STRIKING A BALANCE Hate Speech, Freedom of - Article 19

216 Pages·2007·18.69 MB·English

STRIKING A BALANCE
Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression
and Non-discrimination
E<iitedby San<iraColiver
Contributing Editors
Kevin BQyleanc;lFrances D'Souza
ilRTlCL!=111I,NfERNATlpNALC!=NTREAGAINSTCENSORSHIP
HlJ~AN RIGHTSCE:;NTREU,NIVERSITYOFES~EX
.- , ~
c.
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Abbreviations ill
Acknowledgements iv
Editorial Note v
Introduction byFrances D'Souza vii
©This compilation: ARTICLE 19,London and Human Rights Centre, PartI:PreliminaryConsiderations.
University ofEssex, 1992
I. KBoyle, "Overview of aDilemma: Censorship versus Racism" 1
2.PGordon, "Racist Violence: The Expression ofHate inEurope" 9
© "Campus Antiracism Rules: Constitutional Narratives inCollision",
Richard Delgado, Vol85 NorthwesternUniversityLawReview1991.
Part11I:nternationalStandards
3.KJPartsch, "Racial Speech and Human Rights: Article 4of the
© "Criminalization of Racial Incitement in Israel", EliezerLederman
Convention ontheElimination of AllForms ofRacial Discrimination" 21
andMalaTabory,Stanford JournalofInternationalLaw,Vol24, No. I.
4.IBoerefijn and JOyediran, "Article 20oftheInternational Covenant
© "Balanciug the Rights to Freedom of Expression and Equality: A onCivil andPolitical Rights" 29
CivilLiberties Approach toHateSpeechonCampus", NadiueStrossen, 5.JOyediran, "Article 13(5)oftheAmerican Convention onHuman Rights" 33
Regulating Hate Speech onCampus: A Modest Proposal?, DukeLaw 6.DTiirk andL Joinet, "TheRight toFreedom ofOpinion andExpression:
Journal,Vol 1990,No. 3. Current Problems ofitsRealization and Measures Necessary forIts
Strengthening andPromotion" . . . . 35
7.SJRoth, "CSCE Standards onIncitement toHatred and Discrimination
onNational, Racial orReligious Grounds" 55
8.KBoyle, "Religious Intolerauce and theIncitement ofHatred" 61
PartIll:CountryExperiences
Australia
9. KEastrnan, "RacialVilification: The Australian Experience" 75
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be photocopied,
10.KEggerking, "Australia: TheRole of theMedia in 82
recorded orotherwise reproduced, stored inaretrieval system ortrans
Perpetuating Racism"
mitted in any form orby any electronic or mechanical means without
11.SCh'ang, "Legislating Against Racism: Racial Vilification Laws
thepriorpermission of thecopyright owner and publisher.
inNew South Wales" 87
canada
12.JManwaring, "LegalRegulation ofHate Propagauda inCanada"
13.ICotler, "Principles andPerspectives onHate Speech,Freedom of
Expression and Non-Discrimination: The Canadian Expl:!:\enceas
aCase-Study in Striking aBalance" 123
ISBN 1870798 767
CommonwealthofIndependentStates
14.YSchmidt andT Smith, "Sources ofInter-Ethuic Discord Throughout
theFormer Soviet Union" 130
15.SJRoth, "Additional Comments onAnti-Racism Laws inthe
Printed intheUnited Kingdom. Former Soviet Union" 136
Denmark
16.L Johaunessen, "Racist Snakes in theDanish Paradise" 140
-i -
France 38.Commission forRacial Equality 333
17.RErrera,"InDefence ofCivility: Racial Incitement and Group Libel 39.Committee ontheAdministration ofJustice 335
inFrench Law" 144 40.Human Rights Watch 338
Germany 41.Justice 340
18.RHofmann, "Incitement toNational and Racial Hatred: 42.Liberty 342
The Legal Situation inGermany" 159 43.The Islamic Society for thePromotion ofReligious Tolerance 345
India
19.VEswaran, "Advocacy of National, Racial and Religious Hatred:
