Religion and free speech: it’s complicated

01 Mar 13 | News and features, Religion and Culture

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]While they exist harmoniously on paper, free expression and religion often conflict in practice, and free speech is often trampled in the name of protecting religious sensibilities — whether through self-censorship or legislation that censors.

History offers many examples of religious freedom being repressed too. Both free expression and religious freedom need protection from those who would meddle with them. And they are not necessarily incompatible.

Over 200 years ago, the United States’ founding fathers grouped together freedom of worship and freedom of speech. The US Constitution’s First Amendment, adopted in 1791, made sure that the Congress couldn’t pass laws establishing religions or prohibiting their free exercise, or abridging freedom of speech, press and assembly.

More recently, both religion and free expression were offered protection by The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) drafted in 1949. It outlines the ways in which both free expression and religious freedom should be protected in Articles 18 and 19. Article 18 protects an individual’s right to “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” and the freedom to change religion or beliefs. Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Why is it, then, that for centuries — from the Spanish Inquisition to the Satanic Verses — free speech and religion have been cast as opponents? Index on Censorship has explored, and will continue to explore, this crucial question.

Offence

Muslims gathered in Malaysia's capital to protest against the controversial Innocence of Muslims film

Muslims gathered in Malaysia’s capital to protest against the controversial Innocence of Muslims film (Demotix)

Sporadically explosive conflicts arrise when words or images offensive to believers spark a violent response, the most recent example being the reaction to the controversial Innocence of Muslims film. Index has stated before that the majority of states restrain by law distinct and direct incitements to violence; however, causing offence doesn’t constitute an incitement to violence, much less a good excuse to react with violence. Yet violent protests sparked by the YouTube film led many countries to push for the video to be taken down. As the controversy unfolded, digital platforms took centre stage in an age-old debate on where the line is drawn on free speech.

The kind of connectivity provided by the web means a video uploaded in California can lead to riots in Cairo. Real-time transmission, real-time unrest. It presents a serious challenge for hosts of user-generated content like YouTube and Facebook.

Before the web, British-Indian writer Salman Rushdie’s “blasphemous” 1988 novel — The Satanic Verses — sparked protests and earned its author a death sentence from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who called upon Muslims to assassinate the novelist, his publishers, and anyone else associated with the book. The Japanese translator of the Satanic Verses was killed, and Rushdie’s Norwegian publisher was shot and wounded, leading some to think twice about publishing works potentially “offensive to Islam”.

These fears were renewed after the 2005 decision of Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten to publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which were protested about in riots worldwide, largely initiated as a result of agitation by Danish clerics.

The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel about the life of Muhammad’s wife Aisha was due to be published by Random House in the US in 2008, but it was pulled when an academic warned the publishers of a possible violent backlash to the novel. After the UK-based publisher Gibson Square decided to take on the novel, Islamic extremists attempted to firebomb the home of the company’s chief executive. More recently, ex-Muslim and author of The Young Atheist’s Handbook Alom Shaha wrote that initially, staff at Biteback publishing had reservations about releasing his book in the UK. Upon being presented with the book, one staff member’s reaction was, “we can’t publish this, we’ll get firebombed”.

Article continues below[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Join the Index mailing list and get an exclusive gift” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:28|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]

summer magazine 2016

Index on Censorship’s summer magazine 2016

We’ll send you our weekly emails and periodic updates on our events. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.

You’ll also get access to an exclusive collection of articles from our landmark 250th issue of Index on Censorship magazine exploring journalists under fire and under pressure. Your downloadable PDF will include reports from Lindsey Hilsum, Laura Silvia Battaglia and Hazza Al-Adnan.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Protecting religious sensitivities at price of free expression

Many countries have legislation designed to quell religious tensions and any ensuing violence.

India, for example, has a Penal Code with provisions to protect “religious feelings”, making “acts” or “words” that could disturb religious sensitivities punishable by law. However, while such laws exist to address prevent sectarian violence their vagueness means that they can also be used by groups to shut down free expression. This opens up a question, which is when do states have the right to censor for public order reasons even if the actual piece of writing, art or public display is not a direct incitement to violence.

