, but deserved words for the US government’s seeming acquiescence in these efforts.
Defending free speech at the United Nations
Jacob Mchangama, Chefjurist i CEPOSFreedom of speech is under physical and legal threat not only from terrorists but also at the UN. Two US-based Islamists planned to kill a cartoonist and the editor of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten responsible for publishing cartoons depicting Muhammad in 2005, it was revealed a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, at the UN, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) delivered another blow with a resolution on “combating defamation of religion,” which was passed by a committee of the UN’s General Assembly on 12 November.
While the tactics employed by terrorists and the OIC are obviously different, the purpose is essentially the same: to ensure that criticism of Islam is censored. And it is working.
Following news of the foiled attack against Jyllands-Posten, leading Danish newspapers refrained from reprinting the Muhammad cartoons despite doing so last year when another attack on the cartoonist was foiled. While the editors have explained this omission as a matter of “responsibility,” fear would seem more likely. That was, after all, the reason why Yale University chose to omit pictures of Muhammad in a book called The Cartoons That Shook the World. Thus, grotesquely, a book dedicated to investigating “the conflict that aroused impassioned debates around the world on freedom of expression, blasphemy and the nature of modern Islam” does not contain the very cartoons which were at the core of the book’s subject matter.
From Salman Rushdie to Jyllands-Posten, death threats have had a chilling effect on discussion, let alone criticism, of Islam.
The efforts to ban criticism of Islam through human rights law at the UN are not yet legally binding but they are making progress.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
November:30:2011 - 04:00
I abhor the very thought of limiting free speech, but I wish the issue of protecting free speech rights was so simple. I don’t fault the OIC for what it is doing. The OIC is what is is: a religious organization protecting its religion through peaceful means by going through the legislative process. That’s hardly a threat to anyone. CEPOS takes to task Danish newspapers for failing to reprint cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad because they feared reprisals, not because, as newspaper editors have said, it was the responsible thing to do.
For what purpose would these newspapers re-publish the cartoons? Because they can? To show solidarity? There really is no journalistic reason to publish cartoons, virtually all of which perpetuate Muslim stereotypes with offensive depictions. Certainly, the press can publish equally offensive cartoons of Jews and blacks. But they don’t because it’s not socially acceptable. Newspaper editors exercise sound judgment and demonstrate community responsibility by not publishing these images. Yet anti-Muslim cartoons get a free pass. A bomb in the Prophet’s turban or images of dirty, sneaky Arabs somehow are acceptable in our society, but not similar and equally disturbing images of Jews or blacks.
There’s only one reason to publish these cartoons: to hurt, humiliate and marginalize a segment of society. It’s not to uphold the mantle of free speech. That’s just an excuse to publish hate material.
The Internet has led to a profound explosion of hate speech. To blindly demand free speech rights without considering social responsibility will lead to more violence. There is no excuse whatsoever for destroying property, or maiming or killing individuals for exercising their (hate) free speech rights, but we must ask ourselves does publishing such images further public discourse or does it sow the seeds of hate. I see it as the latter, which in my view does not earn the right to be protected under free speech laws.
Some European countries and Canada among others have very reasonable hate speech laws on the books that do not impede our free speech rights. While I am not convinced this is the answer for the UN or the United States, it’s something to consider.
November:30:2011 - 08:15
@Corey Macy: To me, speech is either free or it is limited. The US does not have perfectly free speech: libel, slander, certain frauds, ‘fighting words’, etc. all have some limitations or are criminalized.
I have problems with labeling ‘hate speech’ however. What you or I might find acceptable, if not polite, others might find ‘hateful’. I do not want my rights limited by the decision — rational or not — of someone else other than myself or a clearly written law. If the law depends for its interpretation the ‘feelings’ of another person or group, that law is not clearly written. I think Europe and Canada have gone far down a bad road with their laws, seeking to regulate emotions on the part of one party, but not those of parties that may not agree. Feelings are just a crap way of legislating.
I greatly fault the OIC’s efforts. They do not seek to regulate hateful speech toward all religions, only their own. The abuse, lies, and deceits leveled against other religions in Muslim countries is astounding. The definition of ‘blasphemy’ in many of those countries is so broad that they serve only to stifle legitimate speech about and research into Islam. Until the OIC countries start to regulate the defamation of other religions within their own borders, they have no moral high ground to insist on protecting only one.
