To the UN and UNESCO: Don't Try to Fence Us In!

by Amir Taheri
June 28, 2016 at 6:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8345/un-unesco-hate-speech-islamophobia

A majority of the members of the UN and the UNESCO which is part of it are states that cannot be regarded as lovers of press freedom, to say the least.
There is also talk of stopping "hate speech". But hate, like love, is hard to define and the UN has offered no definition of it. Thus anyone could use it as an excuse for "stopping" or restricting freedom of expression.
As for "combating Islamophobia", those who unfurl that banner ignore the fact that it could mean creating a special category for Islam to shield it against any form of criticism, precisely at a time that Islam could benefit from serious critical scrutiny.
At a time that freedom of expression is under attack by a variety of groups from all parts of the political spectrum, the last thing we should wish for is a UN stamp of approval for censorship in any form. What we need is a free flow of information that cannot be subjected to bureaucratic rules and regulations.

Editor's Note: Following is a condensed version of Amir Taheri's remarks as part of a special panel of diplomats and academics, addressing journalists at the Palace of the Nations, the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, on June 22, under the auspices of UNESCO's liaison office.

The panel took place as part of the UN's 32nd session on human rights, and in response to UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon's special report on "violent extremism."

Mr. Taheri spoke on the question of: "Should the United Nations play a role in countering hate speech and expressions of 'violent extremism' and 'Islamophobia' in the media?"

Since I haven't prepared a written speech, permit me to offer an unadorned response to the various plans exposed here. I believe many in our profession might share my sentiments.

The plans evoked here contain a number of words with military tonalities that set alarm bells ringing in my head. Here are some: combat, campaign, plan of action, order, discipline, protection etc.

Then there are phrases that either mean different things to different people or their meaning is cancelled by their component parts. For example: violent extremism, which implies that you could be violent without being extremist or be extremist without being violent, but does not tell us in what dosage of its ingredients it would operate as a concept.

Here is another phrase: the "right balance," which the Secretary-general insists we must establish in the media. Is there a wrong balance?

Or do we mean a faux balance, like "five minutes for Hitler, five minutes for the Jews?"

There is also talk of stopping "hate speech".

But hate, like love, is hard to define and the UN has offered no definition of it. Thus anyone could use it as an excuse for "stopping" or restricting freedom of expression.

In this room, I feel haunted by the ghosts of the 1970s and 1980s, when an alliance of the Soviet bloc and Third World powers tried to use UNESCO as a vehicle for imposing control on the media across the globe. I was always deeply suspicious of international organizations trying to legislate a one-size-fits-all scheme to regulate freedom of expression.

In those bad old days, the move in that direction was called The New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO), a brainchild of the Soviet bloc in the context of the Cold War. The architects of that scheme proposed to issue UNESCO media permits for journalists across the globe, and impose rules binding on all member states. In other words, they wanted to fence us in by pretending they were protecting us.

The efforts of undertaken the IPI (International Press Institute) and other groups dedicated to press freedom led to the total defeat of NWICO and a major victory for freedom of expression throughout the world.

Today, anyone trying to revive that monster would be laughed out of the room. Nevertheless, we have to remain vigilant against any attempt at media control via the UN or UNESCO.

A majority of the members of the UN and the UNESCO, which is part of it, are states that cannot be regarded as lovers of press freedom, to say the least.

To ask them to regulate the media with the pretext of controlling "hate speech" and preventing "Islamophobia" is to give them license to intensify their system of censorship.

For decades, the UN has not succeeded to define "peace" or "terrorism" and would not be able to define the word "hate" either, and thus cannot pretend to regulate the media in the name of "combating hate speech." The most the UN or UNESCO can do is to create a new bureaucracy, for example The Office of Combating Hate Speech and Islamophobia (UNOCHSI). Then we will have one of the despots who head a majority of UN members propel a nephew into the post of UNOCHSI Director, while fellow despots across the globe use the "guidelines" set by it to intensify media censorship under the auspices of the mythical international community.