Indian artist and Index award winner was forced to leave his native India in the 1990s after being threatened for his work

Indian artist and Index award winner was forced to leave his native India in the 1990s after being threatened for his work

In the 1990s, Indian artist and Index award winner MF Husain was the subject of a violent intimidation campaign after painting Hindu gods and goddesses naked. He received death threats and had his work vandalised. Hundreds of complaints were brought against the artist, leading to his prosecution under sections 295 and 153A of India’s Penal Code, which outlaw insulting religions, as well as promoting animosity between religious groups. Locally these laws are justified as an effort to control sectarian violence. While the cases against Husain were eventually thrown out, the spectre of new legal battles combined with violent threats and harassment pushed Husain to flee his home country. He never returned, and died in exile last year.

Across the world restrictions on free expression are imposed using laws designed to protect religious sensitivities.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are notorious for being abused to silence and persecute the country’s religious minorities. Although the country’s Penal Code has always had a section on religious offence, clauses added in the 1980s set a high price for blasphemy or membership of the Ahmadi sect of Islam — an Islamic reformist movement. These laws, including a possible death sentence for insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, have been slammed by civil society inside and outside of Pakistan.

A report issued in September by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, says that blasphemy laws should be repealed. Controls on free speech in order to protect religious sensibility seem to run parallel to controls on religion.

Globally, restrictions on religious expression have increased according to a report released last month by the Pew Research Center. In 2010, the study found that 75 per cent of the world’s population lived in countries where restrictions placed on religious practice were rated as either “high” or “very high”. The study found that the greatest restrictions on religion take place in the world’s most heavily populated countries — India, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, and Russia stood out on the list.

Outrage and incitement to religious hatred

In 1977 Christian campaigner Mary Whitehouse successfully brought charges against the publishers of a magazine that printed a graphic sexual poem about Jesus Christ

In 1977 Christian campaigner Mary Whitehouse successfully brought charges against the publishers of a magazine that printed a graphic sexual poem about Jesus Christ

In 2007, the UK introduced the offence of “incitement to religious hatred”, which some feared was merely a replacement for the scrapped blasphemy law, made more wide-ranging by covering not just Christianity but all religions. The last conviction under that law was the infamous 1977 Gay News case, where Christian campaigner Mary Whitehouse brought a successful private prosecution against the publishers of Gay News magazine for publishing a poem describing a Roman soldier’s fantasy of sex with Jesus Christ.

In the UK, one of the most pernicious means by which restrictions on free speech have grown tighter has been through the use of incitement laws, both incitement to hatred and incitement to violence and murder. In some cases, as in the outlawing of incitement to religious hatred through the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, the law is being used to censor genuine debate. In other cases, incitement law is being used to shut down protest, as in the convictions of Muslim protestors Mizanur Rahman and Umran Javed for inciting racial hatred and ‘soliciting murder’ during a rally in London against the publications of the Danish Muhammed cartoons. Over the past decade, the government has used the law both to expand the notion of ‘hatred’ and broaden the meaning of ‘incitement’. Much of what is deemed ‘hatred’ today is in fact the giving of offence. And should’t the giving of offence be viewed as a normal and acceptable part of plural society?

In 2009, Ireland created for the first time a specific blasphemy offence. This law states a person is guilty of blasphemy if

“he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

This wording was later used as a template for attempts to introduce the idea of “defamation of religion” as an offence at the United Nations. The attempt to introduce this concept failed, but the UN Human Rights Council did pass a resolution condemning “intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatisation, discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against, persons based on religion or belief”.

On the other hand, according to Frank La Rue, quoted by Journalism & Intolerance said: “blasphemy is a horrible cultural phenomenon but, again, should not be censored or limited by criminal law. I would like to oppose blasphemy in general by being respectful, but that’s something you build in the culture and the traditions and the habits of the people, but not something you put in the criminal code. Then it becomes censorship.”

