More on hate speech and incitement

A guest on a live discussion programme said there were Zionist attempts to spread Aids and other diseases to Arabs. On December 2, the station accused Israel of “an unprecedented campaign” to stop it revealing to European viewers “the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel”.

The French broadcasting authority, CSA, said in a letter to al-Manar that Israel had never been held responsible for crimes against humanity by an international judicial body.

Hmm, this is odd. Quick googling reveals:

United Nations
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Report of the Fifth Special Session
(17-19 October 2000)
…
II. Resolution adopted by the Commission at its fifth special session

S-5/1. Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel

The Commission on Human Rights,

Meeting in special session,

Guided by the purposes and principles blah, blah, blah…

Gravely concerned at the widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by [the] Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity,
…

I think the French broadcasting authority should’ve instead argued that it’s a blatant lie that the abovementioned campaign is unprecedented. This pretext would be as good as any other pretext, but at least not factually incorrect.

“The French broadcasting authority, CSA, said in a letter to al-Manar that Israel had never been held responsible for crimes against humanity by an international judicial body.”

I think that a history of human rights abuses would suggest that international judicial bodies tend to hold countries and high officials responsible for crimes against humanity at least as often after, and partly as a result of, journalistic polemic, rather than the other way around.

Should Hitchens not be able to publish his condemnation of Kissinger’s “crimes” because no court has yet held Kissinger responsible?

“would those facts justify the suppression of a TV station? Or not?”

Plainly, given the distinctions pointed out by abb1, not.

“So far this seems to me to be more an issue about an ethno-religious group’s dirty laundry, than free speech per se. For me, free speech is an issue of state authority; censorship is always first official.”

I agree with your distinction. But I wonder if mobilisation to prevent adverse coverage of ethnic or religious groups’ dirty laundry is actually more of a problem for the virtues and benefits of a free media in the contemporary West than official censorship.

Your heart sinks when you click on “Comments” and right at the top of what you hoped would be an interesting thread (the previous one had some good points and civil debate) you encounter another long pasting from ABB1 on “evil Israel”.

Back on topic (in the hope that the discussion can continue by gingerly avoiding the dog-deposit on the sidewalk) the Canadian broadcast licensing body (CRTC) recently allowed Al Jazeera onto Canadian TV under rules similar to the French CSA’s. So far — perhaps fearing to run afoul of the CRTC’s strict oversight — none of the Canadian cable or satellite companies have opted to add Al Jazeera to their services. This hasn’t stopped the channel’s fans from going into the TV black market to watch it via EchoStar’s Dish Network in the U.S.

Your heart sinks when you click on “Comments” and right at the top of what you hoped would be an interesting thread (the previous one had some good points and civil debate) you encounter another long pasting from ABB1 on “evil Israel”.

It’s not that long and it’s not on “evil Israel”, in fact it has almost nothing to do with Israel. And, with all due respect, I don’t understand how this is close to the line.

It’s directly related to the CSA’s excuse for censoring this station. The excuse is a silly one – is anybody disputing this? I hope not, because it seems obvious enough that if the human rights comission uses the same language, it just can’t be true that this language constitute an incitement to hatred. Unless we are in some Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass world.

Now, if, as you say the facts are as the CSA suggest they are – by which, I take it, you mean that

Al-Manar’s words, it said, could constitute an incitement to hatred or violence on grounds of religion or nationality

– then this is still preposterous – I mean the word could, of course.

Finaly, if pundits on this station are, indeed, routinely, regularly (not once a month, but, say, at least a few times in one week) involved in promoting hatred or violence on grounds of religion or nationality – then, I suppose, warning it and then censoring it is warranted.

I was reading “heroes and villians” from the Observer today and they mention Robert Kilroy-Silk who branded Arabs “suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors” and more. Now, that’s what I call ‘incitement to hatred’. Apparently the Muslim Council of Britain and others asked the BBC to get rid of this guy – and they did. Isn’t this a better way to censor?

Thanks.

Walt, but the CSA says it’s the “crimes against humanity” statement that was offensive, not the “campaign to stop revealing” part. And that’s what I responded to.

As far as ‘campaign to stop revealing crimes’ charge – I don’t see anything offensive here, and neither does the CSA, apparently, since they are denying the crimes in the first place.

As far as the ‘attempts to spread Aids and other diseases to Arabs’ – I’d like to read the exact full quote in context. It certainly sounds like provocative rhetoric and it may or may not be ‘incitement to hatred’.

And, again, assuming that it was what a reasonble person would call “incitement to hatred”, a natural reaction would’ve been to apply some public pressure first, to ask them to avoid inviting this kind of ‘guests’. Would you agree?

Incidentally, just a moment ago I ended watching a documentary
La CIA et le LSD – nom de code artichaut that (among other things) comes very close to directly accusing the US government of using biological weapons in the Korean war. And Cheney and Rumsfeld of covering it up. On TSR, Swiss public channel.

