[governance] China's remarks to the HRC panel on freedom of expression and the Internet

Thu Mar 1 14:43:55 EST 2012

The Joint Statement delivered by China below is a perfect example of an
invocation of the most enforceable human "right" there is:  The "right" to
support the sovereignty and actions of the incumbent regime in one's home
country.  This right of supporting the powers the be is rarely violated,
and is so common and non-controversial as to be omitted from most human
rights instruments, but it is still the implicit foundation of the Joint
Statement delivered by China:

*"Mr. Moderator, all stakeholders of the international community should
take concerted efforts to prevent and combat the abuse of freedom of
expression on the Internet.  Internet users of all countries should respect
the rights and dignities of others, contribute to maintaining social
stability, and safeguarding national security.   The internet’s industry
should act to foster a crime-free, reliable and secure cyberspace.
Governments should strengthen legislation in the field of internet
regulation and law enforcement activities with the aim of combating
criminal activities."*

Earlier in the Joint Statement, they make clear in more detail what the
"abuses" of freedom of expression are.

*"The abuse of the freedom of expression, on the internet in particular,
can encroach on the rights and dignity of other individuals, undermine
social safety and stability, even threaten national security. The Internet
is often used to propagate terrorism, extremism, racism, xenophobia, even
ideas of toppling legitimate authorities.  Moreoever, the Internet is used
by some groups to distort facts, exaggerate situations, provoke violence,
and attempt to exaggerate tension wherever it appears to obtain political
benefits."
*
Under the Joint Statement, "all users" of the Internet (which apparently
includes those of us here on the IGC) should cooperate to "maintain social
stability" and combat "abuses of freedom of expression" by those who
"distort facts, exaggerate situations ... and attempt to exaggerate tension
wherever it appears to obtain political benefits."   To me, this Joint
Statement is a clear invocation of the "right" to support incumbent
regimes, styled as being a position "in strict accordance with
international law" of human rights, which does give credence to national
sovereignty ideas.  To do so, they cite Article 19/20 of the ICCPR and
other international law.

The original statement on human rights that I drafted was anchored in a
non-rights concept, namely that *the case for interference with free
expression must always be the more difficult one to make than the case for
upholding free expression*.  One commenter noted that this was an
"important point" but unfortunately it got edited out of the final
statement, and instead several expression mentions of international human
rights law were inserted. (Such laws will always be useless in domestic
courts precisely when they are needed the most)

No Country is particularly principled when it comes to upholding trenchant
criticism of its governing policies or legitimacy, but this is precisely
the moment and the context when freedom of expression is most important:
to foster a peaceful process of change via changing others' opinions of the
incumbent regime.

If not only violence or attempts to provoke violence are prohibited free
expression, but also speech that, as the Joint Statement puts it, tends not
to "promote social stability" is also prohibited, then *all peaceful
andall violent means of social change
* on the internet are effectively prohibited.

None of us truly needs a "right" to be a loyal citizen, to keep to one's
own business, or to support the incumbent regime.  We need rights only to
protect us when some other powerful person or organization doesn't like
what we have to say.  Supporting the incumbent regime's security efforts
may be "expression" but it is not free expression in the truest sense, in
that it doesn't require the support of a right to encourage and foster its
expression.

The rights that mean the most are the ones that are being, or might be,
violated.  Like anything that is valuable, important human rights are
subject to being stolen or violated.  We should not confuse the extent of
the violation of a right with the existence of the right or the
enforceability of a right.

If we do confuse human rights with the concepts of enforceability of those
rights in domestic courts or under national laws, there will never be
"rights without borders".

As someone trained in the law, I of course do not oppose expansion of the
recognition and enforcement of human rights globally, in domestic courts
and elsewhere.  But the most important times for human rights to apply will
always be when domestic courts are of absolutely no use whatsoever, such as
in Nazi Germany or cases of genocide.  This is why we must, in my opinion,
always keep our independence from not only national law, but even
international law (in the sense in which international law is interpreted
in domestic courts at least).

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

>
> http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2012/02/china-panel-on-right-to-freedom-of-expression-19th-session-human-rights-council.html
>
> On behalf of Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, Cuba,
> DPRK, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar,
> Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
> Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Yemen,
> Zimbabwe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
> www.williamdrake.org
> ****************************************************
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120301/4a10d5dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t