Gideon Polya, “Law, incitement & freedom of expression”, MWC News, 8 January 2007 [updated & edited January 2010].
Law, incitement & freedom of expression
Freedom of expression is vital for a properly functioning society but serious concerns arise when people incite racism and violence. Indeed British laws now prohibit expressions of opinion that may incite racial hatred and/or incite violence. There is clearly a huge difference between Words and Deeds, but as the history of the last century has shown, racist incitement can lead to horrendous violence and human rights abuses [e.g. the Nazi-imposed WW2 European Holocaust, 30 million Slavs, Jews and Gypsies killed; British colonial racism and 6-7 million Indians deliberately starved to death in the WW2 Bengali Holocaust; and the neo-con- and racist Zionist(RZ) -promoted US Alliance War on Terror, 9 million post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories]. Further, respect for the Law is vital for a secure and orderly society - but what should happen when the fundamental human right of freedom of expression conflicts with laws passed by a democratically-elected parliamentary majority? This essay briefly explores these issues using some seminal examples.
1. Convictions for anti-war defacement of the Sydney Opera House (Sydney, 2003)
Two antiwar activists (Will Saunders, 42, and Dave Burgess, 33) were sentenced to nine months’ periodic detention (weekend detention) and ordered to pay $151,000 clean-up costs for writing “No War” in red paint on one of the iconic Sydney Opera House’s “sails” in March 2003 in protest against Australian participation in the illegal US invasion of Iraq. Their physical desecration of the Sydney Opera House followed an earlier demonstration when two people ascended the iconic building and unfurled a banner opposing the impending Iraq War.
The punishment of these “red paint” anti-war activists aroused considerable controversy. Thus Richard Phillips writing in the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) (4 February 2004) declared: “The unprecedented prison term, handed down three months after they were found guilty of “malicious damage” charges last October [2003], is a serious attack on democratic rights and a clear attempt to intimidate future protestors” (see: HERE ).
Libertarians would argue that (a) freedom of expression and (b) duty to publicly oppose an illegal war and consequent war crimes that would kill thousands of innocent people justified violation of the Sydney Opera House and of the Law. However it can be legitimately argued that non-damaging ways of exercising freedom of expression were available (e.g. use of banners rather than red paint and use of celebrities to gain public attention rather than defacement of an iconic public building) and that the real issue was surely opposing war rather than challenging the Law.
Heroic people in all kinds of contexts have legitimately challenged unfair Laws, and especially Laws that violate human rights conventions. However in this instance law-abiding conservatives (such as myself) could argue that Saunders and Burgess, while evidently courageous, humanitarian and well-intentioned, could have exercised their imagination better and publicized their vital message in a legal and yet even more effective way e.g. draping the Sydney Harbour cliffs with a giant “No War” sign after the fashion of the celebrated 1969 event when the international artist Christo and his wife Jean-Claude came to Australia and made the world’s largest sculpture: “Wrapped Coast – One Million Square Feet, Little Bay, Sydney, Australia” (see: HERE ).
The following example may be instructive in this context. The Indigenous (Aboriginal) people of Australia have been subject to horrendous genocide since the first European invasion in 1788. The Indigenous population dropped from about 1 million at the time of the European Invasion in 1788 to merely 0.1 million a century later due to dispossession, deprivation, disease and massacre. In the 20th century the genocide continued by forcible removal of about 0.1 million Aboriginal children from their mothers (the Stolen Generations), appalling discrimination and still continuing Third World living conditions. The Aboriginal Genocide (described as such by Australia’s top genocide expert, Professor Colin Tatz) is continuing – thus the “annual death rate” is 2.2% (for Indigenous Australians), 2.4% (for Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory), 0.4% (what it should be for the high birth rate Aboriginal community), 0.7% (for White Australians) and 2.5% (for sheep in pre-drought paddocks of Australian sheep farms). Words having failed – the Aboriginal Genocide continues in extremely prosperous Australia - I painted a huge painting, the “Sydney Madonna” to bring the continuing Aboriginal Genocide to international attention (see “Sydney Madonna” : http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/sydney-madonna ).
Thanks to MWC News this painting and its acutely serious message is being exhibited around the World on the Web – but my earnest suggestion that it be projected onto the biggest “sail” of the Sydney Opera House has not yet received a response from the authorities.
2. Conviction of an intemperate protestor for “soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred” (London, 2007).
Last week [January 2007] a British jury convicted a 27-year-old British Muslim, Umran Javed, of “soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred” after he spoke at a rally outside the Danish Embassy in London last February against the Danish cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad. The Prosecution alleged that he appeared to lead protesters in chants of “Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb U.S.A.” However Umran Javed told the court that they were “just slogans, sound bites”; that he regretted his intemperance; and that “I did not want to see Denmark and the U.S.A. being bombed” - i.e. his defence was that his words were rhetorical rather than serious exhortations to horrendous violence. The jury thought otherwise and Umran Javed will be sentenced in April (for relevant media reports see: HERE , HERE and HERE).
