The meeting of world leaders at the United Nations has confirmed major faultlines over free speech. In the wake of the outrage prompted by The Innocence of Muslims, member States of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (“OIC”) are demanding the adoption of global blasphemy laws. Other States, particularly Western liberal democracies, argue that such a move would undermine the human right to freedom of expression.
Religious Hate speech
International human rights standards already demand the prohibition of hate speech. And certainly, anti-Islamic speech, or indeed speech which targets the advocates of any religion, can sometimes constitute hate speech. As I explained in relation to The Innocence of Muslims in a post at this site a fortnight ago, I do not believe this deplorable movie is hate speech.
Are Blasphemy Laws Allowed under International Human Rights Law?
International human rights law tolerates blasphemy laws as a legitimate limit on free speech. For example, in Wingrove v UK, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the banning of a pornographic video on blasphemy grounds.
Of course, there are limits to how blasphemy laws can be enforced. The censorship of a video is one thing. The misuse of blasphemy laws by religious fundamentalists, most notoriously in Pakistan, to harass religious minorities and moderate Muslims, coupled with the possibility of a death penalty for conviction, clearly goes too far.
Global Blasphemy Laws
I disagree with the Wingrove decision, as it seemed to indicate that the right to freedom of expression could be limited by a purported “right” not to be offended on religious grounds. The right to frankly discuss the many problems that arise with regard to many religions is essential, so blasphemy laws can constitute a grave affront to free speech.
A demand for prohibitions on blasphemy goes much further than demands for prohibitions on hate speech. Bans on hate speech prevent the incitement of hatred against particular groups on racial or religious grounds. Blasphemy laws protect religions rather than people. Blasphemy laws may prevent the mocking or even perhaps the questioning of religion. Some of the most important speech in world history has challenged religious dogma: remember Galileo.
A global blasphemy standard would presumably extend beyond Islam, as it couldn’t justifiably protect only one religion. It would not only target the execrable The Innocence of Muslims or the rantings of Pastor Terry Jones. We would be deprived of many worthy works: imagine a world without The Life of Brian.
Globalisation of Speech
Modern communications, particularly the internet, mean that the manifestations of free speech in one country can spread around the world and cause reactions, sometimes deadly, in other countries.
A famous phrase for justifying the limits on free speech arises from the US Supreme Court on the US’s First Amendment in Schenck v US in 1919: one is not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre lest one cause a riot (unless of course there is a fire). Perhaps it may be argued that these days, one shouldn’t be allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded planet. Maybe States should take into account the dangers of speech causing riots within but also beyond their own territory.
However, routine censorship in such circumstances would drive a race to the bottom for free speech. The internet has generally been thought of as an emancipating force for global free speech. It would be ironic and very disturbing if its advent drives a push for the compulsory adoption of lower standards of free speech in order to respect regional sensitivities.
More likely is that the internet will move beyond its global phase into a regional phase, where States reassert control over local internet content. Technological advancements now allow major platforms like Twitter and YouTube to selectively censor in different markets. Famously, China blocks numerous sites outside of its “great firewall”. Recently, Iran blocked access to Google in possible preparation for the launch of a national intranet which may be largely cut off from the world wide web, its promised “halal internet”.
Reverse cultural relativism
The current UN debate will likely lead to a renewal of the OIC’s push for the recognition of “defamation of religion” as a human rights issue. Non-binding resolutions in support of “defamation of religion” as a human rights concept were routinely passed by the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor until 2011, when it was withdrawn, presumably because the shrinking majority in favour of the resolution was about to turn into a minority. The universal disgust over the content of The Innocence of Muslims may reinvigorate the resolution, and restore a majority in favour.
This battle over free speech introduces a new twist to debates over “cultural relativism” within the international human rights system. Cultural relativist arguments have traditionally arisen when non-Western countries attempt to resist the recognition of co-called “Western” human rights standards, for example those regarding women’s rights, same sex rights, political freedoms, or the death penalty. (The last example demonstrates that it is in fact simplistic to view human rights as Western concepts given the US is one of the most prolific remaining users of the death penalty).
In arguing for compulsory global blasphemy laws, the OIC is appropriating the language of human rights in an attempt to impose its blasphemy standards on other countries. And the West could find itself in a cultural minority resisting this development within the UN by defending freedom of expression. The battle over free speech poses a major challenge to the integrity of the international human rights system, and to claims of its underlying universality.
Geoffrey Edwards
logged in via email @gmail.com
" “defamation of religion” as a human rights concept"
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Is the motivation cynical or earnest?
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
I suspect it is earnest. Though there is also a likely element of Islamist parties jockeying for electoral advantage.
