The Attack on Free Speech Worldwide
Regional, Politics, 8/15/2007

The first amendment in the US constitution is about freedom of speech. It cannot be a mere accident that this is the first amendment, and not the second, third, or last. This amendment speaks to values that were so fundamental to its authors, that they understood its place in the constitution and in society as well. This value is the most important that they chose to enshrine as first among the many important values they enumerated.

But the US public is under a form of hysteria generated by politicians who capitalize on fear, and media that plays to fear. Fed on by the attacks of 9/11, these fears have literally transformed the American public’s views about freedom of speech and liberties. Instead of using the strength that made the US what it is – strength that came to be because of respect for freedom of speech and liberties and encouraging more speech at stressful times – they promoted the instinct to clam down and discourage free speech and debate.

When the authors of the US Constitution wrote the first amendment on free speech, they, by this historic act, helped ensure that human potential and expression cannot be suppressed. This human potential, which is the source of creativity and discovery of better solutions through freedom of expression, comes from people being able to contribute freely and without fear. Free speech has paid and will continue to pay dividends to the country’s benefit.

So instead of promoting more speech and diverse views to discuss the issue of terrorism, much of government’s efforts went toward preventing them. In essence, the government is acting to harm the American public. The government, over a period of time, took efforts to muzzle free speech, prevent support money to organizations (money can be a form of free speech according the US supreme court), and pass laws that grant the president authorities that can hardly be considered constitutional. And few dared to challenge the constitutionality of these efforts, seemingly because doing so may benefit what the government tells us are “terrorists.”

Consider the following two examples:

1. A person cannot give moral support to terrorists. Yet, speech is moral support. Therefore, you cannot speak in support of who the government decides to label as terrorists.

If I want to give moral support to something that the government or anyone else considers terrorist, then what business is it of the government’s? Maybe this group is heroic to me. George Washington and his gang were the British Empire’s terrorists, and they aimed for his head? Ronald Reagan thought the rebels of Nicaragua were freedom fighters fighting the government, while the Nicaraguans considered them rebels and terrorists. People from all over the world supposedly went to Spain to fight against fascism, fighting the government for ideals they believed in. The French revolutionaries were terrorists? Was Jesus considered a terrorist for his views? He had to hide away from authorities in south Lebanon, where they decided to lynch him later upon his return. What about other people or prophets that were considered heretics deserving death for supporting certain ideals strongly opposed by the government or even the people, but proved correct later?

Who is to decide who the terrorist is? And who is to prevent moral support, spoken support, or monetary support to causes I may think are correct? The government? In doing so, the government had disregarded the first amendment, and this, as of this day, has been unchallenged.

2. A better, more educated discussion would help put these debated issues into perspective. By not allowing such debate, we are dummying our minds and leaving ourselves to accept simple answers to questions that we may not like to hear the true answers to.

Why do some Irish people want to kill British soldiers in Ireland? This question has many answers. Why do Palestinians try to kill Israelis? Why do some Indians and Pakistanis want to kill each other? We assume human beings are bad. But a deeper look into such issues tends to almost always reveal a measure of injustice, or an absent conflict resolution method that is viewed as just and fair by both sides.

In the US, if someone breaks into your house, to steal or harm you, and you shoot the intruder, people do not seem to have a problem understanding this justice or dispute a person’s right to shoot the intruder. So do the Irish or Palestinians or George Washington have the right to fight others for such injustice and oppression? Thinking about justice can be tiring, and sometimes political or economic interest may lead us to avoid thinking about a problem. And this is understandable, as it would stress our conscious too much to do otherwise. These questions may make us uncomfortable, but asking them is wise, and we should listen to as many answers as we can.

The US decided to prevent moral support for some organizations, and it prevents financial supports to others, including many charities. The Supreme Court stated that money is equivalent to speech. So why is the government preventing some from speaking? By curtailing the first amendment, the government has curtailed a benefit from the US public.

Some so-called conservatives complain that their free speech is prevented by the so-called liberals under coercive, but legal atmospheres with social pressure to speak only in a politically correct manner, whether in universities or any other public domain. “Politically correct” has come to mean that a person should only speak what others consider acceptable. The liberals say conservatives are doing the same to them. If liberals and conservatives understand their actions and sentiments to limit others’ free speech are harmful to themselves, then they would have shown a true understanding of why free speech, in its full and widest extent, should be respected and encouraged.