Laws against "incitement to racism and murder" are clearly reasonable when the incitement is directed intra-nationally i.e against fellow citizens within the national jurisdiction. At the very least such incitement could constitute egregious “breach of the peace”. However internationally-directed "incitement to racism and murder" becomes more arguable. Thus member nations of the United Nations have a right to defend themselves from attacks on their territory and at the time of the Falklands War many Britons were publicly in favour of a “just war” to expel the Argentinian invaders. In contrast, British citizen advocacy of illegal invasion of other countries by Britain is potential Holocaust Promotion if it leads to Holocaust Commission e.g. the 0.9 million excess deaths associated with Bush-Blair warmongering over Iraq [2.5 million as of January 2010] . Accordingly such incitement surely requires some constraint in circumstances when the murderous, racist urgings are being realized.
In Australia under the recently-enacted Anti-Terrorism Laws, explicit support for specifically proscribed terrorist violence is punishable by 7 years in prison (for verbal support under the Sedition sections); up to 25 years in prison (for explicit membership of proscribed organizations); and life imprisonment (for financial support of proscribed organizations). Muslim non-state terrorism has killed 7,000 Western civilians over the last 40 years (including Israelis and assuming no US or Israeli involvement in 9/11) - whereas UK-US State Terrorism has been involved in 3.0 million post-invasion deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories [9 million as of January 2010]. Israeli State Terrorism is responsible for 0.3 million post-invasion deaths in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Accordingly, parity would suggest that supporters of deadly UK State Terrorism, US State Terrorism, Israeli State Terrorism and US-Israeli State Terrorism (USIST) (e.g. the extremely vocal and influential Racist Zionists of the various Israel Lobbies, the Racist Religious Right Republican (R4) Bush-ites and the neocon Bush-ites in the West in general) should cop the same penalties as those supporting the evil of non-state terrorism.
In summary, freedom of expression is vital but needs to be proportionately constrained if intra-national or inter-national racism and murder are likely outcomes. Civil disobedience is a last resort when laws are manifestly and egregiously discriminatory and unjust (as in the US Deep South or in Apartheid South Africa). There are effective and imaginative ways of getting a serious humanitarian message across without breaking the Law. Deeds are clearly more serious than Words. One hopes that the British law applied so vigorously to an angry and insulted Muslim protestor in London for his intemperate, rhetorical Words will now be applied forcefully to those publicly promoting anti-Arab anti-Semitism (racism), Islamophobia (bigotry) and war (racist violence) i.e. to those whose Words have already been translated into horrendous Deeds and 3.0 million post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories.
[PS. 14 February 2010 note: the Australian MP Rudd asserts that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the Australian Minister for Defence has used his powers three times to stop the shipment of materials to Iran because of fears about how they could be used, and an Australian MP, Nationals Senator Julian McGauran has suggested recently that an international force bomb Iran (see “Iran blasts animals into space”, ABC TV Lateline, 4 February 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2810789.htm ): “KAREN BARLOW [ABC]: Iran maintains its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes. The West wants proof.
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR (voiceover translation): I can say quite simply we will measure it by the actions that actually follow.
KAREN BARLOW: Australia has been taking its own actions. The Defence Minister has used his powers three times to stop the shipment of materials because of fears about how they could be used.
The Prime Minister says Iran's nuclear program is against Australia's security interests.
KEVIN RUDD, PRIME MINISTER: We have exercised the powers under the act appropriately. Iran does have a nuclear weapons program. We are party to international obligations. We exercise those obligations because we believe we must play the role of a responsible international citizen.
KAREN BARLOW: Liberal Senator Julian McGauran has got his own ideas, suggesting an international force bomb Iran.
JULIAN MCGAURAN, LIBERAL SENATOR: It's not a question of invading Iran. It is a question of air power and taking out their nuclear facilities. But nevertheless it's not going to be easy diplomatically or militarily. Of course there'll be an enormous Middle East disruption. But the real question is: what if Iran does get nuclear capacity? Do we have the moral fibre to stop them?”
However in contrast to pro-Zionist Australian politician fantasy, a key United States government agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, has published a report entitled, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, which states: “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” and the head of the IAEA said in mid-2009 that he knew of no hard evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (see “IAEA: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons” : http://www.examiner.com/x-14613-Kansas-City-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m7d9-IAEA--Iran-is-not-developing-nuclear-weapons )].