The Indian Experience" 171 PartV: Evaluating Laws Againstlnsull and Incitement
Israel 44.MBanton, "TheDeclaratory Value ofLaws Against Racial Incitement" 349
20. ELederman and MTabory, "Criminalization of 45. BParekb, "Group Libel andFreedom ofExpression:
Racial Incitement inIsrael" 182 Thoughts on theRushdie Affair" 358
21. JSchoffman, "Legislation Against Racist Incitement inIsrael: 46. SColiver, "Hate Speech Laws: Do They Work?" 363
A 1992Appraisal" 192
Latin America
22. SJRoth, "Laws Against Racial andReligious Hatred in Annexes.
Latin America: Focus onArgentina and Uruguay" 197 A-International Standards 377
Netherlands
B-Reservations and Declarations Concerning Racist Speech and
23.IBoerefijn, "Incitement toNational, Racial andReligious Hatred: Advocacy ofRacial and Religious Hatred 394
Legislation andPractice inthe Netherlands" 201 C-Selected Bibliography 402
South Africa
24. GMarcus, "Racial Hostility: The South African Experience" 208
Notes onContributors 413
25.Lene Johannessen, "Should Censorship ofRacist Publications Have a
Place in theNew South Africa?" 223
Sri Lanka
26. SAbeyesekera and KLCain, "Incitement toInter-Ethnic Hatred
inSriLanka" 238
United Kingdom
ABBREVIATIONS
27.JOyediran, "The United Kingdom's Compliance with Article 4 ofthe
International Convention ontheElimination ofAllForms of ACHPR African Convention onHuman and Peoples' Rights
Racial Discrimination" 245 ACHR American Convention onHuman Rights
28. GBindrnan, "Incitement toRacial Hatred in theUnited Kingdom: CERD Committee on theElimination ofRacial Discrimination
Have We Got theLaw We Need?" 258 CERD Convention International Convention on theElimination ofAll
29..TMurphy, "Incitement toHatred: Lessons from Northern Ireland" 263 Forms ofRacial Discrimination
USA CSCE Conference onSecurity and Co-operation inEurope
30.RGSchneider, "Hate Speech intheUnited States: ECHR European Convention onHuman Rights
Recent Legal Developments" 269 ICCPR International Covenant onCivil andPolitical Rights
31.RDelgado, "Campus Antiracism Rules: Constitutional Narratives UDHR Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights
inCollision" 284 UK United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland
32. NStrossen, "Balancing theRights toFreedom ofExpression andEquality: UN United Nations
ACivil Liberties Approach toHate Speech onCampus" 295 US United States
PartIV:Policy Statements from Human Rights Organizations
33.ARTICLE 19 315
34.American Civil Liberties Union 319
35.American-Arab Relations Committee 323
36. Anti-Defamation League ofB'nai B'rith 326
37.Board ofDeputies ofBritish Jews 328
-iii-
-ii -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EDITORIAL NOTE
ThisbookistheresultofaConsultationofmorethan30expertsfromaroundthe
WegratefullyacknowledgethesupportofTheCalousteGulbenkianFoundation, world,convenedbyARTICLE19andtheHumanRightsCentreoftheUniversity
The Barrowand GeraldineS CadburyTrust,The NuffieldFoundationand The ofEssex,whometfortwodaystodiscussthehighlycomplexandcontroversial
JosephRowntreeCharitableTrustforthispublicationandforthe1991Consultation issueof theeffectivenessoflaws whichprohibit "hateexpression".Theexperts
onIncitementtoHatred. weredividedintothreeworkinggroupsandeachgroupwasaskedtoaddressone
Wewishtothankthemanyindividualsandorganizations,too numerousto ofthefollowingquestions:
mentionbyname,whoprovidedvaluableadviceandinformationforthispublication. 1. Howhaveanti-hateexpressionlawsworkedinpracticeinvarious
Thanks are due to ARTICLE 19 staff includingCarmel Bedford,Helen countries?
Darbishire,SaidEssoularni,FionaHarrison,SusanHay,RobertSalmon,Elizabeth 2. Whatkindsofexpression,if any,shouldbeprohibited,andcan interna
S~hofield, and volunteersElizabethLloyd-Owen,SvenjaLohmaunand Redley tionalstandardsprovideanyguidanceinthisarea?
Silva. 3. Whatarethemosteffectivesanctionsandremediesforhateexpression?
Thepublicationprocesswasco-ordinatedbyAnnNaughtonandadditional
editorialassistancewasprovidedbyJoannaOyediran.Desktoppublishingwasby Discussionwaslivelyandintenseand,predictably,fewpointsofconsensuswere
SueYorkandcoverdesignwasbyTonyHall. identified.Onepointonwhichagreementwasresoundingwasthatmoreresearch
was needed. Various areas for further study were identified, including close
ARTICLE 19, INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AGAINST CENSORSHIP examinationof theexperiencesofarangeofcountrieshavingdifferentkindsof
laws,differenttraditions,differenteconomic,socialandpoliticalconditions,and
ARTICLE 19 takes its name and mandate from Article 19 of the Universal experiencingdifferentdegreesofinter-communaltensions.Thisbook,bornfrom
DeclarationofHumanRightswhichproclaimsthefundamentalrighttofreedom thesechallengesandencouragedbytheenthusiasmofparticipantswhofeltthatthe
ofexpression.ARTICLE 19worksimpartiallyandsystematicallytoideutifyand Consultationpaperspresentednewinformationandinsights,aimstocontributeto
opposecensorshipinits manyforms,todefendthevictimsofcensorshipandto thedebate.
promote strengthenednationaland internationalstandardsfor the protectionof Attheoutset,wewishtomakeabundantlyclearwhatwedidnot setoutto
freedomofexpression. accomplish.First, thebookdoesnotpurporttobecomprehensiveorevenrepre
ARTICLE19monitorsindividualcountries'compliancewithinternational sentative.ThefactthatwehavenopapersfromAfrica,onlyabriefoverviewfrom
standardsprotectingfreedomofexpression,andregularlymakessubmissionsto LatinAmerica,twopapersonEasternEurope,and twofromAsiaby no means
inter-governmentalorganizationssuchastheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCom reflectsa lackofappreciationoftheenormityofthe tensionsbetweennational,
missionandCommitteeandtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights.ARTICLE19 ethnicandreligious.communitiesinmanycountriesthroughoutthoseareas.Even
hasaninternationalmembership. among western democraciesour country studies are not reflective of the full
diversityofapproachestohateexpression.