November:30:2011 - 10:31
What is horrifying it the unwillingness of those in power in the West to stand up to organized Muslim bullying. Whan Salman Rushdie was threatened many in the West said little. Religious leaders seemed to support the Muslim view. The Danish cartoons were no worse than something seen in a Monty Python movie. Some of the Danish cartoons were quite good, but that isn’t the point. Organized Muslims have managed to stifle much negative comment about Islam except from the most right wing part of the spectrum.
November:30:2011 - 10:47
@Jerry M: In the US, it’s not just religious bigotry that gets enshrined in law. Current efforts toward ‘anti-bullying’ laws and ‘hate crime’ laws are in the same box. They depend on the sensitivities of one party at the expense of the sensitivities of another. There is no objective standard that can be applied, only a ‘I know it when I see it’ approach, where the ‘I’ is as individualized and idiosyncratic as it could possibly be. Laws need to inform people of what actions are being proscribed in order to avoid breaking them. These laws, with their vast sweep, do not.
November:30:2011 - 13:04
I agree about hate crime laws. Even some of the sexual discrimination laws seem to be about perceptions rather than actions.
November:30:2011 - 23:13
The problem, Corey, is 1. that Muslim protests are not peaceful. 2. that suppression of speech in relation to religion is used to curtain other basic human rights, 3. that any criticism of Islam, no matter how mild, is rejected and called ‘hate speech’ and finally, 4. that references to hate and violence in the Quran and hadith, and to evil actions undertaken by Mohammad – based upon Islam’s own traditions – are also suppressed
“A bomb in the Prophet’s turban”, as you put it, can be viewed as a reference to the violent acts done by that man, and his influence on modern violence done by Muslims. In case you don’t know, Islam’s own traditions are full of repulsive actions done by this man and so it is a valid commentary on Islamic behavior.
If you want to talk about “a profound explosion of hate speech” and “social responsibility” I would like for you to first address these with Muslims, then you can preach to the West. There would be no silly cartoons if Muslims did not commit acts of violence and discrimination. Ever seen a cartoon about Buddha with a bloody sword? As to “seeds of hate”, I would suggest that you read the Quran and see what it says about non-Muslims. You may also want to check out also how infidels are portrayed in the Muslim media, in textbooks or on most Islamic websites.
JK
November:30:2011 - 23:26
John. You are spot on about the anti-bullying and hate crime laws. It all depends on who is doing it and who is the victim.
There were always bullies in school when I was a kid but the older, bigger boys usually took care of it. If not, a word to your dad got results. I remember a case where some kids got together to take care of a problem. I once had to speak to a father about his kid, and that was the end of it with no problem on either side. Now with the breakdown of family and society, it is not like it was.
This current obsession with bullying is a fad, with no useful results other than repressing natural instincts and intimidating non-conformists. We have become a nation of sissies, led by cowards hiding behind cute, silly phobias, not wanting to offend anybody and unable to accomplish anything. We are doomed.
I guess one can call this the feminization of America, and the West.
December:01:2011 - 02:19
It’s amazing that people adopt the logic that if Muslims do this or do that, or if Muslim countries do this or do that, then it’s perfectly acceptable for us to promote an anti-Muslim agenda and establish a different standard for Muslims. While one may argue that Israel’s policies towards Palestinians resulted in thousands of Palestinians deaths, poverty, greatly contributed to the unrest in the Middle East, and has rendered Arab-Israeli citizens to second-class status, we don’t go around promoting an anti-Semitic agenda (although opposition to Israel’s policies often lead to being accused of being anti-Semitic).
John, I agree that the OIC’s efforts are greatly flawed for the very reasons you state, but at the end of the day they are simply a lobbying group, no different than the Israeli lobby that seems to ignore its own human rights violations when it seeks whatever it wants from the U.S. I don’t fault Israel (but I do the U.S.). As for Jay’s history lesson on Islam, no doubt gleaned from Internet, I think we can look at the last line of his last post to see where he is coming from.
