OVO

Amnesty International comes in two flavors.  First we have Irrepressible.info, an Amnesty International campaign:

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information. The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression. The web is a great tool for sharing ideas and freedom of expression. However, efforts to try and control the Internet are growing. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it.  The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.

And second we have Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All, an Amnesty International public statement:

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute – neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such “hate speech” should be prohibited by law. AI calls on the government officials and those responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice to be guided by these human rights principles in their handling of the current situation.

What is the ‘current situation’ mentioned in the above quote?  Was it the publication of twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005? Or was it the murderous response of thousands of Muslims around the world after the publication of twelve editorial cartoons?  Again, from Freedom of Speech Carries Responsibilities for All:

Newspaper editors have justified the publication of cartoons that many Muslims have regarded as insulting, arguing that freedom of artistic expression and critique of opinions and beliefs are essential in a pluralist and democratic society. On the other hand, Muslims in numerous countries have found the cartoons to be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and an abuse of freedom of speech. In a number of cases, protests against the cartoons have degenerated into acts of physical violence, while public statements by some protestors and community leaders have been seen as fanning the flames of hostility and violence. [...] AI also calls on those working in the media to act with sensitivity and responsibility so as not to exacerbate the current situation. This incident highlights the power and reach of the media and AI calls on those in the media to apply greater political judgement, taking into account the potential impact of their output and the range of often competing human rights considerations involved. While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable. Community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence. Culture and religion are of central importance to many people’s lives, but they cannot be used as an excuse to abuse human rights.

Amnesty International presents ‘the current situation’ as a controversy.  On the one hand are cartoons and on the other hand are murderers.  Both sides are equally worthy of respect and should talk it out.  But they are not equally worthy of respect.  Murdering people over cartoons is never worthy of respect, not in any circumstance.  It is never a controversy, it is never open to debate.  It is absolutely wrong, in a world where much is morally ambiguous.  The comics did offend some Muslims, perhaps even deeply.  I think some of the cartoons may have been drawn and published with that goal in mind.  And even then, murder over cartoons is not justified.  The publication of cartoons is a peaceful expression of opinion and a peaceful protest.  Every Muslim on the entire planet should be free to make offending cartoons (even deeply offending cartoons) about anything they like.  Amnesty International does condemn the use and threat of violence and urges community leaders must do everything in their power to defuse the current atmosphere of hostility and violence.  That’s an organization I can support.  Amnesty International does consider freedom of expression as a fundamental human right.  I can get behind that too.  But shame on Amnesty International abandoning its own principles when it comes to “hate speech.”

Why is the right to freedom of expression not absolute?  If freedom of expression is not absolute then what is it other than a lack of freedom of expression?  The Bible and the Quran call for the murder of non-believers.  If we are to respect a believer’s freedom of superstition, we do so by respecting their freedom of speech.  And if we respect their freedom of speech, we must respect the freedom of speech of others.  Absolutely.  All the way up to these pesky heretics, who are now serving time in prison exclusively because of words and pictures they published on the internet.  I say freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it. The more people take part the more we show that freedom of expression cannot be repressed.  What do you say?