But some of these sides want to pass laws against the freedom of speech. They use lofty sounding labels and pretexts, and call other’s speech or acts “hate speech,” “religious intolerance,” “terrorist supporters,” and different variations of such labels. The bottom line is that someone is trying to prevent you from speaking your mind or expressing your support to someone they dislike. This is a cover, or a nicely crafted label that prevents opposing views and ideas that maybe uncomfortable to some from being heard. In some European countries you can be imprisoned for simply speaking about issues such as the Holocaust. You can be imprisoned in the US for peacefully supporting a liberation movement the government disapproves of. And in much of the world you can be imprisoned for speaking freely against a religion, or a religious subject.

The attack on freedom of speech is worldwide and largely promoted by those who have little respect for freedom of speech. For example, free speech is attacked in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa by governments who want to keep people from having freedom of speech. If these countries do gain freedom of speech, then democracy may break out and the results may not be to the current rulers’ favor.

In the advanced countries, such as in Europe and the US, they are not only trying to muzzle views they do not like under the “hate speech,” “terrorism support,” and “religious intolerance” labels, but some governments – including the US – have adopted the hard-to-believe position that, under some circumstances, a lawyer is not allowed to defend someone accused of terrorism. The government not only wants to accuse someone of a wrong doing, but it also wants to prevent him the ability to defend against the accusations.

Consider the following examples:

The Washington Post reported on July 12, 2006 that in Europe, “Far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has been ordered to stand trial for reportedly denying the brutality of the Nazi occupation of France during World War II, judicial officials said Wednesday.” Why cannot this person speak or deny whatever he wants to? People in Germany and Austria have faced similar accusations, and been sentenced to jail. Le Pen faces accusations of “justifying war crimes” and “complicity in contesting crimes against humanity,” according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing.

In other places, people get arrested or legally penalized for “offensive” religious cartoons, such as happened in many countries in the case of cartoons portraying Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

The US NewsMax.com reported on September 4, 2006 that in England, “Under the ‘Glorification of Terrorism' Act, which came into effect last month, the UK government extended powers to the police and anti-terrorist unit allowing them to arrest anyone suspected of training, partaking in, or encouraging terrorism.”

Two things to note here: one is “arrest anyone suspected of encouraging terrorism.” In England, anyone passing through can be arrested, arbitrarily, and held for a set period of time without trial based on mere suspicion. This is a great tool of intimidation, and not a method that obeys rule of law.

The second part to notice is the fancy title given to such laws in order to subconsciously pacify an unthinking public about the details of these laws, or a public that is scared and anxious to be protected from these supposed threats. This law is titled the “Glorification of Terrorism” act. In the US, they call it the “Patriot Act,” which certainly makes it tough for politicians to vote against such laws. Doing so implies they are unpatriotic.

The public doesn’t have to think about it, all they need is flamboyance of words, and abundance of love and patriotism to protect the country and the public. Those who choose to intelligently think and question are naturally being discouraged from challenging such ideas, instead of being encouraged to do so, to enrich the public debate.

In the US, speaking in support of ideas or groups, or giving money to causes that the government declares, arbitrarily and without a court decision, to be a terrorist group is against the law. Many are being imprisoned or harassed for such support. For example, National Public Radio reported on August 27, 2006 that, “This past week, the Department of Justice charged a New York City man for aiding a terrorist organization. Javed Iqbal runs a small Brooklyn satellite TV company, and he's accused of offering customers Al-Manar, a television channel associated with Hezbollah.” This accusation suggests that the Americans are so unintelligent that they are unable to digest information from different sources. Free speech, you would think, is your right to hear as well as speak.

That same day, National Public Radio reported another story in the US, “The FBI has prevented family members of two California men suspected of terrorism from entering the country – even though the family members are US citizens, and have not been accused of any crime.”

On January 4, 2007, The Washington Post report that, “The New York Daily News today reports on President Bush signing a statement quietly issued two weeks ago, in which he asserts his right to open mail without a warrant.”

In most Arab, Asian, and African countries, and in some Latin American countries, speech tends to be extremely limited. No examples are needed here. Many of these countries have little or no tolerance for free speech.

And the Los Angeles Times reported that the UN, the supposed internationally protector of human rights and ideals of freedom, condemns any denial of the Holocaust. The report read, “The General Assembly on Friday adopted a resolution introduced by the United States that condemns any denial of the Holocaust.” The UN passed resolutions regarding money or its use, and the arbitrary arrest without due process for the individuals who would be accused.

The UN is serving as a convenient hideout for governments that are unable to pass laws internally, such as the US on speaking against the Holocaust in this example, to have the others bring such laws into reality. Why would the US government support such act, when such act is against the first amendment of the US Constitution? If the US government thinks the first amendment is bad for the American public, then it should make such arguments. Otherwise, why would the US government get involved in acts that are against the most precious values of the founders of the Constitution? To please some political interest group?

That is why the UN cannot be trusted with our liberties. The UN is far removed from the practice of democracy and the ideals of liberty and freedom. The UN is a place where governments can enjoy being themselves, without the direct control of citizens. Passing laws about not speaking of the Holocaust or any other subject may be a European value, or someone else’s value, but it is not an American value. The first amendment is. This is one example of using so-called “hate speech” to muzzle people from speaking. Uncomfortable as you may be with this idea, the logic is clear.

When the US Congress would not pass a law that violates human rights below US standards, then the government or supporters go to the UN to pass such laws. By having other governments adopt it as an international treaty, the US joins the treaty since it has to do with “anti-terror” and “bad people,” and the violation of free speech, in effect, becomes US law.

One example of this is the Canadian citizen, merely passing through the US on an airline, was arrested and sent to Syria on charges that were later proved to be orchestrated against him, and false. On January 27, 2007, the New York Times reported, “Maher Arar, the Canadian software engineer who was detained by American officials in 2002 and deported to Syria, where he was jailed and regularly tortured.” The report added, “The Canadian judicial inquiry cleared Mr. Arar of any terrorism connections in September 2006, and concluded that anonymous Canadian officials had orchestrated a defamation campaign against him after his return from Syria in October 2003. As he announced the settlement on Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a formal apology to Mr. Arar and his family for their ‘terrible ordeal.’” They noted that the man’s career was destroyed, and he suffered greatly emotionally.

Under international treaties, persons can be arrested, property confiscated, and money seized. This is how people in third world countries, for example, and even US citizens lose political rights. The Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, to which the US is a party, Article 11 reads:

“Inapplicability of political offense exception – For the purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, none of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 shall be regarded as a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition or mutual legal assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives.”

This means, a political activist in the Europe or the US can be extradited to an Arab, African, or Asian state that wants him for political charges under the pretext of involvement with terrorism, because this person opposes the system of government this state has. Similarly, the US can request a citizen of Egypt or Afghanistan, be handed over to the US over terrorism allegations. Examples of these, and much worse, have taken place with individuals abducted from Europe to be handed to Arab states, and from Arab states or Afghanistan to be handed to the US.

When the charges are terrorism-related, an automatic assumption of guilt seems to exist. And states have given themselves much leeway to do as they please, disregarding the high standards of human right and due process. For the US, Guantanamo Bay, where people were abducted, held without charges for years, and tortured, is one example. If this can happen in the US, what else is happening in the rest of the world countries, especially ones that care much less about human rights or due process? Clearly, governments are having a field day, playing with the rights of man under the banner of fighting terrorism. And the UN, although it appears a noble institution, is little more than a reflection of this reality, which makes hiding the problem all too easy.

On April 28, 2006, the US Department of States issued the “Fact Sheet on Country Reports on Terrorism 2005,” which suggested a general improvement of terrorist organizations’ propaganda worldwide. What’s interesting is that terrorists have propaganda, but governments do not, and that terrorist must be making progress in convincing others of their cause. Either people are dumb, or these groups are saying something that makes sense or resonates with the public in some way. After all, is that not what free speech is about, even when you do not like what is being said or who is saying it?

So, terrorism, hate or religious intolerant speech, offensive speech, and speech undermining the government or peace have become clubs that governments or other groups promote to muzzle people when they disagree with their ideology or cause. But the first amendment has a completely different value. More speech is better, and the answer to bad speech is not silencing people, but more speech.