ARTICLE19,InternationalCentreAgainstCensorship, Second,thebook focuseson theimplementationandeffectivenessofhate
90BoroughHighStreet,LondonSEI ILL,UK. expression laws. Contributorswere not asked to discuss other, possibly more
Tel.[phone];Fax.[phone]. effective,measuresforrespondingtohatred,discriminationandviolence.
Third,andrelatedly,thebookadoptsaprimarilylegalapproachtoexamining
THE HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE, UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX issues,ratherthan,forinstanceasociologicalorpoliticalscienceapproach.Weare
pleasedtoofferinPartVonepapereachfromasociologicalandapoliticaltheory
The Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, was established in 1983.Its perspective.
purpose was togivea focustoresearchandteachinginBritainon iuternational Fourth,wedidnotaskcontributorstoaddresshateexpressionagainstgroups
humanrights.In1989theCentrewaswidenedtoiuvolve,inadditiontoLaw,the identifiedbycharacteristicsotherthanthoseincludedintheinternationalstandards:
disciplines of Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology,with the object of namely,nationalorethnicorigin,race,colour,descentandreligion.Intheevent,
encouraginginterdisciplinarywork. fewlawsprotectothergroupsfromhateexpression.
. TheC::entrew, hileglobalinitsexpertiseandconcerns,hasaspecialinterest We also wouldliketo maketwodefinitionalpoiuts.First, theterms"hate
10humannghts10EuropeandtheCommonwealth.Itisdistinctiveintheemphasis speech"and "hateexpression"are used virtuallyinterchangeably("expression"
itgivestotheintegrationofhumanrightstheoryandpracticeandinitsconcerns reflects the terminologyof the internationalstandardswhile "speech"is more
withinternationalhumanitarianlaw.TheCentrehasworkingrelationswithsimilar commoninnationaljurisprudence)torefertoexpressionwhichisabusive,insult
centresacrossEuropeandworldwide. ing,intimidating,harassingand/orwhichincitestoviolence,hatredordiscrimina
tion.Theterms"hatespeechlaws" and,sometimes,"anti-hatespeech laws" are
HumanRightsCentre,UniversityofEssex, used torefer tolaws whichprohibitoneor all of threemaincategoriesofhate
WivenhoePark,ColchesterC04 3SQ,Essex,UK. speech:grouplibel,harassmentandincitement.
Tel.[phone];Fax.[phone]
-iv- -v-
Second,theterm"race",whenusedtorefertopeople,ishighlysuspect.As INTRODUCTION
statedbythetwoUNSpecialRapporteursonFreedomofOpinionandExpression
(inChapter6),afirststepinseekingtopromotetoleranceandnon-discrimination
istoavoid Sinceitsinceptionin 1986,ARTICLE19hasendeavouredtocontributetopublic
theuseofsuchatermas'race' which,whenappliedtohumaubeings, debate on complex areas of freedom of expression.The balance between the
hasnoscientificmeaning.Unequivocalrecognitionofthehumanrace fundamentalrighttofreedomofexpressionandtherighttoequalityisclearlyone
as one and indivisible appears to be regarded as the indispensable sucharea. Accordingly,in April 1991,ARTICLE 19togetherwith theHuman
preliminaryforthestruggleagainstracism.' RightsCentreoftheUniversityofEssexconvenedatwo-dayConsultationatwhich
Nonetheless, the term is used throughout this book because of its widespread over30expertsfromaroundtheworldparticipated.TheConsultationitselfwasa
acceptance-andtheacceptanceofrelatedwordssuchasracismandracist- inboth lowbudgetaffairwithsomeofthoseattendingcoveringtheirowntravelcosts;a
commonparlanceandinternationalllw. "Race"hereincludescolouranddescent testament,perhaps, to the great interest and concern about how to addressthe
aswellasnationalandethnicorigin. growingphenomenonofethnicviolenceandhatred.
Theintroductorychapterswhichfollowelaboratetheparametersofthisbook,
highlightsalientpointsofthecountrystudies(Introduction)andsetthecontextof AimsandContenisofthisCollection
~e discussions,both in termsofprinciples(Chapter I) and factsabout hatred,
discriminationandviolenceagainstminorities(Chapter2). FollowingtheConsultation,andwiththeconsensusofparticipants,wedecidedto
Thediscussionsofinternationalstandardsareinlendedtobereadilyunder compileawiderdocumentationofthelawsbywhichhateexpressionisaddressed,
standabletothosewhoarenotversedininternationallaw(orlawatall),andareof controlledorpunished.Aprimaryaiminpublishingthiscollectionistoposecore
interestfortheirhistoryofideasaswellasfortheirsummariesofcurrentinterpre questionsandtoofferawiderange ofviewpoints.Theseinclude:howhavelaws
tations of those standards.The chapter by the twoUN SpecialRapporteurson restrictingexpressionbeenappliedinpractice?;whatguidancedotheinternational
FreedomofOpinionandExpression,drawnfromapreliminaryreporttheyprepared standardsprotectingbothfreedomofexpressionandequalityoffer?Whatevidence
fortheUNinAugust1991,proposesaninnovativeandnarrowconstructionofthe istherethatlawscanhaveanimpactonhatespeech,orwhethersuchlawsinfact
"ha.te-related"restrictionsonfreeexpressionsetforthintheinternationalstandards, promotenon-discrimination?Whattooistheevidencethatlawsdesignedtocurb
whichundoubtedlywillcontributetotheevolutionoftheinterpretationofthose hatespeechmayalsobeusedtorestrictthelegitimatepoliticalexchangeofideas
standards. necessarytoademocraticsociety?
