[governance] China's remarks to the HRC panel on freedom of expression and the Internet
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 08:40:57 EST 2012
Lehto
Thanks for this post and your insights.
Glad that someone is taking up the jealous liberal stance. One factor
that needs to be taken into account is the relative power of countries.
The US is exceptional, in the sense that it is a global power, with a
"monopoly" on CIR in many respects.
Also, it would seem like the list of supporting states for this
declaration could almost be conflated with either rogue, axis of evil,
or "unapproaved" regimes. The experience of these countries, i.e.
interference in their affairs (from Reagan who said he was a "contra",
through to the coup of Chavez, or the National Endowment of Democracy or
similar groups funding the "greens" in Iran, etc, etc) should be kept in
mind.
This makes for complicated analysis, but coherence and even handedness
are good defences to taking on these issues (as is evident, poor
countries are in situations that democracy can be "hijacked" by "other"
forces" besides the legitimate aspirations of the people - coming soon
to a humanitarian invasion near you).
We should not stifle debate and responses to Parminder's note would
instructive... especially if we are interested in advancing a just cause
for all, instead of being right...
In other words, pretensions of human rights should not blind us to its
parochial or political interpretations...
Peace
Riaz
On 2012/03/01 09:43 PM, Paul Lehto 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_*. I*nternet *_*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 and_ all 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
> <http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake>
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ****************************************************
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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 <mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120302/b1caa861/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list