Below is my column today in The Los Angeles Times on the conference this week in Washington on religious speech. I have previously written about the Obama Administration’s break with past policies to support Muslim countries in cracking down on speech deemed “defamatory” to religion. While the latest resolution does not repeat the defamation language, the purpose remains unchanged and the dangers for free speech are obvious. The non-binding resolution was passed in March, largely in response to the assassinations of two Pakistani officials who had spoken out against the nation’s blasphemy law. Ironically, however, the resolution will likely reinforce the right of countries to criminalize anti-religious speech and blasphemy laws.
This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to “deter” some speech in the name of human rights.
Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.
This year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited nations to come to implement the resolution and “to build those muscles” needed “to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.” Those “old patterns” include instances in which writers and cartoonists became the targets of protests by religious groups. The most famous such incident occurred in 2005 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The result were worldwide protests in which Muslims reportedly killed more than 100 people — a curious way to demonstrate religious tolerance. While Western governments reaffirmed the right of people to free speech after the riots, they quietly moved toward greater prosecution of anti-religious speech under laws prohibiting hate speech and discrimination.
The OIC members have long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with “the principles of the sharia,” or Islamic law. The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing “negative racial and religious stereotyping” and asked states to “take effective measures” to combat incidents, including those of “religious intolerance.” Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18’s call for states to “criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” It also “condemns” statements that advocate “hostility” toward religion. Although the latest resolution refers to “incitement” rather than “defamation” of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.
The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of “intolerance.” Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of “respect and empathy and tolerance.” One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet’s name.
The core countries behind this effort show little tolerance or “empathy” themselves for opposing religions or viewpoints. Saudi Arabia will not allow the construction of a church in the kingdom, let alone allow public observance of other faiths. This year, the Saudi interior minister declared free speech to be an offense against God, declaring the kingdom “categorically [bans] all sorts of demonstrations, marches and sit-ins … as they contradict Islamic sharia law and the values and traditions of Saudi society.” Last week, Saudi courts sentenced an Australian Muslim to be flogged 500 times and sent to jail for “insulting” Muhammad.
What is more alarming, however, is the advancement of this agenda in Western countries. This year, Dutch legislator Geert Wilders secured a hard-fought acquittal from criminal charges after years of investigation and litigation for saying disrespectful things about Muslims. In Britain, a 15-year-old girl was arrested in November 2010 for burning a Koran. Other religions are now following suit and calling for the arrest of those who utter criticisms of their faiths. French fashion designer John Galliano was convicted in September of uttering anti-Semitic remarks in an outburst in a restaurant. In Russia, two prominent art curators in Moscow who faced up to three years in prison for showing art that insulted the Russian Orthodox Church were fined in 2010. In Britain, a 15-year-old boy was given a criminal summons for holding up a sign declaring “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.”
Although the OIC and the Obama administration claim fealty to free speech, the very premise of the meeting reveals a desire to limit it. Many delegates presuppose that speech threatens faith, when it has been religious orthodoxy that has long been the enemy of free speech. Conversely, free speech is the ultimate guarantee of religious freedom.
History has shown that once you yield to the temptation to regulate speech, you quickly find yourself on a slippery slope as other divisive subjects are added to the list. This year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared ominously that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.”
It seems that some have grown weary of free speech. After all, less speech means less division and discord. When the alternative is violent protests, silence is golden for governments. Of course, denying the right to speak does not create real tranquillity, only the illusion. But for these governments, including our own, an illusion may be as good as reality.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Los Angeles Times December 13, 2011
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
Gene,
Re: “Inglorious Basterds” I must say that as a Jew, upon whom the Shoah weighs heavily, I was literally “stunned” and weeping at the end of the movie and couldn’t leave my seat even after the credits. It was the absolute best movie for summing up the Jewish reaction to the Shoah, by giving us the perfect revenge fantasy. Tarantino got it exactly right and beyond my personal feelings I think it was the best movie of that year. For those critics who protested the violence, a view of some of the concentration camp films after the war and of Schindler’s List, might give insight into the anger many Jews still harbor towards NAZI’s. I get that forgiveness frees ones soul, but perhaps there are certain actions that are simply not forgivable. This is why I am highly empathetic to the experience of Blacks, Native Americans, Latino’s and Asians to the racism they’ve experienced in America. I get their anger and frustration.
Mike,
Excellent points, especially about the unintended consequences of Germany’s post-WWII laws. As Brad Pitt said in Inglorious Basterds, “Nah, see, we don’t like that. We like our Nazis in uniform. That way we can spot ’em just like that..”
Mike S.:
Very well said. Ditto.
“I would like to replace my earlier comment of “Wouldn’t it be easier just to make it illegal to be a jackass?” with what I think is Mike S’s more coherent expression “Almost all such legislation nationally or internationally is authoritarian folly”.”
Martin,
I appreciate your comment, but after I read your piece, which I in turn agree with, I felt that I should add what thinking led me to that statement, which I trust you already sense.
All such hate speech regulations historically came about from two separate branches. The first is I think much older historically and was recently discussed in the: “Lese Majesty Means Less Speech: Thai Court Sentences U.S. Citizen To Over Two Years In Jail For Defaming Royal Family” thread.
This strain falls in the range of restricting people’s ability to criticize those that govern them. It is “criminalized hate speech” in the sense that one can not say anything to criticize the behavior/intelligence/appearance of the King figure. Its intent is maintenance of the status quo.
