Event on freedom of expression and countering hate speech on Internet to prevent youth radicalization in the United Nations

 Event on freedom of expression and countering hate speech on Internet to prevent youth radicalization in the United Nations

The UNESCO Liaison Office in Geneva and the Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations at Geneva, with support and partnership with Elaph, will organize a panel discussion on the theme of “Freedom of expression and countering hate speech on Internet to prevent youth radicalization” in the context of the 32º session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. 

Under the sound moderation of Ms Imogen Foulkes, BBC Geneva Correspondent, the event was open by Mr. Abdulaziz Almuzaini, Director of the UNESCO Liaison Office in Geneva; Ambassador Päivi Kairamo, Permanent Representative of Finland to the United Nations and International Organisations in Geneva and Ms. Mona Rishmawi, Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non Discrimination Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The panellists specially invited for this occasion were Mr Guy Berger, Director of the Division of Freedom of Expression and Media Development, UNESCO; Ambassador Christian Guillermet Fernandez, Vice Director-General for Foreign Policy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica; Mr Amir Taheri, Journalist and Professor Priyankar Upadhyaya, Malaviya Centre for Peace Research, Banaras Hindu University, India.

The panel took into account the presentation of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Doc. A/HRC/32/38) to the thirty-two session of the Human Rights Council. 

Ambassador Päivi Kairamo, Permanent Representative of Finland to the United Nations and International Organisations in Geneva, opened the event by recalling the world’s first Freedom of Press act adopted by Sweden and Finland two centuries ago. She emphasised that Freedom of Expression and Press are the best way to counter radicalisation and hate speech. She stressed that violence against people motivated by the beliefs they hold, is never acceptable. “Islamophobia, homophobia and xenophobia have no place in this world.” The ambassador regretted that Freedom of Expression without fear for repercussions faces severe pressure around the world. She observed that only a thorough investment in education will foster people’s ability to express themselves freely and use the internet to do so in a wise and considerate way. She remarked that in this regard “prevention is key and youth is essential”. According to the ambassador youth must be taught how to recognise and reject propaganda and incitement to violence in the on- and off-line world. 

Mr Abdulaziz Almuzaini, Director of the UNESCO Geneva Liaison Office, congratulated Finland and Sweden on the adoption of the first Freedom of Press Act in the world 250 years ago. He stressed that Freedom of Expression is a fundamental human right that underpins all other civil liberties. It is key to a tolerant and open society, the rule of law and democratic governance. He also pointed out the responsibilities accompanying this freedom: professional ethics and the promotion of tolerance and understanding. Internet has revolutionised the way we express ourselves and at the same time brought about new challenges. He mentioned the spread of online hate speech, extremist propaganda and jihadi recruitment. He stressed that half of the world population is under 25, and that exactly this group is most vulnerable to violent radicalisation. “Our goal therefore should be to equip young people with knowledge, skills and values to engage as global citizens online.” He emphasised the need to address the root causes of violent extremism through the strengthening of human rights education and the elimination of racism and discrimination. All action however, should guarantee the openness and accessibility of the internet. In conclusion he referred to the Rabat Plan of Action and UNESCO’s mandate to ensure the safety of journalists. 

Ms Mona Rishmawi, Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non Discrimination Branch at the OHCHR, emphasised that Freedom of Expression is a right protected under international law and that it is “the foundation of a free and democratic society”. She observed that many confuse Freedom of Expression with Freedom of Opinion. The latter is an absolute right in which no one can interfere. The way opinion is expressed however, may be regulated by law. In this regard hate speech is subject to international laws. She recalled that the Rabat Plan of Action gives us the criteria to check for hate speech, taking into account the content, context, speaker and whether there is a chance it will lead to violence. She observed that internet enables cross border communication, but that at the same time it can be used for “bad purposes” by a small minority. Dig data analysis allows states and private actors to conduct mass surveillance. In this regard she referred to OHCHR’s document Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. She stressed the importance of youth in the online world. “Youngsters are very sensitive to peer and social pressure.” She ended by emphasising that an individual has the right to have extreme positions and ideas, which is not the same as advocating violence. 