Lastly, John, Canada’s hate speech laws have been on the books for decades. I can recall prosecutions dating to the 1970s. Yet not until Muslim integration into Canadian society did hate speech laws in that country become an issue. Somewhat curious, don’t you think?
December:01:2011 - 06:09
@Jay: You forgot that when new laws come about, entire new industries develop to ensure that they are obeyed. Whether it’s NGOs like Mothers Against Drunk Driving or simply plaintiff’s attorneys, there’s money to be had, government money. It seems not to matter if the original causes go away once these industries get going. Like the Energizer Bunny, they just keep going because of that pool of money.
@Corey: It was pretty early in my life that I was taught ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right.’ Maybe that’s not a universal lesson?
Yes, OIC should be seen as a lobbying group or a special interest group. They may have useful ideas, but they might also be so busy pushing one agenda that they refuse to (or are unable to for high or low reasons ) realize that there are other, equally valid agendas.
RE: Canadian law, yes, I see a correlation, but I’m not sure it’s causation. I think it’s more a matter of several different social threads coming together at one point in time.
December:01:2011 - 15:06
@Corey
When you write :“There’s only one reason to publish these cartoons: to hurt, humiliate and marginalize a segment of society. It’s not to uphold the mantle of free speech. That’s just an excuse to publish hate material”
It’s simply not true. What you suggest is that all muslims have the same opinion of religion, politics
- if you look at muslim countries it’s not true. But what’s is true is that some muslims promote their interpretation of religion by violence.The killing of Salman Taseer comes in mind.
If we aren’t allowed to comment on actions like this what are we then allowed to do.
As the points made in the thread on the kurds show it’s very difficult to talk of muslims in general, just as talking christians in general doesn’t make sense.
December:02:2011 - 12:23
Corey,
From the Internet? Cut and paste? Copied? Well, the only real issue is if a thing is true or not. From a logical point of view the source of the information matters little, only its veracity.
There is no “cut and paste”. I am fully able to come up with my own opinions based upon the facts and put together a sentence expressing those beliefs. Whether they are true or not is the point of this discussion. I feel that I am quite capable of discussing both Islamic theology and Islamic history, with references to Islam’s own texts. Oh, by the way, I never ever link to anti-Islam sources – I can’t even get Muslims to read their own texts so why would I think they would look at something they deem as ‘against Islam’?
As John knows, and you may have guessed, I have an extreme dislike of Islam. I find it to be a primary source of hate, violence and discrimination in our world, and we really don’t need it – we have enough evil to go around without Islam’s contributions.
Corey, You are so typical of much of the world, always willing to criticize some but giving others a pass. It is as if you only believe some people (The West, Whites, USA, Christians, Non-Muslims, whatever) should have moral standards. The problem is much to the contrary: Islam is full of hate and violence and Muslims refuse to reflect on their actions and dogma, so there is no change. We can’t transform Islam – only they can do that, so there is no change, except that things will get worse.
You and most Muslims seem to think that if we say nice things about them, and/or never criticize Islam, everything will be wonderful and peace will immediately fill the heart of every living creature. Sure it will.
Here is a link for you, about this same issue in the Maldives. Ask yourself why this is happening to a small tropical Island. Consider the situation of the blogger.
http://www.hilath.com/?p=16363
Being nice to Muslims, in the sense of not hurting their feelings or telling them what they want to hear, has done nothing to help them or those that suffer under Islam. When I say that the Quran and hadith are full of hate and violence, this is because the Quran and hadith are full of hate and violence. That MAY be a reason, who knows, for the Islamic hate and violence against infidels – and other Muslims – that we see today.
This campaign against ‘hate speech’ by the IOC is nothing but an attempt to silence all criticism of Islam. I am disappointed that you would so quickly and mindlessly support those who work to end freedom of speech – which, by the way, is fundamental for all other freedoms.
You do make a good point: that until Muslims arrived in significant numbers in Canada, hate speech laws in that country were not an issue. This is because Muslims view any criticism of Islam, no matter how mild, as hate or, in islamic terms, persecution. In their defense, they have no experience in dealing with this because criticism of Islam, both in theory and practice, is unthinkable for Muslims. That they don’t like it, oh well, that is their prerogative; that they should be able to silence critics of Islam and Muslim behavior and abridge the rights of others is unacceptable.