ThepolicystatementsfromorganizationsincludedinPartVillustratehow Thisbookhasbrokennewground.Anumberofcontributorshaveundertaken
differenthumanrightsgroupshavecometotermswiththedilemmasposedbyhate originalresearch on patterns of implementationin their countries.Others have
speech.Whilewecanvassedalargenumberoforganizationsconcernedwithhate brought together information not previously collected. Several have provided
speechitisatestamenttothedifficultyofthesubjectthatrelativelyfewproduced policyperspectivesfromcounties,suchasSriLankaandRussia,fromwhichviews
statementsandevenfewerhadstatementsinhand.Asaresult,theorganizations onthisissuearerarelyreceived.Principledargumentsforopposingallrestrictions
representedinthisbookdonotreflectthegreatdiversityoforganizationsworking on hate expression unless necessary to prevent imminent unlawful action or
onhatespeech.Nonetheless,wearepleasedthatourinquiriespromptedseveralof face-to-faceharassment,and the counterarguments,are systematicallyand co
themtograpplewiththeissue. gently presented by the US contributors.Contributorsfrom Europe as well as
We hope that this book may assistotherorganizationsand individualsto AustraliaandCanadadiscussthevarietyoflawsandtheirimplementationwhich
clarifytheirownpositions. restricthateexpressionandareseentohavevalue,eveninliberaldemocracies,in
ordertosafeguardequalityanddignity.ContributorsfromRussiaand SriLanka,
facinginter-ethnicandcommunaltensionswhichhaverackedtheirregionswith
SandraColiver armedconflicts,suggestthatnarrowly-drawnrestrictionsmighthelptocurbthe
LegalOfficer,ARTICLE19 violence.
May 1992 Twenty-fourpapersexaminethelawsin15countrieswhichregulatefreedom
ofexpressionintheinterestsofracial,ethnic,religiousandnationalharmony.Other
papersdiscusstheapparentcontradictionsbetweendifferentinternationalstand
ards which govern the rights to freedom of expression and equality and the
interpretationofthesestandardsbyinternationalbodies.Themajorityofcontribu
torstothisvolumediscusstheexperiencesindemocraticcountries,wherefreedom
ofexpressionishighlyvaluedandprotectedbyconstitutionandlawandthuswhere
1 Seepara.56oftheirchapterinPartII. theissueofhateexpressionismosthotlydebated.Mostpaperssharetheviewthat
lawswhichrestrictfreeexpressiondonotreducehatredorviolence.Otherspoint
2 The.JnteptationaClonventionontheEliminationofAll-FormsofRacialDlscrlrninaiiondefines
"racialdiscrimination"tomeandiscriminationbasedon"race,colour,descent,ornationalorethnic tothelackofempiricalevidenceasto therelationshipbetweenhatespeechand
origin".
actsofviolence.
Mostcontributorsacceptthepremisethatlawscanserveausefulfunction,
andthatproblemslieinselectiveorindifferentenforcement.Thusitisrepeatedly
•vii _
·maintained that the enactment of laws which restrict hate speech give "a clear thiswork, do not believe that criminalizing expression could ever resolve thereal
message about acceptable staudards" which will "eveutually establish bouudaries problem ofracism andracist discrimination. Asonecontributor hasremarked, the
with which most people feel comfortable". But eveu here, the real problem in law can play only a limited part increating ahumane andgentle society.
drafting laws which are sufficiently narrow and also effective is recognized. Quite apart from the real threat to freedom of expression, anti-hate speech
Questions wereraised astowhether suchlawsmay distract from theneed for more legislation is notoriously difficult to interpret and enforce. "One must be realistic
effective measures, and some contributors worried about theill-effects ofsuccess inassessing the difficulties involved inregulating hate speech" asone contributor
fulprosecutions which create racist "martyrs" and those which result in acquittals writes. Any legislation in thisarea highlights problems ofdefinition and interpre
appearing to vindicate their racist ideologies. tation; concepts such as "ridicule", "hostility" and even "hate" are open-ended,
There is general endorsement of the strict implementation of mechanisms necessarily subjective and potentially dangerous in theexercise ofpower.
