The post UN expert slams censorship by Israel, Palestinians appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The Special Rapporteur reiterates the call to all States to decriminalize defamation. Additionally, he underscores that protection of national security or countering terrorism cannot be used to justify restricting the right to expression unless it can be demonstrated that: (a) the expression is intended to incite imminent violence; (b) it is likely to incite such violence; and (c) there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.

The post UN rapporteur calls for end to criminal defamation laws appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

Finally, the EU encouraged the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank LaRue, to continue his work. This was an indirect reference to the attacks made against LaRue by several OIC members at the June session of the Human Rights Council. (Read more here)

The Council stopped short of repeating the OIC’s criticisms of the Special Rapporteur but encouraged him to stick to his mandate. That indicates that he should continue to focus on violations of free expression, rather than purported “abuses” of that right.

While this new resolution reflects new efforts by the US to broker compromises between Western and Muslim nations, it also represents an ominous crack in the defences of free expression.

The post US hypocrisy on free speech at United Nations appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The UK’s ambassador at the UN, Peter Gooderham, speaking in the debate at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 4 June, said “freedom of expression is essential to effectively tackle discrimination, corruption, to promote freedom of religion and the right to education”. In those words he summed up the reasons why this freedom has become anathema to the Islamic states, and for their massive campaign to overturn this right within the United Nations system.

From their successful undermining of the mandate of the UN independent expert on freedom of expression in March last year, and the passage of resolutions “combating defamation of religion” in successive years in both the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, to their successful labelling of the ill-defined term “Islamophobia” as racism, they are winning the battle to silence all criticism of Islam, and any criticism of abuses of human rights by the Islamic states and their allies.

Last week they turned their attention to two senior UN officials: Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights herself, the South African human rights lawyer Navi Pillay. The attack on La Rue was unprecedented, but not unexpected.

During the debate on La Rue’s report to the Council on 3 June, he was told that “he lacked competence” to advise the Human Rights Council on its work and he had “exceeded his mandate” in attempting to do so. Having won the first round over the change to his mandate last year, the OIC now wanted its pound of flesh.

“We advise the Special Rapporteur to henceforth strictly adhere to his mandate and the code of conduct. The OIC will continue to closely monitor his performance and will take the appropriate course of action in case of any further deviation,” Pakistan warned.

“He receives his instructions from the Council, not the reverse…there are steps that I hope we shall not find ourselves obliged to act upon in the future,” growled Egypt.

Indonesia chimed in with the complaint that “his recommendations were based on opinions rather than facts”. There is something profoundly Orwellian in the idea that the UN expert on the right to freedom of opinion and expression should be threatened for expressing an opinion. “We don’t want to invoke the president’s ruling [on how to terminate his mandate], but…” warned the Indonesians.

What had this respected lawyer done to incur such anger? In his report to the council he had failed to give priority to reporting on “abuses” of the right to freedom of expression (read: expressions of Islamophobia), the hot new requirement in his mandate forced through by the OIC in 2008. He had instead begun his three-year term by reporting on serious violations of freedom of expression: the 60 journalists murdered in 2008, and the 929 reported attacks on media professionals. He also addressed the links between extreme poverty, access to information and freedom of opinion and expression. In other words, he had been doing his job.

The challenge to La Rue did not go unanswered. The United States, Canada, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and several non-governmental organisations weighed in, pointing out that, according to the code of conduct, it was for the mandate holder alone to decide how to carry out his mandate; his independence must be respected. But the voices of reason are now in a minority at the Human Rights Council.

All week there had been a mood of triumphalism in Geneva as Sri Lanka gloated over its success the previous week. Thanks to support from the OIC and its allies — Russia, China and India — a special session of the council had let Sri Lanka off the hook. There are chilling parallels here with successful efforts by the Chinese to stifle criticism of their actions in Tibet last year. Despite widespread allegations of indiscriminate slaughter of civilians by the Sri Lankan Army, there would be no UN-sponsored inquiry into human rights abuse during the war against the Tamil Tigers. In an interview in Lakbima News, Sri Lanka’s ambassador, Dayan Jayatilleka, gloated: “Stand up for others; they will stand up for you.” In the council on Friday he lambasted France, the UK and others, describing his “contempt” for their continuing calls for an international inquiry.

Then India weighed in with an ad hominem attack on the integrity of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. How dare she call again for an international inquiry into Sri Lanka? She had supported the call for a special session of the council; the special session was held and had concluded that an international inquiry was unnecessary. Why was she defying the will of the council? (Could it be that she is concerned about human rights abuse –– wherever it occurs?)

In her report, the High Commissioner, a UN civil servant whose office is mercifully independent of the council, had referred to a meeting she had attended in Paris to discuss the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. How dare she speak out in favour of human rights for homosexuals when the council has no agreed policy on homosexuality, asked Pakistan. (Could she possibly believe that all human beings are entitled to human rights?)

What is at stake here is more than limits on freedom of expression. What we are seeing is a direct challenge to the ability of the Human Rights Council and other UN human rights mechanisms to deal effectively with human rights abuse. When freedom to collect information and express opinions is restricted, then the ability to expose corruption, discrimination and human rights abuse is fatally weakened. Could this possibly be the real objective of the Islamic states and its allies?

At the end of the debate on the High Commissioner’s report, John Fisher of the Canadian HIV/Legal Network asked whether the time had come to revive the idea of a code of conduct for member states.

Sorry, John, it’s far too late.

Roy W Brown is the International Humanist and Ethical Union’s main representative at the UN in Geneva

Read Miklos Haraszti’s report on the rise of ‘religious defamation’ exclusively here

The post Shoot the messenger appeared first on Index on Censorship.