Next week, Geneva, Switzerland will be host to the Durban Review Conference, a review of the Durban Declaration of 2001. The Durban Declaration, and supporting documents, are anti-racist, meant to declare and condemn those who would perpetrate racist policies and other forms of intolerance, such as that against women or HIV+ people. A rather noble cause, one the U.S. would be sure to get behind, you'd think.
However, according to CNN, the U.S. will be boycotting the conference, along with Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, and Israel, due to revisions that did not meet the expectations of the U.S. Specifically, the Programme of Action adopted contains language that "prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians," according to the State Department. Other countries voiced similar concerns over the singling out of Israel and the Palestinian Conflict. Obama's administration also rejected language concerning the incitement of racial hatred, citing First Amendment conflicts with free speech. However, the Obama administration will still be committed to ending bigotry and racial inequality with other nations.
Ironically, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay released a statement in response to the boycott, saying "A handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of intolerance to a pernicious and life-damaging degree on a daily basis all across the world, in both developed and developing countries." While charging the boycotter's with narrow-mindedness and tunnel vision, she fails to recognize that such single-minded determination on a single issue is what caused these nations to boycott the conference in the first place. The first Durban Conference was plagued by constant attacks on Israel's side in the Palestinian conflict, and reaffirming the Durban documents is rather counter to what Israel and its allies consider fair. As noted before in this blog, the UN is not infallible in rooting out the forces of intolerance. The UN is merely a conglomerate of its members, and if the members continue to be unabashedly intolerant, then the UN can not claim to be above such things either. Hiding intolerance behind the guise of attacking intolerance does not justify anything - the ends do NOT justify the means.
While this issue may not be a specific offense against free speech, it is still an example of what is to come, and what has passed - the continual, deliberate erosion of freedoms by those who cover themselves in the cloak of "equality." The equality they fight for, however, is the "freedom" to continue their own inhumane and intolerant policies while denying others the ability to criticize them. It is unfortunate that it should seem the divide fall along religious grounds, but if such is the case, then such are the terms to be used - no pussyfooting around it.
However, the incitement clause is a heavy indictment against free speech. Free speech includes the right to hold opinions different from our own, no matter how repugnant we may find them. It is this variance of thought that is embedded in the Constitution. The Durban Programme of Action, though, calls for the signatories to "denounce and actively discourage" racist and xenophobic comments on the internet. Under US judicial precedence, the closest exceptions to protected speech are incitement to crime, breach of the peace, and fighting words. Fighting words, however, must be addressed to a single person, and racist/xenophobic comments on the Internet are not exactly addressed individually. Incitement to crime requires that the speaker deliberately attempt to convince the listener to commit racial violence. Merely ranting about the intellectual and moral inadequacies of racial groups is not enough cause to indict on incitement. Causing a breach of the peace requires some form of unwilling, unreasonable disruption of "peace and quiet," which doesn't exactly happen on the Internet. There is a certain kind of deliberate action that must be taken to access Internet content, and that level of implied consent denies any claim to "peace and quiet." Since mere transmission of racist/xenophobic comments don't fall under unprotected speech categories, that means that they are protected under the free speech doctrine, and constitutionally, the US can not accept the terms of the Durban Programme of Action as they stand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a difficult topic on which to pick sides. On the one hand, ridding racist and derogatory speech sounds nice, on the other hand, it grossly infringes on our right to free expression. I would say the US is doing the right thing in boycotting the conference. Racist speech will probably never leave the world; just like the old punishment of putting a quarter in a jar every time one swears might teach him a lesson, he will probably not quit cursing. The World is full of different people, and different people have disagreements, and it is almost inevitable that conflict will arise through many vehicles. It becomes exceedingly more difficult when religion is involved, as in the case with Israel and Palestine. You make a good point about equality. And, often times equality is in the eyes of the beholder, depending on where, locationally, you are.
ReplyDeleteAs we found out in class, fighting words are not covered under the First Amendment, but they must be directed at a person. Often times, racist comments are directed at a group, instead of a single person. So, you are right, the US cannot accept banning all of racist speech, as not all of it is classified as fighting words. This Durban Conference seemed like a nice idea, but I really do not know if it will completely work out—it goes against too many of our ideals of the First Amendment. The World may never be a perfect place in regards to friendly speech.
It is unfortunate that the Durbin Conference had to have intolerance, yet I think that the U.S. should have still sent an agent to look at what is going on in the conference. Although the thoughts and opinions are different from ours, we need to see what is going on in their minds.
ReplyDeleteI don't think fighting words can be used in this case. Keep in mind that fighting words is rarely applied.
Interesting post, the Durban Declaration is new to me. I think you hit the nail on the head in pointing out the irony underlying Navi Pillay's charge... it seems that the narrow-mindedness is exactly what these countries are boycotting in the Durban Declaration.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kim that it sounds nice to get rid of racism. Prohibiting racist speech isn't the right way to go about it. As we've seen argued numerous times in class, the solution to the truth is letting all ideas out into the marketplace. I have a feeling that racists will get slammed harder if they are allowed to talk. It sounds like the Durban Declaration is promoting viewpoint discrimination on the internet? As you argued, protected speech would no longer be protected.
I'm thinking about the consequences of such policies. Would authors of books like the Bell Curve not being allowed to publish their ideas? Whether its prior restraint or subsequent punishment, their speech doesn't fall under what is unprotected- incitement to crime, breach of peace, or fighting words. And if they weren't allowed to publish their work, the hoards of critics would never have had the chance to tear it to shreds.
I think you're dead on. The Durban Declaration is not consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and I don't see how the U.S. can support it when it fundamentally contradicts our ideas about free speech.