which fallinto thecategory ofsocial andcultural attempts tocombat racism. Such One of the areas discussed is that of religious intolerance. The rise of both
mechanisms wouldinclude: education onrespect forethnicdiversity; non-discrimi Christian andIslamic fundamentalism intheUS,Europe, theMiddle EastandAsia,
nation inhousing, education andemployment; theadoption ofanti-racist strategies and Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, is a worrying phenomenon ifonly because
in schools, universities and the media; and increasing representation of ethnic, theadherents tothese movements clearly attempt toimpose upon theworld asingle
religious and racial minorities inkey institutions such as police departments and truth and this necessarily outlaws contrary views. Perhaps themost notorious case
the courts. These and various means to contain potential violence other than by isthat of thefatwa or death sentence pronounced by thelate Ayatollah Khomeini
restricting free speech are important themes inthisbook. against theBritish author Salman Rushdie following thepublication of the novel
TheSatanicVerses.In the thousands of articles which have been written on this
ARTICLE19's Position case, the basic facts have become blurred: a man who has committed no crime in
thecountry ofwhich he isacitizen, hasbeen condemned todeath and, moreover,
Asacampaigning organization, ARTICLE 19consistently protests thewidespread his death is actively sought by aforeign power because oftheoffence his work of
violations of theright to freedom of expression, and recognizes that governments fiction hascaused Muslims. ARTICLE 19unequivocally rejects thedeath sentence
andorganizations cananddousefreedom ofspeech topromote opinions which are andconstantly asserts the right of any individual topublish his ideas in awork of
antithetical to the common standards of dignity underpinning the human rights fiction.
movement. Atthe same time weacknowledge that Muslims, amongst others, have every
ARTICLE 19equally recognizes that laws, once on thestatute book, can be right to protest publicly about the book inquestion and tobroadcast the nature of
and are used by governments todiscriminate against minorities whether these be theoffence andinsult which theyfeel.Those oneither sideofthiscontroversy must
ethnic, religious or national. Even laws framed in a democracy, and however be free to express their ideas and beliefs and todiscuss them with their critics on
carefully drafted, may be used subsequently to suppress thefundamental right to thebasis ofmutual tolerance, free from censorship, intimidation andviolence.
freedom ofexpression. Such laws may be used topenalize members ofoppressed
communities who attempt to promote a counter viewpoint or to stifle speech AdvancingtheDebate
advocating autonomy orotherchanges ingovernment. Itis,forexample, discussed
inthisvolume thatlaws against racist speech inSouthAfrica have notbeen applied At the end of the Consultation, the view was expressed that the issues were too
soastoensure racial equality ortoprotect victims ofracial abuse. Infact theywere complex and the nexus between laws, protections and levels of hate speech too
used and intended tobe used asmeasures tostifle growing black opposition toan immeasurable tojustify any definitive statement. There was also aconsensus on
oppressive system; thus the government used thelaws topunish thevictims of its the need for further study, especially of national experiences in trying to counter
racist policies. Another contributor points out how a Soviet law which prohibited racial and religious hatred and violence; this volume is afirst attempt. There was
incitement to national racial hatred was regularly used to suppress dissident acommon viewthatcivil remedies were generally preferable tocriminal sanctions.
movements and human rights activists. Inthefinal plenary session oftheConsultation oneparticipant long familiar
The guarantors of democracy are many, varied and precious; one such with United Nations procedures said that the UN in its wisdom only recognized
guarantor isthe freeexchange ofideas andopinions. What mustbepreserved atall two types of meetings; those which were successful and those which were very
costs are both democratic discussion and the channels for its daily practice. successful! The Consultation, he said, fell firmly within the latter category. In
Unfortunately, at times, democratic discussion including hate speech (which may retrospect, one ofitssuccesses hasbeen that subsequent work hasengendered this
involve insult, invective and deeply offensive racial slurs) necessarily involves reference collection of the laws and practice from 15countries. We do not claim
trampling ontheideas andbeliefs heldprecious byothers. ARTICLE 19's concern thatitisacomprehensive collection, but we very much hope that inpublishing the
is that these slurs and insults be met at all times bycounterclaims, arguments and volume atthis time, we may stimulate further thought, discussion andpublication.
discussion. To suppress such slurs isnot toresolve thehatred but perhaps todrive Meanwhile, ARTICLE 19 will continue to maintain a watching brief on hate
it underground and thereby encourage acts ofviolence. We have been atpains to expression and the way in which it is dealt with by various countries throughout
promote theview thatspeech should never be censored based onitscontent alone. theworld.
Any restrictions on expression should be justified only by reference toits impact
such asthelikelihood oftheexpression leading directly toimminent lawless action. Frances D'Souza
ARTICLE 19acknowledges the wide gulf between condemning ideas and Director, ARTICLE 19
crirninalizing them. More simply put, we, incommon with several contributors to May1992
~ viii _
PART I: Preliminary Considerations
Chapter1
OVERVIEWOFA DILEMMA:CENSORSHIPVERSUSRACISM
KevinBoyle
Thisbookgrewoutofaconsultation atEssexUniversity inApril 1991.Thepurpose
of the consultation was to explore the challenge set for defenders of freedom of
expression by the promotion of racism through speech. The clear tenor of the
consultation andofthis collection isundoubtedly pro-freedom ofexpression, with
the onus on those who would restrict this freedom to justify censorship in the
interests ofracial equality andtheelimination ofracial discrimination. The casefor
restriction on hate speech was made at the consultation and is also made in this
book. Indeed, the majority of the papers assume the case for at least some
restrictions on grounds of equality and dignity while conveying concern over the
effects ofany such restrictions on thevalues underlying freespeech.
