Tweet
The Brunei Times, Brunei Darussalam
Jan 3 2007
It's a war of the words
George P Fletcher
03-Feb-07
NOWADAYS, words are often seen as a source of instability.
The violent reactions last year to the caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) published in a Danish newspaper saw a confused
Western response, with governments tripping over their tongues trying
to explain what the media should and should not be allowed to do in
the name of political satire.
Then Iran trumped the West by sponsoring a conference of Holocaust
deniers, a form of speech punished as criminal almost everywhere in
Europe.
As Turks well know, it is dangerous to take a position on the
Armenian genocide of 1915. The most recent Nobel laureate in
literature, Orhan Pamuk, was prosecuted in Istanbul for denying
Turkey's official history by saying that the Armenian genocide
actually occurred.
Other Turks have faced prosecution in Western Europe for saying that
it did not.
So words are now clearly a battlefield in the cultural conflict
between Islam and the West.
The West has learned that, simply as a matter of self-censorship, not
legal fiat, newspapers and other media outlets will not disseminate
critical pictures of the prophet, and the Pope will no longer make
critical comments about Islam. But these gestures of cooperation with
Muslim sensibilities have not been met by reciprocal gestures.
Instead, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Irans president, has threatened to wipe
Israel off the map. The Israeli Foreign Ministry now seeks
prosecution of Ahmedinejad for incitement to commit genocide a
violation of international law.
But the Israeli press is also bellicose. Israeli newspapers regularly
carry stories about why Israel may need to attack Iran to prevent it
from acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
United States President George W Bush has made similarly ominous, if
more vague, statements about Iran.
In Germany, preparing and calling for preemptive military strikes
from within the government are subject to criminal sanctions.
The worlds different legal systems have never been in much agreement
about the boundaries of free speech.
Even between good neighbours like Canada and the US, there is little
agreement about punishing hate speech.
Canadians punish racial insults, but Americans do not, at least if
the issue is simply one of protecting the dignity of racial
minorities.
But threatening violence is more serious. Many countries are united
in supporting the principle that if, say, Ahmedinejad does meet the
criteria for incitement of genocide, he should be punished in the
International Criminal Court. Indeed, the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda punished radio station operators who made
aggressive public broadcasts urging Hutus to pick up their machetes
and murder Tutsis.
A decade ago there would have been a good argument in international
law that the Hutu-Tutsi example supports prosecution only after the
damage has been done.
All the international precedents from Nuremberg to the present
concern international intervention after mass atrocities.
Domestic police may be able to intervene to prevent crime before it
occurs, but in the international arena there is no police force that
can do that.
It follows, therefore, that the crime of incitement should apply only
to cases like Rwanda, where the radio broadcasts actually contributed
to the occurrence of genocide.
In cases where bellicose leaders make public threats to bury another
country (remember Khrushchev?) or to wipe it off the map, the courts
should wait, it was said, until some harm occurs.
But the international community has become ever more intrusive in
using legal remedies against persons who engage in provocative and
dangerous speech. In September 2005, the United Nations Security
Council passed Resolution 1624 paradoxically, with American approval
calling upon all member states to enact criminal sanctions against
those who incite terrorism.
The model of incitement they had in mind is the same one that British
Prime Minister Blair has publicly invoked: Muslim leaders standing up
in their mosques and urging their congregations to go out and kill
infidels.
Americans have traditionally said that, absent a risk of immediate
unlawful violence, this form of speech should be protected under the
First Amendment.
US courts reasoned that it is better to allow the release of hateful
sentiments than to call attention to them by showcasing them in
court.
But when it comes to terrorism in todays world, most countries,
including the worlds democracies, are not as tolerant as they used to
be.
So the traditional liberal position in support of giving wide scope
to freedom of speech, even for extremists, is losing ground
everywhere.
When it comes to fighting terrorism and the prospect of genocide, the
world is now becoming afraid of dangerous words.
George P Fletcher is Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at Columbia
University. His latest book is Romantics at War: Glory and Guilt in
the Age of Terrorism.