The extent to which the government has gone in giving itself powers to take away from our due process and liberty is unbelievable. In 2006, the Congress passed and the president signed a law that allows the president to declare a person – an American – an enemy combatant. This law states that the person can be held without trial or due process based on only the president’s declaration that he or she is a danger to the country. This is like the old days when a king or ruler could decide to put a person in jail without judicial due process.

The US president passed on Dec 20, 2006, an executive order (supposedly called a “signing statement”) giving the government the right to open regular mail without court order or warrant. That is unprecedented intrusion into the lives of Americans by government. And yet, both conservatives and liberals stand by not doing anything about this.

In pursuit of preventing free speech, the US promoted efforts to pass international laws that circumvent national laws at the UN. These laws would allow individuals to be arrested arbitrarily, or stripped of their assets arbitrarily without proper accusation and due process for doing so, and without clear and accessible due process for defending oneself against such laws. This is a collusion of some sort between countries at the highest level, which shows how defective the UN is when it comes to the rights of the individual.

At the UN the individual has no rights, or mechanisms to achieve those rights. That is why if the UN is to be fixed, its function initially would be effective conflict resolution between countries. So the UN has become a place where the individual has no effective representation in the laws drafted and agreed upon – especially when the law suggests its purpose benefits the fight against terrorists or terrorism. And in such cases, the citizens in those countries could care less about due process or what the law says or does, and will see these issues are very detached from their own moral values and standards. But what the Americans don’t realize is that the same law allows the US to extradite a US or Canadian citizen to Syria to be beaten up and interrogated as a terrorist. And it allows the US to kidnap an Italian resident of Egyptian origin to be tortured in Egypt. Both of these examples have really happened. Citizens don’t seem to see the value of providing other citizens in the world the same value and dignity they give to themselves.

Just like terrorism has wasted enormous financial resources on a very minor problem, so has the terrorism issue been used to waste precious moral and ethical values that have great benefits to society. But these values have been corrupted by the war mongering and the spreading of fear of others. Human rights and preserving liberties are not abstract ideals that are only needed when times are good; they are needed all the time, because these are the very ideals that give a society its strength. Third world countries are weak because they do not respect human rights and freedoms, and not the other way around. That is, third world can become strong if they learn to respect rights and liberties.

So why would advanced countries and their public decide to limit freedoms and liberty during stressful times? Because of fear. Fear seems to blind people from acting rationally. But smart people will try to act rationally, even under fear, and nothing can be more valuable and helpful to society than to be rational. Therefore, vigilantly protecting free speech is critical, even when your every instinct is pressing you to do otherwise.

Government can be too anxious to ignore the rules that value respect for human rights. And when the victim is labeled as a “terrorist,” or some other negative label, only a few dare to ask critical questions about rights and process so that everyone else’s rights remain respected. When the government arbitrarily labels a group as terrorist and shuts them up, who dares to ask what society loses when different opinions are silenced?

The actions taken to fight terrorism have done much harm, and caused great new waves of hate and oppression. Both of these seem to breed more terrorism.

The spread of the internet and people’s ability to interact world wide has scared governments throughout the world that they will lose their traditional control in many areas. Third world countries are terrified of free speech, and some first world countries and groups in them are as well. Each for their individual reasons; but their reasons is also similar.

The last few years have seen enormous degradation of free speech and individual liberties. Governments throughout the world have given themselves enormous powers to confiscate people’s freedoms or property. All of this for what? People are dying at the hands of terrorists – is this the cost we want to pay? Some people want to be rational and others just want a quick solution, no matter how bad the solution is in reality.

In short, words like “terrorism” and the “war on terrorism” have become one of the world’s worst political instruments used against democracy, liberty, and free thinking. The labels of “hate speech,” “religious intolerance,” and “moral support of terrorists” are also blinders that prevent the public from engaging in important, intelligent debates so that best solutions can be found. Watch out for labels and those who use them – they may not want you to think for yourself, or speak what you think.

This is a chapter from the newly published book By,
Jamil Kazoun


Author of the newly released book: A Third American Revolution: A New World Government . A Plan for Liberty, Justice and Peace.

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search