Nevertheless, it is possible to conceive of adifferent selection of materials
andopinions which might operate from astarting point which favours equality and
non-discrimination over freedom of expression. Such a work would certainly be
useful incontinuing thedebate. However thatmaybe,mostofthearticles, analyses
andpolicy statements collected inthisbook seektofindabalance between theright
to speak and thepursuit ofracial, religious and communal justice and harmony, a
balance that requires the least interference with untrammelled freedom of ex
pression.
THEMEANINGOFBALANCE
If the weights on the balance favour free speech, is the metaphor of balance
appropriate? The actual.position, it can be argued, isthat two human rights are in
conflict: thefreedom toadvocate distasteful opinions ortoconvey distorted orfalse
information and the conflicting right not to be a victim of discrimination and
prejudice.' On that analysis, to prefer freedom of expression is not toprefer the
countervailing freedom from discrimination. Oneright issubordinate totheother.
Thebalance metaphor, however.can bejustified ifsomespeechonsomeoccasions
is restrained and on such occasion the right to be free from discrimination is
preferred to the free speech principle. It is in that sense that the title ofthebook,
StrikingaBalance,isjustified. Thesearchisforthosecircumstances andconditions
inwhich oneright should bepreferred over theother. There isalso aneed tooffer
coherent justifications for which right is preferred in particular circumstances or
else, from the stand-point of freedom of expression, there is arisk that limitation
willencroach tothe point where the right itself isthreatened.
Topoint outthat therearecircumstances inwhich other interests should win
outoverfreedom ofexpression isnotinconsistent withastrongcommitment tothe
value of freedom ofexpression. Equally toargue that the law should not interfere
withcertainkinds ofantisocial speechorinsulting anddenigrating publication does
notmeanthatfreespeech advocates areindifferent totherights ofracial orreligious
Forathoughtfulandextensive discussion of theinjuriescausedbyracistspeech, see Richard
DeJgado'schapterinPartII!. . .
- I -
~no~ties..To thecontrary, they strongly believe that freedom of expression isa Public opinion in the United States and Europe (and, indeed, in India and
Vitalnght mthestruggle todefeat discrimination, bigotry andintolerance. severalother Asiancountries) hasshownincreasingresistance toso-calledaffirm
ativeactionpolicies (or"specialmeasures"ascalledforin Article 1(d)oftheCERD
THE CHALLENGE OF RACISM
Convention) on behalf of excluded ethnic and religious minorities. The general
perception has been that such measures lack fairness. Without examining the
Howe~erinfluenced by standpoint, theprotagonists inthisdebate willnotdispute arguments here,itisnevertheless important tonotethatitisonlyattheextreme of
the.evidence ~at.the.articulationof~ejudice, thefomenting ofhatred, thejustifi publicopinionthatvoicesareraisedagainstthegeneralnormofnon-discrimination
catio.nof discrimination and thedemal of esteem forpeople distinguished by the whichisfirmly established indemocratic societies.
dommant groupbecause oftheircommon origins, theirreligion ortheircolour has Butracism, racial discrimination and hatred havenot yetbeen eliminated in
not abated in the modem world. Thepicture inEurope surveyed byPaul Gordon thesamedemocratic societies. Theliterature which seekstoexplain thecontinued
(in Cha~ter2) isespecially worrying. The entire moral basis oftheintegration of existence and indeed resurgence ofracism, anti-Semitism andxenophobia strikes
Europe ISchallenged by thenewurge tolimitimmigrants andasylum seekers and atentativenote.ArecentUnitedNationsreportconcluded that"theprimarycauses
the ?pen espousal ofracism and xenophobia by mainstream democratic political of racism and racial discrimination and apartheid are deeply imbedded in the
parties seeking to compete with theresurgence of fascist and racist movements. historical past and are determined by a variety of economic, political, social and
Thesemovements haveextended theirtraditionalhostilitytoJewsandothercitizen culturalfactors.,,2Manifestations ofracismonaglobalscalearelinkedinthestudy
groups toimmigrants andrefugees from Asia andAfricaaswellas thosecrossing to"suchareasasconquest, thesearchforcaptivesforracialslavery, theimposition
European borders from theformer Eastern bloc.' • ofracialexclusionary laws,colonialism andimperialism".Ofparticular interestare
. Thi~bookwas?ompleted inthedaysfollowing theacquittal byajury offour what the report calls the "two great paradoxes" of history: that racism actually
whitepoliceofficers~nLosAngelesofthecrimeofassaultingablack man,Rodney increasedasdemocracy expanded andthatracismgrewasscienceexpanded. Inthe
King. An amateur vidcotape which showed the officers assaulting Mr King had latenineteenth century "scientificracism" flourished, spawning falsetheories and
beenplayed repeatedly ontelevision intheweeksandmonthsbefore thetrial.The doctrinesused tojustify thebelief intheinherent inferiority of certain peoples or
verdict, which contradicted theevidence ofsustained assaultrecorded inthefilm the superiority of others as determined by genetically transmitted differences of
ledtoanexplosion ofrage across theUnited Statesandtoatleast 50fatalities and race.