At a time that freedom of expression is under attack by a variety of groups from all parts of the political spectrum, the last thing we should wish for is a UN stamp of approval for censorship in any form. What we need is a free flow of information that cannot be subjected to bureaucratic rules and regulations. Unlike despotism, which is brutally "clean", freedom is always a bit messy, the rough coming with the smooth, and thus difficult to control.

As for "combating Islamophobia", those who unfurl that banner ignore the fact that it could mean creating a special category for Islam to shield it against any form of criticism, precisely at a time that Islam could benefit from serious critical scrutiny.

The Secretary-General's plan has a romantic tone inasmuch as it aims at managing freedom of speech in a way that no one is ever offended and no pen is ever dipped in a poison ink. Freedom, however, is not romantic; it is the fruit of a prosaic approach to existential reality, which takes into account our imperfections as fallible human beings.

The UN and UNESCO would do well to mind their own business. If they wish to be useful, they should provide space and opportunity and resources to those -- that is to say a majority of mankind at present -- who cannot exercise their right to freedom of expression. They could give a voice to the voiceless. They should ask their member states not to imprison so many journalists or, maybe, even create an annual Index of Press Freedom to expose and oppose regimes that use silence and terror as instruments of government.

Two facts encourage me in thinking that this meeting is not going to endorse any plan for reviving the demon of NWICO under a new mask. The first is that Finland is a co-sponsor of the session. And we have not forgotten that Finland, along within other Nordic countries and Great Britain, was the most steadfast supporter of our cause of press freedom against the threat of NWICO more than two decades ago.

The second is that the session is also co-sponsored by Elaph, the oldest Arabic language website newspaper, now blowing 15 candles, and a champion of freedom of expression in a dark region of the world. Any talk of regulating freedom of speech puts us on a slippery slope that could lead to censorship, curtailing freedom of expression -- which is a basic human right. My message to you on behalf of journalists everywhere is simple: Don't try to fence us in!

Amir Taheri, formerly editor of Iran's premier newspaper, Kayhan, before the Iranian revolution of 1979, is a prominent author based on Europe. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Related Topics: Threats to Free Speech

Recent Articles by Amir Taheri

Trump II: Challenges Ahead, 2024-11-17
Writers and Careless Use of Words, 2024-11-10
US Elections and the Old Family Album, 2024-11-03
US Election: On 6 November Skies Won't Fall, 2024-10-27
The US Election: The Danger of Otherness, 2024-10-20

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

11 Reader Comments

Mike • Jun 29, 2016 at 00:15

The term Islamophobia may be misunderstood. A phobia means a needless or excessive fear of something. It does not imply hate as one may fear a teacher, a parent or a policeman but not hate them. The same person may actually respect or even love someone they fear. Also, it doesn't imply some one means harm to the person. Some things or people are feared for good reason such as fire, terrorists, murderers,bigots, fanatics or psychotics but that would not be a phobia as there is real, actual reason to fear them or it. Hate is different than a phobia as it implies a willingness to harm, punish, restrict or injure someone. Bigotry is also different than hate as it implies a needless and excessive dislike of some one or group without any basis or reason. It also usually has a sense of superiority over the subject of ones bias. Therefore, Islamophobia would only apply if there isn't some reasonable conditions or reasons from them to cause fear.

Reply->

Rod McQueen • Jun 28, 2016 at 21:03

Once again, a brilliant analysis by Amir Taheri. You, sir, are the best.

My question is: Will the UN apply its yardstick for defining hate speech (whatever they may come up with) consistently? Will it put pressure on Saudi Arabia, for example, to replace its "hate-preaching" flag with something more conducive to peace between religions?

Reply->

Frances Weingarten • Jun 28, 2016 at 18:26

I agree with Amir Taheri's position but am looking at the UN, including Unesco, from a different position. Given that a majority of the countries in these organizations are totalitarian, lacking in human rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and a host of other areas, I often wonder why the democratic countries of the world choose to remain in and support this unacceptable majority. It is my belief that it is long past time that all democratic countries left the UN and formed their own organization. I would very much like to know if this possible and if not, why not.