Mr Guy Berger, Director of the Division of Freedom of Expression and Media Development at UNESCO, observed that the topic can be approached in through three paradigms: protection, preparation and prospects.  The first aims to protect youth from what we assume to be the causes of harm. Practically this means shielding youngsters from dangerous messages by blocking certain websites or conducting mass surveillance. He warned that such actions entail severe risks however, “of not just limiting, but in fact violating, the right to freedom of expression […], as well as excessively interfering with the right to privacy.” He observed that the protection paradigm may lead to short-term political advantage, but reduces youth radicalization to a mere security issue along the way.  The second paradigm aims to provide young people with “Media and Information Literacy, so that they can understand the ways in which media can work on their emotions in an attempt to hijack and shape their identity for ill.” It would be naïve to only invest in protection since youngsters will encounter information online for which they should be prepared. However, this paradigm risks opening the door to propaganda wars that compromise independent journalism. The third paradigm “prospects” recognises youth as subjects, not objects. It advocates looking at the socio-economic prospects and possibilities youngsters have. It calls for an innovative approach to social inclusion, education and entrepreneurship. By doing so it aims to ensure that there is no cause for grievances and angers. He condemned attacks on journalists and bloggers that give voice to such public grievances. This paradigm recognises that youngsters should be the “authors of their own identity”, by freely expressing themselves “with expertise and efficacy”. 

Ambassador Christian Guillermet Fernandez, Vice Director-General for Foreign Policy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, recalled that the conference in Helsinki last May focussed on the protection of journalists. He observed that there are people who advocate stronger surveillance and a limitation to the Freedom of Expression. He stressed that what we really need are stronger institutions that can enforce the rule of law. He stated that “as a Member State representative, I can say UNESCO has a very important role to play here.” According to him the best and only way to tackle the issue of violent extremism is education. He advocated a shift away from security to peace instead. Concrete this would mean strengthening the rule of law and investment in education. 

Mr Amir Taheri, Journalist, opened by saying that he feels “haunted by a ghost of the past” of the 1970s, when UNESCO was trying to enforce a plan to accredit journalists by handing out press cards and defining their field of operation. “This would mean that journalism would be restricted by an organisation that is dominated by states that for the majority are ruled by dictators.” He continued criticising UNESCO by saying that “the only thing that reassures me during this session is that it is supported by Finland, a true defender of freedoms together with its Nordic neighbours.” He emphasised that more freedom is needed, not less. “Let everyone spit their poison in an open market where their ideas can be countered freely by those who disagree.” He advised UNESCO to focus on the countries that jail journalists. He continued by saying that “we all know that most hate speech comes from state owned media.” He called upon UNESCO to support those who are fighting for freedom and not trying to restrict them. 

Professor Priyankar Upadhyaya, Malaviya Centre for Peace Research and Banaras Hindu University, observed a clear attempt to securitise the topic. He stated that there have always been “good” and “bad” media. He stressed that Freedom of Expression does not only finds its origins in a Western tradition. He emphasised that in today’s world the market exercises great influence over the media, very often in the form of state owned companies. “In India we pride ourselves on our freedom of expression, still there are many links between industrialists and the press.” He concluded by stating the need to include multicultural literacy in our education system. 

Answering some questions raised by moderator Foulkes and the floor, Mr Berger warned that education alone may not provide the hoped for solutions. He illustrated with the example of highly educated ISIL fighters, having attended university in Western Europe, for example medical students. He emphasised the paramount role identity plays in slipping into violent extremism. A representative of Human Right Watch asked Mr Berger how to balance Freedom of Expression and public security. Mr Berger recalled that the UN regards the Freedom of Expression as the rule and all else as the exception. He stressed that any limitation of essential freedoms should be kept as short and minimalistic as possible. Ambassador Fernandez added that the exception should always be clearly defined and enforced by the rule of law. H.E. Mr Idriss Jazairy, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures, who attended the event, reminded the panel that radicals In Europe actually demand a change of system. Radicals are not necessarily violent or even vocal. He emphasised that violence can come from radicals but also from non-radicals, such as ISIL fighters who have no clue about ideology or Islam.  Ms Rishmawi observed that the most crucial aspect is “the tipping point” between freedoms and safety. She condemned that most people sanctioned by draconic security laws are journalists, NGOs, human rights defenders, etc.