extraordinary devastation in California. The United States, which has given the We still live under theinfluence ofthese scientifically spurious ideas.Their
greatest emphasis tothefreespeechprinciple, hasdiscovered thedepressing truth persistence explains the debate over the.use of law to seek to eliminate their
that a generation after the Civil Rights campaign, racism and poverty constitutes influence.
as massive a gulf as ever, separating the life chances of the black minority from Might not endorsement ofpolicies which firmly penalize racial hate speech
those oftheaffluent whitemajority. andpublication contribute tothatfirstgoalofthehumanrights movement, thatall
Thedifferent tendencies inthedebate over thecontrol ofhatespeech would peopleshouldbe treated asentitled toequalrespect anddignityregardless oftheir
equally accept the irrefutable evidence that moral indifference towards or active religion ornational orethnic origin? Would legal constraints ontheexpression or
~n~ouragement of manifestations of hatred leads to the destruction of civilized displayofbigotryandprejudice towardsthosewhoarethevictimsofdiscrimination
livmg, warandevenholocaust.Theentireandimpressivestructureofinternational makeadifference? Iscensorship justified ifitmuzzles racism?
hu~an rights law since 1945was built as amoral answer totheNazi ideology of Much censorship down thecenturies hasbeen advanced for idealcauses to
racism.
promoteversionsofthegoodorthetruth,whethersecularorreligious.Ithasalmost
Thegreatest focus of humanrights initiatives since 1945hasbeen onefforts always ended in disaster in theconstricting of debate, the suppression of dissent
ha~e righ~ ?e ':'010
to .the to free invidiousdiscrimination ongroundsofrace,gender and the corruption of the truth. The advocate of freedom of expression has no
orreligious belief llTev~rslblyaccepted intheworld. There have been significant difficulty in demonstrating the abuse of legal controls even on racial speech in
advan~esmthatcampaign. Theending ofthesystemofapartheidinSouthAfrica, contemporary history. The South African laws against racial hatred were used
apolitical system built on racist theory, has been one of the major andprofound systematically against thevictims ofitsracist policies.3InEasternEurope andthe
steps along theroad totheelimination ofracism. former Soviet Union laws against defamation and insult were vehicles for the
. .O~er125 states have ratified the main international treaty against racial persecution ofcritics who were oftenalso victims of state-tolerated or sponsored
discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of anti-Semitism.4The writer Salman Rushdie hasbeen subjected for threeyears to
Discrimina~on
Racial (CERD Convention). This Convention has deeply in persecution andadeath sentencebecause hisnovelwasdeclared aninsulttoIslam.
flu~ncedthedomestic lawsofmoststatesdiscussedinthisbook.Itnotonlyoutlaws The crux of the dilemma for the free speech advocate isnot a fear that the
racist speech but.~so the practice of discrimination, interalia,in employment, language ofintolerance orhatemaycontain truthwhichshouldbeheardbutrather
housmg, theprovision ofservices andotherfields. States,byvirtue ofArticle 2of
theConvention, arerequired toadopt apolicy ofpositive actiontoeliminate racial
dis~riminationincluding measures whichpromote understanding among different 2 Political, historical, economic, social and culturalfactors contributing to racism, racial
discrimination andapartheid (NewYork:UN,1991).
racial groups and assist minorities in social, economic, cultural and other fields.
. The creation of apublic opinion against racial discrimination is evidenced in the 3 SeethechaptersbyGilbertMarcusandLeneJohannesseninPartIll.
general acceptance of these norms which limit the individual's contractual and 4 SeethechapterontheformerSovietUnionbyStephenJRolhinPartIll.
property rights.
-2_
the old problem of quia custodiet custodies? Who is to oversee the censor? No
Thecontrast mayalsobeinfluencedbythedifferentlegalcultures,civil and
advocate of freedom ofexpression on human rights grounds could ordoesreject
commonlaw,whichhaveshapedmainlandEuropeandtheUnitedStates.TheFirst
the.v~lues which underlie the norms of non-discrimination. Human rights are
Amendment's injunction that "Congress shall make nolaw ...abridging freedom
indivisible. The strong advocacy of anti-discrimination policy is a feature, for
of speech or the press" reflects a distrust of federal regulation but also the
ex~mple,oftheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU)which,asNadineStrossen attachmenttotheEnglishtraditionsofnegativeliberty.Incontrast,theRomanLaw
points out, ismore regularly engagedin thestruggle againstracial discrimination traditionsofcodification whichbaveshapedEuropeanlawdonotequateregulation
throug9courtchallengesthanitisinflghtingrestricrionsonhatespeechinthesame with restriction or repression. To the contrary, codification of freedom of ex
courts.
pression rules including press codes, by specifying the scope of the right ~d
Nevertheless, against thereality thatweseemtoknow littleabout thecauses identifying limits, are seenaspositive guarantees ofthesefreedoms. TheEnglish
andeven lessabout theremedies forracial orreligious prejudices anddiscrimina situation, where neither a formal constitutional guarantee of free speech nor
tion, could it be that advocates of freedom of expression need to rethink the detailed codes oflaw exist,may be considered theleastsatisfactory systemfrom
justifications advancedforprivileging speech?Thatquestionwillbereturned toat
whichtodevelopprincipled protection ofrightsinconflict.
theendofthisoverview.