Sebastian Poeckes
Retired
Hmmmm...... And what would happen to my rights as an atheist to stating my position vis a vis other people's invisible friends and their purported views? In particular, Allah's injunction to believers that atheists should be killed as claimed in the Koran ? It is easy to imagine that some of the believers would want any attempt to point out that the emperor has no clothes to be covered by the proposed blasphemy provisions.
Linus Bowden
management consultant
No. It is a fundamental tenet of "human rights", Muslim style, as provided in Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Isabel Jackson
PhD Researcher
Hello Sebastian Peokes,
Just wondering whereabouts in the Quran you found that particular section? Was it in one of the sections allowing for retaliation if attacked even thought it was in Mecca itself? If you could, provide a bit of support for your generalised claims that would be great; and also which translation if you didn't read it in Arabic yourself. It just that in all my readings of Quraan and familiarity with mainstay hadith (e.g. Bukhari), I haven't seen it.
Regarding rights to…
Read moreSebastian Poeckes
Retired
It is now some decades since I last read the Koran so giving chapter and verse is a bit difficult. However, if memory serves, the verse on killing unbelievers was in association with injunctions relating to treating Jews harshly if they poured scorn on the prophet and his teachings. And, no, it wasn't written in Arabic, it was a translation in English dating from the 1950s or 1940s. I recognise that this is regarded as only a commentary on the Koran as it isn't written in Arabic, but I don't speak or read Arabic.
Linus Bowden
management consultant
In a way this issue shows the limits and contradictions of so-called "international human rights". And in many ways, we have moved beyond the notion. Well may the European Court give blasphemy laws the thumbs up, but thank god we have the US! Even in 1996, the Wingrove decision was passe. There was not a thing they could do about Madonna's film clip to "Like A Prayer". Unfortunately, at the moment, the Muslimists have got western academics by the short and curlies; so terrified that a splodie might enter their class room and KA-BOOM, academics fall over themselves offering apologies. But there are a lot of people currently working on a much more truthful and evidence-based history of Muhammad, his many wives, their age, and his passion for Jewish genocide. Lord knows what the "international human rights" industry will do when that all kicks off. The ones in the west will probably call for the banning of History and Archaeology scholars!
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
I really don't find this post helpful at all Linus. I wish you would stop using the word "splodie" - I find it pretty disgusting but whatever - I guess you are free to say it. Just don't expect me to respond.
I add that I have no faith whatsoever in your own take on Muhammad.
Linus Bowden
management consultant
It is not "my" take on Muhammad. That is the standard biography of Muhammad from the Muslims themselves. The picture of Muhammad that is increasingly revealed from ongoing scholarship does suggest a more interesting picture, but progress is slow due to the well grounded fear scholars have of being killed. If you do not have faith in the narratives of Muslims themselves or scholarship in the field, that is your prerogative, but can only harm trying to understand what is going on in the Muslim world…
Read moreSarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
I have watched the video. I found it to be shonky and deplorable. I said 2 weeks ago that I had not. I have now. Keep up.
I am not answering you regarding your made-up presumptions of my motives for writing anything. Enjoy them - they are your own. I will just say I find your assertions extraordinarily arrogant.
Re disgusting, I said that about the word "splodies". I still find it disgusting. Whatever. You seem to need to use it.
I am bored of your comments. I don't think I will be engaging with you any more Mr Bowden.
Isabel Jackson
PhD Researcher
Hello Linus Bowden,
Sorry; bit confused, which "standard biography from the Muslims themselves" is that one? And where is "the Muslim world"? Is that the social spaces peopled by real, actual people who practice Islam and who live normal human lives e.g. eating, working, sleeping etc., or the space populated with caricature baddies as described in Jack Shaheen's Reel Bad Arabs?
Just asking because you seem to have all the insider info.
Linus Bowden
management consultant
And for movie lovers and blasphemers all, the UK repealed the common law offence of "blasphemy" in 2008. Curiously, the old common law blasphemy laws only applied to Christianity, which makes sense as England actually does have an established religion, like a large swathe of the Muslim world. The offending film "Visions of Ecstasy" was given the censor's green light in February, 2012, with a "18 certificate" and the original uncut version can be downloaded onto your PC tonight. Though given Jesus was also a prophet to the Muslims, one wonders if they'll go berserk over this film, too? I bet not.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098604/
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
Yep. All of that is true. Makes no difference to the decision in Wingrove though - still presumably stands as a precedent.
Though I don't know that the confinement of blasphemy to just one religion would be acceptable now under ECHR.
Choudhury v UK was a complaint about the discriminatory application of blasphemy law (ie it didn't apply to Satanic Verses). But it was inadmissible for other reasons.
Russell Walton
Russell Walton is a Friend of The Conversation.
