Glenn Greenwald on western limitations on free speech

In a recent article in the Intercept, journalist Glenn Greenwald, argues that the greatest threat to free speech in the West at present comes not from Islamic fundamentalists but from western politicians who claim to fight them and to protect free speech.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

Greenwald notes the UK government is among many in the west suppressing free speech in the name of combating terrorism by disrupting the actions of those trying to radicalize people: "They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print."

In defence of this move to criminalize expression of ideas that the government authorities consider extremist Prime Minister David Cameron said: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'” The Home Secretary Theresa May tries to justify the bill in an interview shown in the appended video. She talks about undermining British values and the need to ensure that the UK is together as one nation.

The UK is not the only country in the west to pass legislation purportedly to counter extremism and terrorism that restricts freedom of speech and expression. Similar legislation can be found in the U.S., Australia, France, New Zealand, and Canada. The same politicians who marched in solidarity in defence of the anti-Muslim fundamentalist Charlie Hebdo cartoons supposedly to support the right to satire and free speech, now are marching together to suppress free speech. More and more laws restrict free expression not just to fight terrorism but to counter any "hate speech." French hate speech laws were used by a Muslim group to lay a criminal charge against Charlie Hebdo:In 2007 the Grand Mosque of Paris began criminal proceedings against the chief-editor of Charlie Hebdo, Philipe Val, under France's hate speech laws for publicly abusing a group on the ground of their religion. The lawsuit was limited to three specific cartoons, including one depicting Muhammad carrying a bomb in his turban. In March 2007 le tribunal de Paris acquitted Val, finding that it was fundamentalists, rather than Muslims, who were being ridiculed in the cartoons.[25]

The development of social media has led to an explosion of commentary often critical of governments and also often containing what many would call "hate speech." Commercial media filter out this type of material in a form of self censorship but for the most part it remains unfiltered on the Internet. Just read any comments on articles where there are not authorities censoring the material. This situation is seen as a threat by authorities who do their best to control it. In some authoritarian countries many social media outlets are simply banned. However, in western democracies where free speech is lauded other means of control must be found. Anti-terror and hate speech laws are the favored method along with vast data collection such as the US National Science Foundation, that is generating a data base of hate speech articles.

We think of criminalizing blogging as happening in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but it is also happening in the UK and the U.S. as well. In the UK last month a 35-year-old mother of six was sentenced to five years in prison for "promoting terrorism on Facebook." In the U.S. in 2011, a 24-year-old Pakistani resident of the US was convicted on terrorism charges after uploading a 5 minute video that shows photos of Abu Ghraib prison abuse, US armoured vehicles being blown up, and a prayer message by the leader of a designated terror group. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The Stephen Harper Conservative government in Canada is a great promoter of laws against hate speech and of anti-terror legislation. Aboriginal and environmental activists fear that they will be targeted using anti-terror legislation such as the new bill c-51. Groups critical of Israel fear that they may become targets of hate crime laws. The government has said that it has a "zero tolerance" attitude to any group participating in the loose coalition called Boycott, Divest, and Sanction(BDS). When asked by reporters to explain what that meant, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney replied by giving news media a detailed list of Canada's hate laws and the spokesperson noted that Canada has one of the most comprehensive set of hate laws anywhere in the world.

Defending freedom of speech and expressing solidarity with speech

Glenn Greenwald has a long article on the reactions to the attacks on Charlie Hebdo culiminating in the huge march in Paris expressing support for the satirical journal.

Greenwald is a famous American journalist and author, perhaps best known for articles based on documents he received from Edward Snowden. He is a staunch defender of free speech and is opposed to "hate speech" laws that are common in Europe including France but also Canada. He discusses Canada's criminalization of hate speech in this March 2010 article in Salon. Greenwald notes that activists are usually concerned with defending the right to disseminate one's opinions, however distasteful to certain groups or the establishment. Quite often these same activists may be vehemently opposed to the content of what is expressed.

 The ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie: ACLU attorney David Goldberger, caught in the ironic position of being a Jew defending the rights of Nazis against fellow Jews. While the ACLU did win the case, it was a costly victory--30,000 of its members left the organization. And in the end, ironically, the Nazis never did march in Skokie. Of course, Goldberger did not agree with the viewpoint of the Nazis or express any agreement with their ideas in defending them. Yet in the case of the attack on Charlie Hebdo the marchers express solidarity with Charlie Hebdo using the slogan "Je Suis Charlie " (I am Charlie).

As Greenwald put it. But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”

 There are many hypocrites among the marchers. Saudi Arabia condemned the attacks but some of Hebdo's cartoons are blasphemous in that they insult the Prophet. In Saudi Arabia this would result in the death sentence: The kingdom's laws treat blasphemy as an instance of apostasy....Sharia says apostasy is a hadd (line-crossing) offence. Sharia prescribes the death penalty for hadd offences.[1] This hardly shows much respect for free speech.