Itisworthnoting thatthiscontrastbetween theUnited Statesand therest of
the world has always been present at least in thepost-war era. The efforts after
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
WorldWar IItoestablish aglobal code offreedom ofinformation failedinlarge
part because of the unbridgeable gulf between the then-Socialist states and the
Oneapproach toconstructing ananswer tothedilemmaraisedby haieexpression United States over the priority of right or duty and the role of the state in the
ISto examine what policies are in fact pursued by states, and what policies are regulation offreedomofspeechand thepress.
mandated by the international code of human rights standards elaborated since The most important early debates on this subject took place at the United
1945.Thatistheapproach adopted inthisbook. NationsConference onFreedom ofInformation in 1948.The key actorswere the
PartI1I,CountryExperiences, cannot claim tobecomprehensive (onemight UnitedStatesand the SovietUnion. The fruitsofthatconference includedadraft
noteinparticular thatitexcludes themostpopulousoftheworld's states,China a setofguidelines for theworld's press, adraft convention on freedomofinforma
societywhich combines atraditionalculture ofxenophobia withtotalcensorship). tion,a draft convention on the right to correction and a draft convention on the
BU~ for those countries which are examined, it is clear that they divide into the gatheringand transmission ofnews.
ymted Statesandtherest.IntheUnitedStatesthebalance isunequivocally drawn The conference, although it achievedmuch, failed over a central problem:
m favour of freedom ofspeech. There isno federal regulation and minimal state irreconcilable concepts of freedom and responsibility of the media. On the one
regulation of hate expression. No other country has the equivalent of the First hand, the United States insisted on the widest definition of freedom. It accepted
Amendment or the jurisprudence which has developed around it. In the other thatthepressbadtoactresponsibly,butitopposedanyroleforthestateinensuring
countries the balance is found through theacceptance thatracist speech must be truthful and ethical media standards. On the other hand, the Soviet delegates
sanclIO~edunderconditionsprescribed bystatute.Thechapters inthisbook about emphasizedresponsibility before freedom, andinsisted ontheright ofthestate to
the United States all address the contemporary context fordiscussion of the bate supervise the press." A chief concern of the Soviets was the suppression ofwar
speech issue inthatcountry; namely, college campuses. Thatdebate concerns the propagandaandincitement tonationalhatred.While thegoalofelimination ofwar
compatibility of the constitutional values offreedom ofexpression withdiscipli propaganda was sharedby theUS, atissue wasthe means.The USviewwasthat
~ary~odesthatrestrain abusiveandinsultingspeechdirectedatmembersofgroups greaterfreedomofallcommunications wouldbethebestanswer todistortion; the
Id~ntIfied by reference to such characteristics as ethnic or national origin, race, Sovietswanted stateresponsibility.
religion, genderand sexual orientation.
Ultimately, there was no way out of the deadlock over what the limits on
Noothercountryentrydiscussestheissueofcampushatespeech.Thisisnot, expression are and how they are to be enforced. The conference failed but had
presumably,because thephenomenon ofracistexpressioninuniversitieselsewhere influential effects for the modern debate over hate expression. Article 19of the
in the world does notpresent a problem, but because such regulation would be Universal Declaration wasdrafted atthe conference, andtheclause inArticle 19
unproblematic giventheexistenceofconstitutionalandlegislativestandardswhich oftheICCPR thatrefers tothe "specialdutiesandresponsibilities" intheexercise
fo~
allow the imposition of restraint by criminal or civil laws on hate speech. offreedom ofexpression canalsobesourcedtothedebate at theconference. The
Bxplanationsforthedisti~ctivepositionoftheUnitedStatesmustincludeitshistory UnitedNationsGenocide Convention 1948includedasapunishable crime "direct
asasocietybornmrebellionagamst,amongotherthings,censorship. Thefactthat andpublic incitement tocommit genocide". (The long campaign topursuade the
it was a "drawingboard" societybuilt byimmigrants made possible theassertion United States to ratify the Genocide Convention succeeded in 1988.)Lastly, the
o! ~ew pr~nciples of democratic republican order. In contrast, the European so adoption of Article 20 of the ICCPR and its prohibition of warpropaganda and
cieues WhIChthe waves of immigrants left could not.erase theirhistories ofwar expression which incites national, racial orreligious hatred wasadded tothetext
religious and ethnic quarrelsandconflict. '
oftheICCPR ontheinitiativeoftheSovietUnionandalliedstates,havingbeena
clausefirstpromoted by theUSSRattheUN conference.
5 SeethechapterbyNadineStrossen inPartIll. 6 GGarboA World ofDifference: Thelnumationai Distribution ofInformation:TheMedia and
Developing Countries.
-4 -