Crushing religious freedom

Other European countries have had their own free speech versus religion battle when a push towards bans on the veil or niqab began, infringing on choices of Muslim women. France’s controversial ban on the niqab went into effect last year. Offenders must pay a 150 € fine or take French citizenship classes. There have been similar discussions in the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Such bans are not restricted to Europe — in 2010 Syria banned face veils from university campuses. From 1998 – 2010, Turkey banned headscarves from university campuses. In fact, Turkey has a much wider ban on headscarves in public buildings, a ban the government faces difficulties overturning though it would like to. Just as troubling — countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have strict dress codes for women that visitors must comply with as well.

Both enforced secularism and enforced religiosity constitute a form of censorship; the key word being “enforced” as opposed to “free”. Whether it is tackling enforced religion, religious offence, hatred and incitement to violence, or enforced secularism, only a constructive approach to free speech can genuinely guarantee freedom of conscience and belief, whether in one god, many or none.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1493908381135-56de588f-391f-0″ taxonomies=”78, 4880″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Occupy protesters must think beyond camps

05 Dec 11 | Uncategorized

Since starting in New York in September 2011 the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread to over one hundred US cities and has crept across Europe.

Over the past few weeks, Occupy encampments in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, St. Louis and Oakland, California have been dismantled by law enforcement.

Government officials are being forced to grapple with the challenge of maintaining public safety without violating participants’ First Amendment right to free speech. At the same time, Occupy protestors are not only learning how to face down the one per cent but are receiving a valuable lesson in understanding their civil liberties.

The First Amendment is paramount

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa estimates that the cost associated with the midnight eviction of Occupy LA protestors and the pursuant cleanup could exceed 1 million USD. Nonetheless, he defended his decision to allow their two-month occupation of  City Hall Park, saying:

 The First Amendment is messy. It’s not always pretty. There’s sometimes a cost to it. What’s the cost if we deny the 1st Amendment to America and Americans. We’re all going to pay for it and in tough, tough economic times and that’s true around the country.

Lawyers for Occupy Boston went so far as to say that the Occupy movement’s First Amendment right to protest should trump concerns about fire safety. Howard Cooper, a lawyer for Occupy Boston stated:

The primary value to be balanced here is free speech. The question is whether you just take the First Amendment considerations that are unique response to a unique set of issues we all face yesterday and throw it out without letting them address any of these issues.

Despite strong arguments for First Amendment rights, long term Occupy encampments have increasingly been criticised as threatening public safety.

In Boston, the fire marshal warned that the Occupy encampment in Dewey Square has become a serious fire hazard. The fire marshal has refused to work with Occupy Boston because the movement lacks any kind of central leadership with whom he can communicate. The issue of use of force during Occupy evictions was brought to a head when controversial footage of police pepper spraying college students at UC Davis was posted online on 19 November. (The police defended their decision, citing fears to their personal safety.) Floyd Abrams, expert on First Amendment issues and Partner at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, LLP, acknowledged that the police are given a good deal of deference in the methodology that they use. He explained the boundaries of police behaviour:

[The police] obviously cannot pepper spray people promiscuously. They cannot beat people. They cannot chain people. There are lots of things they cannot do, but in terms of which way the law tends to lean, it tends to let the police make the decision about when to make people leave and the precise tactics. In Oakland people were throwing things at the police. In that situation, the courts would defer to a very great degree to a decision of the city about what level of force to use to respond. In a situation in which people simply refuse to move and participate in a sort of passive resistance, the police have to take care not to use exaggerated and unnecessary force.

Recent crackdowns on Occupy encampments have seen local governments try to restrict journalist access to the eviction process and have even led to accusations of police brutality against reporters. During the eviction of the Occupy LA movement, Mayor Villaraigosa issued a decree limiting media access to the process, instructing: “During the park closure, a First Amendment area will remain open on the Spring Street City Hall steps.” In New York, Mayor Bloomberg’s office even admitted to arresting at least five reporters who were in possession of valid NYPD press badges. An LA network stopped streaming footage of the City Hall Park eviction, after stating that “they had made an agreement with LAPD not to reveal their tactics and wanted to protect the integrity of the operation.”