The second strain is more recent and dates to the aftermath of WWII. The Allies occupied West Germany and in their attempt to eradicate the widespread prejudice of the people, while setting up a democratic form of government, the West Germans were forced/encouraged to make a crime of Anti-Jewish speech, propaganda and behavior. While this attempt might be see as a noble one, it really was an action meant to paper over a reality, in order to make it go away. It is impossible for me to believe that after WWII
the hatred of Jews by a majority of German’s evaporated. These were a people that up until the 1920’s had a general dislike of Jews, as did many other European peoples, and this latent dislike was honed by one of the most effective propaganda machines ever conceived. The loss of the war was seen as a disgrace, but I’m positive many ascribed it to a Jewish Conspiracy. How could it be otherwise? They were/are human beings who behaved monstrously, but except for a minority they were not monsters.
These anti-hate speech laws actually had unintended consequences in that it created a massive silence within West Germany about the war and about the Shoah. Silencing opinions and discussion only drives prejudice underground and teaches those bearing it how to hide their opinions, or leads them to find new ways to express them that don’t run afoul of the law.
In the U.S. with its genocidal, ugly history of slavery and Jim Crow, the advent of the 1964 Civil Rights Law and the burgeoning of anti- hate speech laws that followed in its wake, didn’t suddenly turn racists benevolent. This effort too drove racism underground and led to new means of expressing it through code words whose meanings were universally understood. Just as a cancer whose treatments have brought temporary respite, the strain remained virulent and spread through other organs of the body politic.
We again see a papering over of beliefs that still remain and in a sense it gives cover to those bigots who get the message of how to spread their
hatred within the bounds of the law. In fact it allows these bigots to claim that prejudice has ended and so anyone still referring to racism is “playing the black card”. This has a result of marginalizing those who would protest the ongoing racism that exists in this country. Making almost any form of speech illegal is authoritarian, futile and in the end counter productive. When those beliefs are turned into violent action
the laws in place are sufficient to punish and perhaps deter bigoted attacks.
When Cheney, Goodwin and Schwerner were murdered in Mississippi the perpetrators could have easily been found guilty of 1st Degree murder, had the local authorities been willing. That guilty verdict, had it occurred
at the time would have the called for the most extreme penalty. There was no need for it to have been made into a “hate crime” although racial hatred was the prime motivator. Violent crimes against people can if the will exists, easily be punished by existing law. Laws prohibiting speech on the grounds of bigotry are unnecessary, counter-productive and ope to loose definition. They are capable of making the bad situation of human bigotry worse.
As a matter of logic, common sense and sound policy, the tort of defamation ought not to have any application to matters of belief and opinion. That is why the notion of “hate speech” is inherently absurd.
George
Always nice to see the first amendment, but what thought did you hope would pass through my mind after I read that?
SwM
I view Gingrich’s statements as McCarthyisms: deranged – out of range. If some Muslims are unhappy with “America”, I say join the club.
The people who seem most dedicated to the destruction of the US were bailed out. (We got sold out.) Also I noticed that the current military authorization bill is within spitting distance of Paulson’s Number ($700 Billion).
Gingrich takes it as gospel that the Muslim Brotherhood is evil. I note that the Brotherhood was one of the groups trying to get rid of Mubarak, and can you blame them? Even though he was our ally in the region and a close friend of Hillary Clinton.
I would like to replace my earlier comment of “Wouldn’t it be easier just to make it illegal to be a jackass?” with what I think is Mike S’s more coherent expression “Almost all such legislation nationally or internationally is authoritarian folly”.
—-
Possibly on how to deal with “hate speech” if legislation is folly: allow it, although not when spoken “at” the group “hated” and who are temporarily or permanently captive, or have a right to be there. Then it is verbal abuse. Assault, and pointless – no redeeming social value.
In addition, those who practice “hate speech” can be notified that their “action plan” is illegal and will be stopped by force, so don’t get worked up.
Dredd regarding 5:28 (OWS and military force)
Yes, things are dangerous.
It is no longer reasonable to assume that politicians are stupid. It seems more reasonable to assume that the 1% is reacting to widespread dissent. Are the West Coast port shutdowns a return of Seattle 1999?
Suggestion: Get to know the Prison Action Groups in your town. See what you may be getting next Christmas.
Jill, I did not follow your 10:27 post that well. Here is what I got:
—-
Governments oppress people using force and propaganda. The word “tolerance” is part of the propaganda arm, and used to dampen our solidarity with oppressed victims in other countries.
Then a change of direction that I didn’t follow
Obama is wrong to spy on Muslims in mosques, but there may be some anti-American feelings in those communities.
then another change
It is an over-reaction to anti-semitism to accept Judaism uncritically.
then the conclusion
Resist manipulation.
—-
Was I close?
Pete, if memory serves me right, Scudder was murdered by his own virgins. Rather untidily, I might add.
my favorite was “if this goes on”. too many in america would follow a nehemiah scudder.
Pete, is that for the philosophy or as an instruction manual?
One of his better books, methinks; however “Stranger in a Strange Land was considered by many to be his masterpiece. I used material from “Stranger in a Strange Land” in Chapter One of my dissertation.
OS
i keep a copy of “time enough for love” handy.
Occupy will no longer be tolerated since S. 1867 will pass.
It provides for indefinite detention of Americans living in the U.S. who are merely suspected of and accused.
There will be no trial and the length of military confinement is limitless.
Here is the Occupy call for a national protest tomorrow.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Seems pretty clear to me.
Swarthmore,
What was I thinking?!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/199035-huntsman-says-he-would-support-newt-if-he-won-the-nomination
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/13/swing-state-poll-shows-obamas-narrow-options/ Obama trails both Newt and Romney in swing states.