So, again, talking about ‘Zionist attempts to spread Aids and other diseases’ may very well constitute an incitement to hatred, it sounds like it does that, but it may as well refer to something completely different, like what this documentary apparently is – investigative journalism; slightly conspiratorial and sensationalist.

“For me, free speech is an issue of state authority; censorship is always first official. And there is no whiff of official censorship here yet.”

I think this is about free speech, and I don’t think free speech issues are always connected to state authority. It’s nonsense that censorship is always first official; it happens unofficially when people self-censor to avoid criminal intimidation. What you’re saying is that if the police beat you up for saying something, it’s a free speech issue, but if people (working in a purely private capacity) beat you up for saying something, it isn’t. This is a false distinction.

The sad fact is, in Britain today, if you say things that some religous groups don’t like many of their members are perfectly prepared to engage in criminal activity to try and intimidate you (and others) into shutting up. And that this tactic is highly effective.

The usual comeback to this is: “it’s just an minority”, you’re tarring everyone with the same brush. But “respectable” members of the community aren’t adverse to using this minority to advance their cause. In this example, Mohan Singh, a temple leader, is saying that the play has to be withdrawn or he will organise more protests, and that “on Saturday there were only 400 people – think what it would be like with five to 10,000 people”, that they “may boil over into further violence”, that “people from outside the city may not be so easy… for the police to control”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4109255.stm

This is quite simply an effort at violent intimidation. The reason that it’s being used by (some) Sikhs is that it has worked when (some) Muslims tried it – creating an incentive for everyone else to have a go. And it’s working now. The theatre company has made changes to try and appease their critics, and talks are being held between the police, theatre managers and (self-appointed) “community leaders” to try and resolve the dispute. Frankly, the theatre should have refused to participate, but I doubt “state authority” in the form of the police, would have looked kindly upon this.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that many of the people protesting outside the theatre, together with people from other religious group (such as the Catholic Bishop offering them support), are all for official censorship. And if the rest of us let them get away with it, the state would be using its power to prevent people from saying things they don’t like.

I’ve no doubt there are decent Sikhs and people of other religions who are all for free speech, are opposed to this sort of thing, and think that God is big enough to stick up for Himself (and his followers). Tragically, there aren’t enough of them.

abb1, I think it fairly obvious that if Al-Manar are broadcasting claims of “Zionist attempts to spread Aids” , that means that they are broadcasting crazy anti-Israel (and almost certainly anti-Semitic) conspiracy theories.

Familiar with any Christian fundamentalist channels? Not to mention certain well known radio hosts. Lots of competition in the wacky conspiracy theory department out there.

They’re not Arab. Makes all the difference in the world.

If in doubt, try imagining if William Donahue had been president of CAIR instead of the Catholic League.

What about Bill O’Reilly? would he get away with half the things he says if he wasn’t white, Christian (so to speak) and Republican? “If you don’t like Christmas, you can go back to Israel”? Fox News spreading hoax stories about Jews having something to do with 9/11? they just pulled it quietly.

It’s all relative, apparently.

A guest on a _live_ programme accused Israel of spreading AIDS to Arabs and this is enough to shut down a station?

Sounds dodgy.

Last week I made the mistake of reading the Wall Street Journal op-ed page and they had a piece/tirade accusing France 2 in general and Israel correspondent Charles Enderlin in particular of manufacturing a story of civilian Palestinian deaths. I think Enderlin did a story on what looked like footage of a Palestinian kid being shot by Israeli soldiers but later it turned out not to be provable as such. There’s now talk of legal action by someone in Israel to force Enderlin to retract, which I wonder is what al Manar had in mind with their other accusation of Israel suppressing evidence in Europe.

People who seem to think that al-Manar is comparable to Bill O’Reilly

Yes, they _equivalate_.

Urbina, you are probably right…

But someone asked what I think (on the ban on al-Manar). I’m not keen on banning anyone and I don’t know the full facts. But *_if_* it is true that there is a lot of incitement to hatred against Jews, then that, imo, would provide a reason for shutting down their broadcasts in France (where there has been a big increase in attacks on Jewish target by youth of Arab origin). But I’d qualify that by saying that any decision actually to ban the station should look to whether doing so would be counterproductive.

While I don’t mean to imply this is an easy case, nic’s analogy seems very apt, regardless of “root cause”, and it seems to me a perfectly valid reason why, despite the odious statements made on the French broadcast, the station should not be banned.

One could try a bit of “equivalation” by comparing this to the issues surrounding the play “Der Müll, die Stadt und der Tod” by Fassbinder. The play was deemed antisemitic and its performance was prevented at many places.

As for the TV station, the satellite(s) involved are afaik private property, but subject to the laws of the various countries in which they operate and broadcast. Thus France and the US have the ability to regulate.
In the French case it is Eutelsat that is ordered to drop the channel.

