BREAKING NEWS

11-26-2020     3 رجب 1440

Free Speech and Expression, Civilization and Islamophobia -11

November 19, 2020 | Aabid Mushtaq

In the case of Mukong v. Cameroon, views adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee on 21 July 1994, Under the ICCPR, restrictions must meet a strict three-part test. First, the interference must be provided for by law. The law must be accessible and “formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct.” Second, the interference must pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 19(3). Third, the interference must be necessary to secure that aim.

Richardson J. reasoned in the case of Appeal in Gisborne Herald Co. Ltd. v. Solicitor General
The complex process of balancing the values underlying free expression may vary from country to country, even though there is a common and genuine commitment to international human rights norms. The balancing will be influenced by the culture and values of the particular community... The result of the balancing process will necessarily reflect the Court’s assessment of society’s values.
This right underpins many others, such as religion, assembly and the ability to participate in public affairs, but freedom of expression is limited. A common metaphor to describe its limits is that you cannot falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theatre and cause a panic and possible injury. Other forms of speech generally not protected include child pornography, perjury, blackmail, and incitement to violence.
The UDHR’s drafters wrestled with the issue of how tolerant a tolerant society should be of people like Nazis and fascists who themselves are intolerant. They were acutely conscious of the role played by the Nazi media and film industry in the creation of an environment that enabled the slaughter of 6 million Jews, and other groups such as the Roma and people with disabilities. After gaining power in 1933, the Nazis used a series of new laws and regulations to crush the independent media, substituting a rabid totalitarian propaganda machine in its place, under the guidance of Joseph Goebbels, the “Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.” As a result, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence were explicitly prohibited. when the UDHR was translated into binding international law via subsequent treaties. In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, freedom of expression occupies the same slot (Article 19) as it does in the UDHR, providing explicit criteria that “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.” –Sigmund Freud. Governments need to comply with when restricting freedom of expression. Article 20, following immediately afterwards, sets the limits with the prohibition of incitement.
The potentially lethal results of hate speech – including its ability to enable the violation of the right to life on a massive scale -- was graphically displayed once again when Rwanda’s Radio Mille Collines laid the groundwork for the 1994 genocide by dehumanizing fellow citizens and branding them enemies. Some 800,000 people were killed. More recently in Myanmar, messages of incitement to hatred and violence spread with alarming speed on Facebook, and may have contributed to genocide and crimes against humanity. The Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar pointed to the use of Facebook by the Myanmar military to incite hatred and spread false information to justify their actions against civilians. In reaction, Facebook closed several of those accounts.
You are entitled to hold any opinion, no matter how foul it may be, but the expression of that opinion – if it amounts to incitement - must be outlawed, with clear historical examples of what can happen when it is not.

Islamophobia ;

Anti-Muslim violence and discrimination have been steadily increasing in France over the past few years. According to data from the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), the official representative body of Islam in France, 116 Islamophobic acts and threats were reported to police in 2010, 155 in 2011, 203 in 2012, and 226 in 2013, 1,o43 in 2019 (a 77% since 2017). Although they warn numbers are likely under-reported and are being increased. As a result, more than 50 charities – including the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), a mainstream organization that combats Islamophobia – dubbed by Minister of the Interior Gerald Darmanin as “enemies of the Republic”, faced dissolution.
A February 2019 report from Human Rights Watch found that between May 2015 and December 2018, at least 44 people - 36 of them Muslims - were killed across 12 Indian states. Around 280 people were injured in more than 100 incidents across 20 states over the same period. reports of deaths thereof when Delhi violence took place in which about 51 people died, 200 plus injured, properties destroyed included 19 mosques were damaged and burnt in targeted violence in 48 hours. The words coronajihad , upscjihad were used to harass the Muslims in the prime shows of Indian news channels.Tell MAMA, an organization that tracks anti-Muslim incidents in Britain, recorded 685 racially aggravated incidents between January and June 2018.
This is the islamophobia that is spreading all over the world. There would not be an excuse of free speech and expression in order to defense such bigotry and a crime. World must look into this affair and redress the same otherwise it could turn out a huge hurdle for the progressive and developmental policies of world.
As efforts to control speech and information increase, the UN Human Rights Office has provided guidance on how to distinguish free speech from hate speech through the Rabat Plan of Action, which suggests setting a high threshold for interpreting the restrictions set by international human rights law in restricting freedom of expression. Its six-part threshold test takes into account the context, intent, content, extent, speaker’s status and likelihood that the speech in question would incite action against the target group, and is being used in Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco, and by the European Court of Human Rights in a recent judgment on the Pussy Riot case.(Concluded)


Email:----aabiddar299@gmail.com

BREAKING NEWS

VIDEO

Twitter

Facebook

Free Speech and Expression, Civilization and Islamophobia -11

November 19, 2020 | Aabid Mushtaq

In the case of Mukong v. Cameroon, views adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee on 21 July 1994, Under the ICCPR, restrictions must meet a strict three-part test. First, the interference must be provided for by law. The law must be accessible and “formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct.” Second, the interference must pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 19(3). Third, the interference must be necessary to secure that aim.

