[governance] Watch out for that hate speech

[Meryem Marzouki]

You might object, but the purpose of this list is not to discuss  
religious issues or bigotry. It is rather to discuss global Internet  
governance policies, among them those related to content regulation  
and the concepts they are based upon, which was exactly what we  
started to do until you jumped in, with your reference to abortion as  
'the killing of babies for convenience', with your considerations on  
'massive influx of illegal aliens', which, under some laws against  
xenophobia, might be considered as offensive, and, finally, mixing  
all this with 'islamic terrorism', an expression which generalization  
could by itself fall under the laws against discrimination. The fact  
that you felt useful or even needed to add that you have a "a devout  
Muslim for a close friend and business partner" doesn't change  
anything to this: it's just the usual disclaimer as in the "I'm not  
racist/antisemit, I've a [jewish/muslim/black/whatever usual victim  
of racism] friend" well known discourse.

I wont further comment this. It's simply that this kind of discourse  
has no place on this list, as it is by far out of its scope, and I'm  
asking the coordinators of this caucus to take due note of this remark.

Regarding your precise question, let me take it as if it was a  
genuine one, and simply answer that it perfectly illustrates what was  
my point: "'hate speech', without any precision and especially  
without specific reference to discrimination, is inadequate not only  
as a legal qualification but also as characterization in the  
political/social discourse." Hate, as intended in 'hate speech' and  
its regulation, is directed against a person or a group of person,  
just like defamation, BTW. Not against a concept, idea or belief.

Le 12 déc. 08 à 16:19, Karl E. Peters a écrit :

>     I must object here...How is there "no hate" in that message  
> compared to other "hate speech" when it is said that religion  
> hardens hearts and enslaves minds. We could debate the veracity of  
> such a statement all day, but you can not say that such a statement  
> is not just as hateful as MUCH of what is called hate speech today  
> by others. It is all a matter of perspective. As long as they don't  
> talk about "me", it is not hate speech. Whoever has the ear of the  
> major media of the day wins the battle for the definition of hate  
> speech for that generation, but the war will never end.    -Karl E.  
> Peters
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [governance] Watch out for that hate speech
> From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
> Date: Fri, December 12, 2008 9:55 am
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> Le 12 déc. 08 à 09:53, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>
> > Interesting to me that the religious right in America is
> > characterizing criticism of their religion as “hateful” and as
> > “bigotry.” It provides an example of why many free speech advocates
> > oppose so-called hate speech regulation, as it could easily be
> > invoked to suppress all kinds of legitimate expression.
> >
> Or provides an example of why 'hate speech', without any precision
> and especially without specific reference to discrimination, is
> inadequate not only as a legal qualification but also as
> characterization in the political/social discourse. In countries like
> France where racist speech (and other kind of speech among those
> generally described as 'hate speech') is an offense punished by law,
> saying that "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or
> hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and
> superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." not only is not
> an offense, but is quite common (and well appreciated in some not so
> restricted circles:))
>
> Actually, such a sentence should refer to 'blasphemy' or 'defamation
> of religions' (which are not considered as offenses in many
> countries, needless to say that "defamation of religion", as a legal
> concept, is pure nonsense) rather than to 'hate speech'. There is no
> hate directed to anyone expressed in the quoted sentence, so, in
> which way could this be interpreted as 'hate speech'?
>
> Right back from Hyderabad, I participed on 8-9 December to a
> conference organized in Paris by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency and
> the French presidency. It was on "Freedom of expression, a
> cornerstone of democracy - listening and communicating in a diverse
> Europe" (http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?
> fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=3e6c61340870c&contentid=492d3 
> cd
> b312db).
> The former UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism,
> racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou
> Diène, was present. According to him, it seems that, at the
> international level, we're going to get rid of 'defamation of
> religions' concept (and offense in some countries).
> And, indeed, in his report of September 2008 on the "manifestations
> of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious
> implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights" (http://
> daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/153/97/PDF/G0815397.pdf), he
> recommends that "the Human Rights Council encourage a shift away from
> the sociological concept of the defamation of religions towards the
> legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred,
> on the basis of the legal provisions laid down in international human
> rights instruments, in particular articles 18 to 20 of the
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 4 of
> the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
> Racial Prejudice."
> The recommendations of the report from the UN High Commissionner for
> Human Rights on "combating defamation of religions", presented at the
> 9th session of the Human Rights Council are drawn along the same line
> (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/9session/A.HRC.
> 9.7.doc). It's worth noting that this latter report is on the
> implementation of human rights council resolution 7/19 entitled
> “combating defamation of religions".
>
> Meryem
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance