Rosie Bell alerted me (and us) to the fact that Amnesty International issued a statement in February 2006 basically (albeit periphrastically) saying that the Danish Motoons should be illegal under international law. I can’t find the statement on the AI site, not nohow, but I did find what appears to be the full statement on a Yahoo group.
Here it is:
Public Statement | 8 February 2006
Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all
Events of recent weeks have highlighted the difficult question of what should be the legitimate scope of freedom of expression in culturally diverse societies.
While different societies have drawn the boundaries of free speech in different ways, the cartoon controversy shows how, in today’s increasingly global media space, the impact of actions in one country can be felt way beyond its borders. Today, more than ever, societies are faced with the challenge of asserting universal human rights principles in an area where there has traditionally been a tendency to defer to the domestic laws of a particular state and the values they enshrine.
Set against the backdrop of the rising climate of intolerance and suspicion between religious and other communities in many parts of the world, including in Europe, two conflicting sets of principles are being advanced in this controversy.
Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence.
The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be one of the cornerstones of any society. This right includes “the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19). For more than forty years, Amnesty International (AI) has defended this right against attempts by governments across the globe to stifle religious dissent, political opposition and artistic creativity.
However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute — neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such “hate speech” should be prohibited by law.
AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation.
AI also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved.
While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.
Shame on you, Amnesty.
According to their remit, they didn’t have to say anything at all.
The end paragraph reads like they were actually saying things double way enough that it may be understood as both an extinguisher and a complete right to express opinions (even via cartoons, which is not violence). Or am I misunderstanding the text?
It’s not the first time. AI is fifty years old, but has only “supported gay rights” for about 20. Not LGBTQ, just gay rights, and even that is questionable. It’s clear that those who run AI aren’t as enlightened as they claim to be, and still harbour their own prejudices:
My thoughts exactly, Okidemia. It reads like AI decided to deal with the tension between freedom of speech and suppressing hate speech by making broad statements that are entirely useless for making effective policy.
This is especially hard to defend in the Motoons debacle because the key moment in the story was the decision by a group of Islamist agitators to fake one of the cartoons (they took a photo of a Danish man with a fake pig nose on his face who was competing in a pig-squealing contest [really!] and deliberately mislabelled it as being a mockery of Mohammed as a pig) because they weren’t getting enough Muslims angry at the cartoons until they added the fake one.
So according to AI in this letter, lawmakers should be looking at ways to limit freedom of speech based on what other people make up about what you said. Pathetic.
*sigh*
And here I’d been thinking that, should I become terminally disenchanted with organized atheism and am looking for some other cause to spend my time on, Amnesty would be on the short list. Seems like every organization or movement — however worthy in mandate — manages to have some aspect where they’re doing something that’s just damned stupid. How much nose-holding must one do?
I still think HRW does useful work. [sits very still so as not to jostle anything loose]
For about two years now, being terminally disenchanted has BEEN my cause.
#3:
A more charitable interpretation might be that people aren’t forced to feign to be heterosexual, but are allowed to choose to live openly, as the person that they are. The choice in that case is not to choose being homosexual. For me at least, that is the one that first springs to mind.
chrislawson #4
Exactly.
I’m nevertheless undecided as to what to think about the statement. AI is certainly not “just” discussing theory under comfortable positions, this might actually be more of getting an easy pass for actual work “in the fields”. I’d perfectly understand this, if it’s helping out.
I had heard about a slightly but convergent version of the fake mock cartoon. Which leads to the unfortunate issue that people don’t double check when religious is involved, allowing for any manipulative deception.
Maybe I missed something, but as near as I can tell the statement says nothing whatsoever. It says that free speech is not absolute, and that “advocacy of… hatred… that incites… violence…” should be restricted. Who can disagree with that?
They don’t actually comment about what is or isn’t “advocacy of hatred.” So it’s entirely up to the reader to decide whether their comments are applicable to Charlie Hebdo; they don’t actually make that at all clear.
Of course the context of issuing the statement is suspicious, and the fact that they don’t clarify is damning.
Eamon:
Like Ophelia, I think HRW is pretty good. I also like MSF. It’s not that I always agree with everything they do (which would be impossible), but I don’t ever feel like they’re willing to sell their mandate down the river for political convenience.