I’m not even saying the al-Manar tv station should not be banned. I cannot know that. I have never watched it, don’t know what its regular content is, don’t know what the laws in France specifically allow, don’t know what they ban, etc etc. But if the motivations are those quoted, well, aside from legal differences betwen nations, like stacey correctly points out, it’s interesting how wacky offensive statements can have different weight based on who and where they come from. Nevermind if Donohue and O’Reilly had been Arab and/or Muslims. What if they’d been white, “Christian” and _European_ instead of American. There would have been at least ten times the outrage. Interminable debates on the antisemitism of decadent, morally bankrupt Europe would have followed. On the _very_ same media that give O’Reilly a pass and a voice.

At least in France the hate speech laws did target people like Le Pen too. In the US there may be no such laws, and the reactions and consequences are entirely dependent on political bias. I don’t know whether one legal approach works better than the other in the absolute; maybe they both work in their own different contexts. But laws alone cannot do the work of marginalising hate speech, it takes something at cultural level to do that, and that cannot come second to playing politics.

“Last night hundreds of Sikhs in Birmingham protested outside a theatre (and a few tried to storm the building) that was staging a play depicting scenes of sexual abuse inside a Sikh temple. ”

And now the play has been taken off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4112105.stm

It probably wasn’t all that good a play, but it was almost certainly legal, and there should be police protection for this sort of legal activity, to the extent of prosecutions for threatening behaviour. Or ASBOs.

Jake, the main point of bringing that up was not about the legal differences between the US and France. It’s about the selective outrage _within_ the US.

al-Manar is not an American organization, nor are it’s employees American citizens. Furthermore, the placement on that list means only that Americans can’t give money to the organization, and that non-citizen members of that organization can’t come into the US, or can be expelled if they do.

Americans can still legally claim that Jews caused AIDS.

You think the French don’t expel people for associating with “terrorists”? Read this article for an idea as to what goes on there. Detention for years without trial, interrogation without access to laywers, the whole deal.

What is comparatively unique is the protection the US gives it’s citizens to say what they want, be it dangerous, unpopular, or just plain rude.

Incitement to hatred alone means almost nothing, incitement to undeserved hatred would seem to be the agreed-upon wrong here. But then that’s all about proof beforehand isn’t it? Which means the more successful villains, with their cut-outs and fusible links, their politicians and media whores, will be protected even further by the urge of nice people to protect the innocent.
It’s an incitement to hatred to say the US is killing women and children in Iraq for oil and empire – or it should be, it’s certainly a hateful thing. But it’s also true.
Making it a crime to say the truth because it makes people hate the perpetrators of villainy is more like cowardice, disguised as reason and politesse.
–
Jake may be right that Americans still have the right to publicly claim absurd things and accuse specific groups for causing them, though I’ve never heard that particular one before, and I wonder where exactly you would be able to make that claim and still be protected by law from the hatred and retaliation with which it would be met. CNN? The NYTimes? Downtown Chicago? Besides the internet I mean.
Gary Webb would disagree with Jake’s broad assertion of American freedom I think, but then he’s not here anymore.
It’s nonsense, intentional or dim-witted, to claim the American public forum is an open mic now.
As opposed to your right to say publicly that Iraq, and the Iraqi people, and by extension all Arabs, and by extension again all Muslims, should pay the price for 9/11 – which is an incitement to hatred that’s nearing anthemic resonance now.
I don’t think that weirdly unchallenged animosity is a shining example of First Amendment protection in action.

Jake,
al-Manar is not an American organization, nor are it’s employees American citizens

I don’t see any reason to think that al-Manar was added to the list of terrorist organisations because it’s a foreign organization.

Are you saying that a US citizen can open a TV station and broadcast exactly the same stuff without facing the same consequences? It seems odd, do you insist on this theory?

Thanks.

Interesting aspect of the Wash Post’s article :-
“French authorities have expelled a dozen Islamic clerics for allegedly promoting hatred or religious extremism, including a Turkish-born imam who officials said denied that Muslims were involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States”.

That’s really weird when you consider that book that sold squillions in France saying that 9/11 was an inside job. But the guy who wrote it was white, I guess.

But haven’t you been following this whole thing abb1? American Muslims who are donating to soup kitchens that are somehow tied to Hamas are having their savings impounded. It is already happening. Designating the soup kitchens as independent terrorist orgs is just overkill.

Are you saying that a US citizen can open a TV station and broadcast exactly the same stuff without facing the same consequences? It seems odd, do you insist on this theory?

Broadcast? Not over public airwaves, due to FCC regulations. But over cable or in print? Absolutely. See David Duke, KKK, Lyndon LaRouche, Church of Scientology, etc etc.

Again, the State Department is only acting against foreign terrorist organizations. And they’re also talking about television airwaves, which are already regulated for content. In satellite, cable, and print, you can spread all the hatred you want.