Retired
Sarah,
"..one is not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre lest one cause a riot (unless of course there is a fire)."
Yes, however, we all can't agree on whether a person is indeed shouting "fire", so I think that analogy has considerable limitations. Religions are ideologies and, as such, are open to criticism and in Islamic societies they are also instruments of coercive state power.
Yes, I agree that cultural relativists in authoritarian societies can't have it both ways, if they reject Western concepts of human rights they certainly can't impose their superstitions on others. I'll bet the compromise would always be from the liberal democratic side.
Blasphemy laws have no place in the legal systems of liberal democratic societies.
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
I can't see liberal democracies compromising on this. UK had blasphemy laws until quite recently. I am not sure about other countries.
Tee Kay
Conservationist, Author, Children's Edutainer
Surely laws cannot be passed that outlaw "religious hate speech" or "blasphemy" when the only reason for their being is to uphold unfactual literature such as the bible, the Quran or other so called religious works as being anything other than works of fiction..
In order for there to be such a crime they would have to prove the so called facts in those publishings.
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
Hate speech is speech which incites hatred against a particluar racial or religious group. So the reasoning behind hate speech prohibitions is not maintaining the sanctity of The Bible or the Quran but is to protect the security of particular people. So "religious hate speech" would not be defined in the terms in which you are anticipating
Tee Kay
Conservationist, Author, Children's Edutainer
Race, colour, football teams, I agree that there can be hate speech against those. Religion is a fairy tail, unfactual, designed to divide culture and take money from the poor to be held in the coffers of the church. So called "religious groups" are based on fantasy. Putting laws into place to 'protect' these people is beyond common sense.
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
I can conceive easily of religious hate speech. Speech that is designed to incite hatred against a religious group. Eg. speech such as: "all [advocates of a particular religion] kill babies", in a situation where incitement was likely. Hate speech prohibitions protect the group not the religion itself.
Linus Bowden
management consultant
Except funnily enough this so-called "hate" speech you speak of is protected, yet we don't see the US ablaze. What does this suggest?
Chris Booker
Research scientist
"The last example demonstrates that it is in fact simplistic to view human rights as Western concepts given the US is one of the most prolific remaining users of the death penalty."
... and indefinite imprisonment without trial (Guantanamo)
... and torture
... and incarcerating child soldiers (Omar Kadhr, who evidence suggests wasn't even a soldier anyway)
... and targeted killing of foreigners or even US citizens without trial.
... and indiscriminate killing of bystanders, family members, and children with drones.
... need I go on?
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
Fair points. I only brought up capital punishment as I suspect the reason for retention in the US is cultural. Whereas the reason for those other things is national security (which doesn't justify it - but just isn't relevant to the issue of culture so much)
Chris Booker
Research scientist
Interesting, I would place these issues more under culture.
But sticking to the thrust of your article, I would say regardless of whether you see these as 'national security' or cultural issues the arguments about freedom of speech are taking place within a bigger, murkier, global picture: one in which 'the West' can no longer be seen as standing for the respect of human rights (if it ever was, but certainly that stance cannot be justifiably defended any longer due to the above). Of course, the…
Read moreSarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
I don't know anything about that ad campaign so I cannot comment.
I agree that Western hypocrisy over human rights, in the Global War on Terror but also in other instances, has not assisted the human rights cause at all.
I doubt that's the reason behind the "defamation of religions" push, which has been going on for quite a long time (think it predates 9/11) - eg Salman Rushdie controversy arose in 1989. I think that does stem in part from genuine cultural differences over the proper scope…
Read moreChris Booker
Research scientist
Thanks for the replies. I agree with pretty much every point you've raised. I've place a few links re: 'Civilized Man and the Savage' ads below, you should really have a look.
'The war between the civilised man and the savage', Hamid Dabashi
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201292464012781613.html
'Pro-Israel 'Defeat Jihad' ads to hit New York subway'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19665225
'Activist Mona Eltahawy released after arrest in New York subway protest'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/26/mona-eltahawy-released-new-york-subway
Russell Walton
Russell Walton is a Friend of The Conversation.
Retired
I don't know the author of the "savage and civilised" ads, Pamela Geller, got away with it, perhaps by using the general term "enemies of Israel" rather than (read between the lines) "Arabs". It's very sly and nasty hate speech directed at an ethnic group.
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
Thanks. I'll check them out. (after I finish with my day job today)
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
Hate speech is in fact allowed in the US. Constitutionally protected, even
Chris Booker
Research scientist
Really? I'm with Russell on this, to me those ads are definitely hate speech.
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
I haven't seen them. I am not saying they are not hate speech. I am saying that hate speech is allowed in the US. It has extremely strong constitutional protection for free speech, such that hate speech is actually allowed.