French president Hollande, who was in the march, presides over a country that has hate speech laws that restrict free speech. Indeed, Hebdo's editor-in-chief Philippe Val was charged with insulting a group of people because of their religion when the weekly published satirical cartoons in a 2006 issue. The charge was not successful with the court ruling that Muslims as a whole were not insulted but just terrorists or fundamentalists. In some cases however the charges have stuck with convictions for anti-Semitic and also anti-Muslim speech. Perhaps the most famous convictions are those of the popular French actress Brigit Bardot, who in 2008 was convicted for the fifth time under the hate laws for parts of a letter sent to the government complaining about the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kibir.

Many of the officials represented in the march of solidarity come from countries that have hate speech laws and in which political correctness is the polite norm of discourse. Yet here they all are supporting not just the right of Charlie Hebdo to print the cartoons but suggesting there should be more to show those opposed that we support this sort of thing. But Hebdo's cartoons are often bigoted and sometimes even revolting.

 This cartoon represents Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens. The caption says that they are angry and the bubble: "Don't touch our child benefits". Many make fun of Muslims in general. Greenwald himself pulls off a bit of satire by publishing a number of anti-Jewish cartoons or cartoons that show the divergence between cartoons that have Muslims as their target and those with Israel as their target as this one.

Another article quite critical of the magazine and of the reaction to the attack can be found here. The author is Oliver Cryan who worked at Charlie Hebdo from 1992 to 2001. He walked out because of the dictatorial actions and corrupt promotion practices as he saw them of his boss, Philippe Val, the former editor. Historically, the Hebdo cartoons had many different targets often with a strong leftist slant. However, after 9/11 Cryan claims many in the magazine concentrated on Muslim fundamentalism and making fun of Arabs and Islam. He gives graphic examples of cartoons. Here is one cartoon. Cryan remarks caustically: From what psychological depths did you drag up the nerve to “laugh” at a cartoon representing veiled women baring their buttocks as they bow in prayer towards “Mecca-relle” [a pun onmaquerelle, the madam of a brothel - trans.]? This pathetic stream of crap isn’t even shameful; its stupidity embarrasses you, even before it reveals your state of mind, your vision of the world.

 Here is another cartoon. The captions read: “You’re sure that Mohammed had sex with a pig’s head?” “I can’t afford to pay a nine-year-old prostitute, dude!” This cartoon of course is also poking fun at the film-maker no doubt a take off on the film The Innocence of Muslims I expect.

 To demonstrate the depth of their hypocrisy, many of the European officials left the march to go back home and press not for more free speech but for internet censorship and more power for spies.

One lone protester in Marseille, France, greeted by 60 riot police

In Marseille authorities were well prepared to deal with any illegal demonstrations They were determined to enforce the ban on demonstrations against the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims" and cartoons mocking the Prophet in Charlie Hebdo magazine.

The situation was tense and dramatic. The French government had banned demonstrations in the interests of public safety after a French magazine published insulting anti-Islam cartoons that mocked the Prophet. There had been protests already virtually around the globe against the film "Innocence of Muslims". The authorities were prepared. Well prepared.

Overhead there was a police helicopter. On the ground there were sixty massed riot police ready for any violence. More than two dozen journalists had their cameras ready to capture all the action.

Then Omar Djellil entered and perched on a concrete block from which he harangued passersby:

“I may be the only one today but I am the spokesman of a silent majority."

Djellil had attempted to get permission for a demonstration but police refused as there is a ban in place. As well as lecturing people Djellil also plastered walls in the southern port city with posters. One said: "French Muslims don't need authorization to defend their rights". Another spoke of Hebdo pigs a reference to the satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed some of them showing him naked.

The police stood by, the helicopter hovered, but no one moved to arrest Djellil. The French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said that he would not sanction any protests since they would represent a threat to public order. Djellil's unauthorized protest ended without incident. Having made his point Djellil no doubt just went home as did the riot police, the reporters, and the helicopter.

Riot police were deployed in several different areas of the French capital, Paris, to enforce the ban on demonstrations but as of mid-afternoon there were no reports of demonstrations or trouble. There were squads of riot police at the Grand Mosque near the Eiffel Tower and also on the Place de la Concorde where a week ago a demonstration against the anti-Islam film had resulted in the arrest of 150 protesters.

Back on November 2, last year Charlie Hebdo's office was fire-bombed and its website hacked. The magazine had planned a special edition called "Charia Hebdo" with the Prophet Mohammed listed as editor-in-chief.