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

Thu Mar 1 15:27:02 EST 2012

Apologies correction inline:

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly with you Paul which is why I personally liked the
> first consolidated draft better because I felt that you nailed it.
>
> I agree that it is the abuse of the "exceptions" that is worrying. I live
> in a country where in the absence of a parliament since the 2006 Coup
> D'Etat, there were a series of Decrees of State of Emergency was
> promulgated and constantly renewed whilst constantly justifying Freedom of
> Expression etc.
>

"Constantly justifying attacks on Freedom of Expression" - people get
charged with sedition and serious offences etc."

>
> Article 19 of the ICCPR is being misinterpreted that people very
> conveniently choose to omit the preamble which contains the spirit and
> culture within which Article 19 was meant to be read.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120302/ccbddb79/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