When asked about the constitutionality of sequestering journalists into designated areas, Abrams emphasised the importance of maintaining freedom of the press:

[T]here are some circumstances in which a situation so threatens public stability that everyone has to be moved away from the area — a fire in a building, a person with a weapon who is threatening people. But in my view there are no circumstances in which the press may constitutionally be treated worse than the public as a whole…beyond any discriminatory treatment of the press I believe that when activity is going on in public places, such as a park street or the like, that there is a strong first amendment interest in the press being present. Also, I believe that a policy of excluding or barring the press from being present is not only terrible policy but likely unconstitutional.

The First Amendment protects freedom of assembly and petition, as long as the state enforces rules regarding the use of public space evenly and fairly. These principles are upheld by the court decision Clark vs CCNV, which places time, place and manner restrictions on protests. Abrams said he did not believe that there was a strong argument for long-term encampments on public property.

There is always the possibility of reaching some negotiated agreement with cities and other communities. That said, I do not think that there is a strong First Amendment argument in favour of an enforceable right of protestors to sleep in public parks. Particularly on a long-term basis. Protestors have rights to dissent and to march and to demonstrate to assert their dissent. But our courts have recognised again and again that there are some limits based on time place and manner. I do not think they will fare well in the courts in asserting rights to basically build mini-communities on park land.

Mayor Bloomberg’s administration in New York cited deaths, sexual assaults, theft and drugs as threats to public safety in the tent cities. Bloomberg emphasised that “the First Amendment protects speech. It doesn’t protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space.”

Looking forward

Canadian journalist Naomi Klein recently spoke to Occupy protestors, stating:

Occupy Wall Street…has chosen a fixed target. And you have put no end date on your presence here. This is wise. Only when you stay put can you grow roots. This is crucial. It is a fact of the information age that too many movements spring up like beautiful flowers but quickly die off. It’s because they don’t have roots.

The analogy of “growing roots” is surprisingly apt. As election season approaches, the Occupy movement will want to persevere in getting its message across to both politicians and the electorate in order to survive. This may mean moving beyond the model of establishing large scale encampments and onto as form of protest that is more sustainable.

Rachel Greenspan is Index’s new US Editor 

DOOM, Deutschland and the violent video game fallacy

07 Sep 11 | News and features

As a twelve-year-old, my life consisted of watching re-runs of What’s Happening, planning my wedding to Justin Timberlake, and playing unhealthy amounts of Grand Theft Auto and DOOM.  Then came the tragic 1999 shootings at Columbine High; sparking a heated debate about the role of violent video games in the actions of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, both players of my favourite game, DOOM. My parents used it as an excuse to pull the plug on my pixelated carnage. The link between video games and violent shootings was raised again after the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, and more recently, the Anders Breivik killing spree in Norway.

Germany, known for having a stringent videogame market, restricted the sale of DOOM and DOOM II to select adult video stores back in 1994. Both games were named on the official “List of Media Harmful to Young People.” Games on the list  cannot be “sold, advertised, or displayed to minors in the country”, putting them in the same category as pornography.

After seventeen years of restrictions, the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons (Bundesprufstelle) has decided to lift restrictions on the videogame after an appeal from Bethesda Softworks, which owns DOOM. The change was made because of advances in the quality of graphics in videogames, rather than a concern about preserving free speech.

While it might seem silly to think that games like DOOM, with its hilariously bad graphics and hideous Martians on bad stereoids could actually stir a player’s dormant killer, some nations have taken measures based on the assumption that playing such games could lead to violent behaviour. The shootings in Norway led a major retailer to pull violent video games from their stores, viewing the murders as a negative effect of playing such games.  Gore might be more realistic in today’s games, but much like graphic images in film or books, restricting the sale of such items would not change the outcome of such tragedies. What leads someone like Breivik to kill cannot be reduced to his hateful blogging or his love for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

If you are under sixteen and in Germany, purchasing either video game is still restricted. While the US Supreme Court ruled that a California law on the sale of violent video games to children violated the First Amendment, it does not appear that Germany will be taking the same measures any time soon. Luckily, the game can be easily found online, probably because we all passed it around on floppy disks in the 90s. Happy playing!