Project Syndicate
http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.p hp?shape_ID=19492
Jan 3 2007
It's a war of the words
George P Fletcher
03-Feb-07
NOWADAYS, words are often seen as a source of instability.
The violent reactions last year to the caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) published in a Danish newspaper saw a confused
Western response, with governments tripping over their tongues trying
to explain what the media should and should not be allowed to do in
the name of political satire.
Then Iran trumped the West by sponsoring a conference of Holocaust
deniers, a form of speech punished as criminal almost everywhere in
Europe.
As Turks well know, it is dangerous to take a position on the
Armenian genocide of 1915. The most recent Nobel laureate in
literature, Orhan Pamuk, was prosecuted in Istanbul for denying
Turkey's official history by saying that the Armenian genocide
actually occurred.
Other Turks have faced prosecution in Western Europe for saying that
it did not.
So words are now clearly a battlefield in the cultural conflict
between Islam and the West.
The West has learned that, simply as a matter of self-censorship, not
legal fiat, newspapers and other media outlets will not disseminate
critical pictures of the prophet, and the Pope will no longer make
critical comments about Islam. But these gestures of cooperation with
Muslim sensibilities have not been met by reciprocal gestures.
Instead, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Irans president, has threatened to wipe
Israel off the map. The Israeli Foreign Ministry now seeks
prosecution of Ahmedinejad for incitement to commit genocide a
violation of international law.
But the Israeli press is also bellicose. Israeli newspapers regularly
carry stories about why Israel may need to attack Iran to prevent it
from acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
United States President George W Bush has made similarly ominous, if
more vague, statements about Iran.
In Germany, preparing and calling for preemptive military strikes
from within the government are subject to criminal sanctions.
The worlds different legal systems have never been in much agreement
about the boundaries of free speech.
Even between good neighbours like Canada and the US, there is little
agreement about punishing hate speech.
Canadians punish racial insults, but Americans do not, at least if
the issue is simply one of protecting the dignity of racial
minorities.
But threatening violence is more serious. Many countries are united
in supporting the principle that if, say, Ahmedinejad does meet the
criteria for incitement of genocide, he should be punished in the
International Criminal Court. Indeed, the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda punished radio station operators who made
aggressive public broadcasts urging Hutus to pick up their machetes
and murder Tutsis.
A decade ago there would have been a good argument in international
law that the Hutu-Tutsi example supports prosecution only after the
damage has been done.
All the international precedents from Nuremberg to the present
concern international intervention after mass atrocities.
Domestic police may be able to intervene to prevent crime before it
occurs, but in the international arena there is no police force that
can do that.
It follows, therefore, that the crime of incitement should apply only
to cases like Rwanda, where the radio broadcasts actually contributed
to the occurrence of genocide.
In cases where bellicose leaders make public threats to bury another
country (remember Khrushchev?) or to wipe it off the map, the courts
should wait, it was said, until some harm occurs.
But the international community has become ever more intrusive in
using legal remedies against persons who engage in provocative and
dangerous speech. In September 2005, the United Nations Security
Council passed Resolution 1624 paradoxically, with American approval
calling upon all member states to enact criminal sanctions against
those who incite terrorism.
The model of incitement they had in mind is the same one that British
Prime Minister Blair has publicly invoked: Muslim leaders standing up
in their mosques and urging their congregations to go out and kill
infidels.
Americans have traditionally said that, absent a risk of immediate
unlawful violence, this form of speech should be protected under the
First Amendment.
US courts reasoned that it is better to allow the release of hateful
sentiments than to call attention to them by showcasing them in
court.
But when it comes to terrorism in todays world, most countries,
including the worlds democracies, are not as tolerant as they used to
be.
So the traditional liberal position in support of giving wide scope
to freedom of speech, even for extremists, is losing ground
everywhere.
When it comes to fighting terrorism and the prospect of genocide, the
world is now becoming afraid of dangerous words.
George P Fletcher is Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at Columbia
University. His latest book is Romantics at War: Glory and Guilt in
the Age of Terrorism.
Project Syndicate
http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.p hp?shape_ID=19492