It has entered a reservation to human rights law treaties in this respect.
Russell Walton
Russell Walton is a Friend of The Conversation.
Retired
Certainly an uncompromising attitude to free speech.
Linus Bowden
management consultant
"It is in fact simplistic to view human rights as Western concepts given the US is one of the most prolific remaining users of the death penalty."
Where to start? First of all, each of the foundation statements of human rights were unquestionably expressions of western values, written down by western leaders, inspired by Winston Churchill and Roosevelt during WWII. Secondly, every single pastor performing out on the human rights circuit begins their sermon with a history of human rights that has…
Read moreLinus Bowden
management consultant
Agreed Russell. Though the Jews did manage to keep it together when Egyptian television broadcast "Horse Without a Horseman" - its 41 episode (Yep, that's right. 41*1 hour episodes during Ramadam) tele-drama based on "The Elders of the Protocols of Zion".
Chris Booker
Research scientist
That's okay - I know you haven't seen them, I was just expressing my surprise that hate speech is fully protected in the US.
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
"nearly all Western"? Wrong. The majority of States in the world have abolished the death penalty in either law or practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country
Linus Bowden
management consultant
Sarah, thank you for that link. Unfortunately, it only proves that I am right on every point. Let me repost:
Read more1. On the death penalty: Firstly, there is no "human right" against the death penalty. TICK. I am correct
2. Secondly,, the legal abolition of the death penalty is a derogation from those universal values, and yes, it was led by the West. TICK. See the chronological table on your linked page.
3. Today. those countries which have abolished the death penalty are nearly all western. TICK…
Sarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
1. The death penalty is allowed in very circumscribed circumstances. Does my article say otherwise? It doesn't make cultural relativism irrelevant to the issue, as there are most certainly cultural debates over the death penalty in human rights fora.
2. "Derogation from universal values". Or one could say that values are not set in stone. They evolve. And the majority of countries NOW are against the death penalty. Was it led by the West - yes probably. I did not deny that as there is no particular…
Read moreSarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
And seriously Linus. That really is it. I am not replying to you again with regard to this post or any other post. I have spent far too much of my life engaging with you.
In other posts, you have oscillated between vaguely insulting posts and then praising me as some sort of "worthy battering ram". Well, now you have basically accused me of academic fraud, and you blatantly misread my articles, whether intentionally I do not know. I don't belive I deserve that so you do not deserve a skerrick more of my time. And your anti "Muslimism" is extremely wearing.
So... goodbye. Enough is enough. Life is too short.
William Bennett
Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Griffith University
I find it completely hypocritical that the OIC would consider arguing this as a human rights issue, given the way in which many of their countries treat women, minorities, and homosexuals! Apparently it is acceptable to stone someone to death for apostasy, but mock the prophet and that is a human rights issue!? Seriously?
Luke Weston
Physicist / electronic engineer
Given that everyone's religion is a little bit different and religion means different things to different people - with some people of "the same" religion even going so far as to hate each other, even kill each other, over their religious differences, how can we possibly entertain any serious possibility of "blasphemy law"?
Essentially anybody can accuse essentially anybody else of blasphemy against their own religious beliefs. This is fundamentally a legal concept whereby a person imposes, under…
Read moreantonio cristovao
logged in via Twitter
Very important point S.Joseph. The space to focus different and intellent discussions are widening dangerousely.
The important issue of keep children under 14 of religious embrassing is going more far away.
Chris Harper
Engineer
I am afraid I have reservations about the entire modern concept of 'human rights'.
There was a time, up to the end of WWII, when human rights was sysonymous with 'freedom', but those days are no more. Today, the more of these human rights thingies we have enumerated, the more our freedoms suffer.
I have my freedomd not becausse any government granted them to me, governments have no such power, but because I am a living human being. All government can do is act to suppress them.
Now, rather…
Read moreSarah Joseph
Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University
There is no human right not to be offended. Hate speech is about freedom from violence not offence. In Wingrove, the ECHR allowed limits to free speech (it shouldn't have IMHO) but didn't demand them. Wingrove was 1996- tbh I'd be surprised if same decision made today.
Your comments about the right to education are interesting. You won't be surprised that I don't agree. But, forgive me, I'm not going to get into a long discussion on economic & social rights in these comments. After all, the article isn't about them.
Peter Gerard
Retired medical practitioner
It is time that Islam was subjected to the same forensic examination as Judaism and Christianity. A book " Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins." was reviewed in the Quadrant magazine recently. It questions the whole Muhammad-Koran construct just as Albert Schweitzer's wide ranging, "The Search For The Historical Jesus" did in the case of the Gospel narrative and the origins of Christianity.
Read more"The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, both biblical…