Reply->

Poliwatch • Jun 28, 2016 at 17:04

Instead of the 'free world' applying their freedoms onto less than free states, in an effort to improve their wellbeing, it seems the 'unfree' world is trying to push us back and not allow humanity to progress.

Reply->

Podargus • Jun 28, 2016 at 15:16

The UN and the EU were both born of good intentions following the catastrophe of WW2. But good intentions are no guarantee of good performance.

Both of these organizations have exceeded their mandate and have inevitably accrued a toxic bureaucracy which is self aggrandizing, self perpetuating and dangerous for freedom and democracy. They have grown like a cancer.

It is well past time for reform and downsizing or surgical removal of the tumor.

Reply->

Jeff Page

Podargus • Jun 29, 2016 at 01:16

The comment by Podargus sounds very familiar and could be the ideal description to apply to the EU with all the changes they have made since the original agreement.

Reply->

Podargus • Jun 29, 2016 at 01:34

I agree wholeheartedly on your overview, both of these organisations have consistently exceeded their mandate. Although the initial set up was for a good cause it is now to be seen that the activities that take place perhaps have personal agenda's that interfere with the humanitarian aspect of life.

Accepting countries into their organisation that have no civil liberties, human rights or are even remotely interested in world peace, does not fare well for the people that are presently running things. (and certainly not for the rest of world, as the people who are required to listen to them).

In fact the level of interference that the UN is considering, by monitering or shutting down free speech is most certainly reminiscent of the Hitler regime. What next! are they going to set up an extra military arm, a take on the Brown Shirts who ran around beating up or killing anyone who speaks their mind.

Looks like the UN has lost its focus and is listening to the countries who's only agenda is to push the world back to the 6th Century.

Reply->

David Ashton • Jun 28, 2016 at 14:43

What is wrong with free speech for everyone and incitement to violence for no-one? We should be free to criticize Muslims, Christians, Jews, Mormons, Atheists and anyone else, and they should be free to reply.

I think we should take advice from J.S. Mill, rather than Ayatollah Khomeini or (dare I say) Abe Foxman.

Reply->

Jeff Page • Jun 28, 2016 at 12:19

The UN and UNESCO can get stuffed! Who are they to tell us what to think and say? Where's the opposition to the hate spewed out of the mouths of Muslims that have taken the opportunity to live in safe countries free of war and famine and yet continually confine themselves to their 'communities' and are so very unwilling to fully integrate. Where's the monitoring within the Mosques and 'Faith Schools', the 'Community Centres'?
Virtually every country in the west that has 'communities' of Muslims have the very same problems with integration, it just isn't happening! Why? It's quite simple really, they use their so called 'religion' as an excuse to isolate themselves from normal society. They still live in the dark ages with their attitudes to women. Muslims have set up 'grooming gangs' in many towns and cities preying on young girls of around 11-12 years of age. They lie, cheat, dress weirdly and do as little work as possible! And yet we are supposed to tolerate those who refuse to tolerate others!! It's about time the politicians around the world realised that many people have had enough of Muslims. Why should we have to live under the threat of the next attack? The UN and UNESCO seem to be of the opinion that we should all turn the other cheek, but if we were to do that, the Muslims would still strike when we weren't looking!
Stuff the UN and UNESCO and definitely Stuff The Muslims!!

Reply->

Michael Waugh • Jun 28, 2016 at 10:58

I reserve the right to say what I like in Europe in criticism of threats of violence and terrorism resulting from multiculturalism in Europe, the UK in particular. Germany and Sweden in particular are creating worse problems for everyone.

Reply->

Albert Reingewirtz • Jun 28, 2016 at 06:40

UNESCO should not even exist since it has members from inhuman behavior states. Most of it's "findings" are against The Jewish state of Israel, a model democracy in an area of the world where none exist. Time to put both the UN and UNESCO to sleep. They are both dangerously sick dogs.

Reply->