Richardson J. reasoned in the case of Appeal in Gisborne Herald Co. Ltd. v. Solicitor General
The complex process of balancing the values underlying free expression may vary from country to country, even though there is a common and genuine commitment to international human rights norms. The balancing will be influenced by the culture and values of the particular community... The result of the balancing process will necessarily reflect the Court’s assessment of society’s values.
This right underpins many others, such as religion, assembly and the ability to participate in public affairs, but freedom of expression is limited. A common metaphor to describe its limits is that you cannot falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theatre and cause a panic and possible injury. Other forms of speech generally not protected include child pornography, perjury, blackmail, and incitement to violence.
The UDHR’s drafters wrestled with the issue of how tolerant a tolerant society should be of people like Nazis and fascists who themselves are intolerant. They were acutely conscious of the role played by the Nazi media and film industry in the creation of an environment that enabled the slaughter of 6 million Jews, and other groups such as the Roma and people with disabilities. After gaining power in 1933, the Nazis used a series of new laws and regulations to crush the independent media, substituting a rabid totalitarian propaganda machine in its place, under the guidance of Joseph Goebbels, the “Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.” As a result, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence were explicitly prohibited. when the UDHR was translated into binding international law via subsequent treaties. In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, freedom of expression occupies the same slot (Article 19) as it does in the UDHR, providing explicit criteria that “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.” –Sigmund Freud. Governments need to comply with when restricting freedom of expression. Article 20, following immediately afterwards, sets the limits with the prohibition of incitement.
The potentially lethal results of hate speech – including its ability to enable the violation of the right to life on a massive scale -- was graphically displayed once again when Rwanda’s Radio Mille Collines laid the groundwork for the 1994 genocide by dehumanizing fellow citizens and branding them enemies. Some 800,000 people were killed. More recently in Myanmar, messages of incitement to hatred and violence spread with alarming speed on Facebook, and may have contributed to genocide and crimes against humanity. The Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar pointed to the use of Facebook by the Myanmar military to incite hatred and spread false information to justify their actions against civilians. In reaction, Facebook closed several of those accounts.
You are entitled to hold any opinion, no matter how foul it may be, but the expression of that opinion – if it amounts to incitement - must be outlawed, with clear historical examples of what can happen when it is not.

Islamophobia ;

Anti-Muslim violence and discrimination have been steadily increasing in France over the past few years. According to data from the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), the official representative body of Islam in France, 116 Islamophobic acts and threats were reported to police in 2010, 155 in 2011, 203 in 2012, and 226 in 2013, 1,o43 in 2019 (a 77% since 2017). Although they warn numbers are likely under-reported and are being increased. As a result, more than 50 charities – including the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), a mainstream organization that combats Islamophobia – dubbed by Minister of the Interior Gerald Darmanin as “enemies of the Republic”, faced dissolution.
A February 2019 report from Human Rights Watch found that between May 2015 and December 2018, at least 44 people - 36 of them Muslims - were killed across 12 Indian states. Around 280 people were injured in more than 100 incidents across 20 states over the same period. reports of deaths thereof when Delhi violence took place in which about 51 people died, 200 plus injured, properties destroyed included 19 mosques were damaged and burnt in targeted violence in 48 hours. The words coronajihad , upscjihad were used to harass the Muslims in the prime shows of Indian news channels.Tell MAMA, an organization that tracks anti-Muslim incidents in Britain, recorded 685 racially aggravated incidents between January and June 2018.
This is the islamophobia that is spreading all over the world. There would not be an excuse of free speech and expression in order to defense such bigotry and a crime. World must look into this affair and redress the same otherwise it could turn out a huge hurdle for the progressive and developmental policies of world.
As efforts to control speech and information increase, the UN Human Rights Office has provided guidance on how to distinguish free speech from hate speech through the Rabat Plan of Action, which suggests setting a high threshold for interpreting the restrictions set by international human rights law in restricting freedom of expression. Its six-part threshold test takes into account the context, intent, content, extent, speaker’s status and likelihood that the speech in question would incite action against the target group, and is being used in Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco, and by the European Court of Human Rights in a recent judgment on the Pussy Riot case.(Concluded)


Email:----aabiddar299@gmail.com


  • Address: Abi-guzar Lalchowk Srinagar 190001.
  • Phone: 0194-2451076 , +91-941-940-0056 , +91-962-292-4716
  • Email: brighterkmr@gmail.com
Owner, Printer, Publisher, Editor: Farooq Ahmad Wani
Legal Advisor: M.J. Hubi
Printed at: Abid Enterprizes, Zainkote Srinagar
Published from: Gulshanabad Chraresharief Budgam
RNI No.: JKENG/2010/33802
Office No’s: 0194-2451076, 9622924716 , 9419400056
Postal Regd No: SK/135/2010-2019
Administrative Office: Abi Guzer Srinagar

© Copyright 2018 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved. Quantum Technologies

Owner, Printer, Publisher, Editor: Farooq Ahmad Wani
Legal Advisor: M.J. Hubi
Printed at: Abid Enterprizes, Zainkote Srinagar
Published from: Gulshanabad Chraresharief Budgam
RNI No.: JKENG/2010/33802
Office No’s: 0194-2451076, 9622924716 , 9419400056
Postal Regd No: SK/135/2010-2019
Administrative Office: Abi Guzer Srinagar

© Copyright 2018 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved.