RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND OTHER COMPETING RIGHTS (Argument on Danish Cartoon Case)
I. INTRODUCTION
The case of Danish cartoons[1] is escalating a major conflict between Denmark and Muslims in the world and leading so much discussion[2], debate[3], protest[4], and international community action[5] all over the world on the ground of the conflict between the rights to freedom of expression and other competing rights such as the right of religion and beliefs, the right of minority and the right of others.[6] The Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing 56 countries, criticized
The absence of International standard about the limitation to exercise of the righ to freedom of expressiont caused the different assessment among democratic states in
The situation become worse when the society in such countries defend to continue the publication of such cartoons on behalf of democratic society without any regard to the notion of tolerance and the nature of the freedom of expression it self.[10] More over when the state concern unwilling to prevent the negative influence of publicizing such cartoons for Muslims around the world and was responded by insulted people trough the same action, so the universality of Human Rights Law will be in question. For instant, continuing the publication of Danish cartoon, Iranians paper launches the Holocaust cartoons competitions.[11] It means that without any understanding among International communities to respect of the rights of others regarding to different political, culture and sociological aspects, the war will never ending.
Regarding to the fact above, this paper will be focused on answering the question: to what extend should democratic states reconciled to freedom of expression limit those forms of extreme expression that may considered as breach of the right of religion or beliefs or the right of minorities or other competing rights? This question becomes more relevant today with the recent rise of extreme manifestation of expression on several medias such as newspaper, tv, internet or others.[12]
In this text, comparison scholar of International Human Rights Law such as ICCPR[13], the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.[14], American Convention on Human Rights[15], African Charter,[16] the Convention of Anti Discrimination, and the National Acts from various democratic states such as France and Denmark with divergent philosophies on freedom of expression will be examined to address the question whether we can, should regulate the limitation to freedom of expression in the notion to protect democracy society.
II. PROTECTION OF PUBLISHING THE CARTOONS DUE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
Some people argue that the right to publish the Danish cartoons should be protected on behalf of the right to freedom of expression in democratic society. Human Rights Watch[17] states that the right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one, necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public. But this argument directly comes to the conclusion that the right to freedom of expression is the absolute one, therefore to suppress the publications of such cartoons will against the nature of this rights.[18] However, in my opinion, whether or not the protection of publishing such cartoons met the principle of democratic society, some principles such as non-discrimination and equal protection of the law need to be examined.
A. Is the freedom of expression an absolute right?
In a democracy state must protect the fundamental rights in balance. It is true that freedom of expression must be considered as a primary rights but one must take into consideration that according to International Law and Human Rights such as the free speech is not absolute one[19], except the right to life, and the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and slavery. Freedom of expression is consecrated as a human right in several international and regional human rights conventions. They all come to the conclusion that freedom of expression includes freedom of opinion, freedom of expressing an opinion and free access to information. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that
“Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference”, and “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Paragraph 3 of the same article affirms that the exercise of these rights presupposes special duties and responsibilities, which means that they can be “subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary […] for respect of the rights or reputations of others [and] for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals”
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of expression of opinions and ideas, as well as the free access to information, without any limitation, throughout diverse technical means, both traditional and modern means, which are developing with the technical progress and the expansion of mass communication methods. This freedom applies not only to opinions and information regarding political, social or economic matters, but also to artistic or commercial expression. Freedom of expression is applicable not only to the press, to the journalists, but to all individuals.
The European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence affirmed that every person in the exercise of the freedom of expression assumes duties and responsibilities. Their scope depends on the field in which it is exercised, the means used, and other aspects of adequate circumstances. Particular attention must be given so that “… every “formality”, “condition”, “restriction” or “penalty” imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights does not defend any idea or opinion contrary to the values protected by the Convention
The international treaties are concerned that there should be a balance between competing rights: for example, limiting free speech or media freedom where impinges on the individual’s rights to privacy where speech causes insult or injury to the rights and reputation of another; where speech is constructed as incitement to violence or hatred, or where free speech wouhld create a public disturbance. Supported by what D. Veldman[20] said that:
“there is a dilemma for liberals. One can be too liberal; free expression may operate in a way which leaves free expression itself weaker. This is an abuse of the right, and must be restratined. It fails to respect the fundamental justifications for free expression, and this may lead to the conclusion that people who abuse the right to free expression sacrifice it to extend of the abuse”.
In that respect, what ever the Court indicated at the outset that it regards the freedom of expression as one of the essential foundation of democratic society, but beings too liberals tends to undermine for freedom that are valued. This is express in the ICCPR, Article 5 par.1 ICCPR:
“ Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any state, group, or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any PAPERdanish case rights and freedoms recognized herein or their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present covenant.”
B. Balancing the freedom of expression and the non-discrimination principle
In democratic state requires the present of non-discrimination principle in order to protect human rights. It is no doubt that the trinity of freedom of opinion, expression and information constitutes a centre of gravity in international human rights norms.[21] The importance of this polyvalent right to democracy is foundational; empowering; enlightening; facilitative. Its cardinal importance for individual self-fulfilment;[22] advancement of knowledge and attainment of truth in society; participation in democratic politics; promotion of transparency in government and of a fair and open legal system, is uncontested. However regarding to the meaning of liberal democracy, the protection of human rights should be presented in democratic state, not only in book but also in action in which not only to recognize the rights and freedoms of individuals but also minorities. The democratic principle also emphasized that the will of majority can be exercised.
Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy (either a constitutional republic or a democratic monarchy) where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional democracy, constitutional liberalism), and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.[23]
So, any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on a number of grounds which has the purpose of effect nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoy or exercise, on equal footing on human rights and fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life is qualified as discrimination[24]. According to Wouter Vandenholle[25], equality of discrimination are often further qualified with twin adjectives like de-jure and de-facto equality and disctrimination, intentional and non-intentional discrimination, direct and indirect discrimination, and the concept of multiple discrimination, systematic or structural inequality and private discrimination.
Although in some situations one may say that freedom of expression and non-discrimination are based on the same argumentation – the respect for a tolerant, open and diverse society – this does not mean that freedom of expression and the right of non-discrimination cannot come in conflict. Because people are social beings, most of the situations regarding human rights protection involve different human rights of different people that interact, and in many cases these rights are in competition with each other. The situations are even more difficult when a person’s rights are in opposition with a general interest of the society protected by the State. The freedom of expression and the right of non-discrimination are not making an exception. These situations are the ones when the expression of an opinion is discriminating a person or a group of persons or a community on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
In my opinion, the cartoons have discriminated because they are excluded the Muslims rights in
Rights that persons belonging to minorities are entitled to, are not, and should not be seen as alternative to the equal enjoyment of all human rights, without discrimination of any kind, with citizens of the majority group. These rights are to keep and maintain the identity, the language, the religion and the culture of the “other” group, of the minority. States are required to take an active role in safeguarding the denial of rights of persons belonging to minorities. To enable the full enjoyment of the rights enumerated in Article 26, it is essential that States adopt legislative and administrative measures. It is hard to imagine, how the culture and religion of a group can be conserved when the state providing necessary support the protection law system for only certain religion or not for all religions. For instant, English law has protected the Christian religion by the law of blasphemy. This has been, however, protected that religion from criticism as such. This doctrine should be extended to all religions otherwise it against the principle of equal protection of the law.[27] Danish criticisms on his cartoon would of themselves adversely affect the ability to exercises art 9 rights. Of course, they make do so because of the circumstances in which the verbal attacked were communicated. His cartoon for example in a manner that disrupted that might interfere with the freedom to manifest religious beliefs, such that the state may come under positive obligation to intervene.
The rights accorded to members of minorities would be purely theoretical unless adequate system and institutional are established. Only the effective exercise of the rights set forth in Article 26 can guarantee observance of the principle of real, rather than merely formal, equality of persons belonging to minority groups. The implementation of these rights calls for active and sustained intervention by States. The Human Right Court (HRC) has thus examined the issues of discrimination under Article 26 not only entitlements which individual entertain vis-a-vis the state but also obligations assumed by them pursuant to law.[28] As consequences, not banned the publication of cartoons and the absence of the willingness of majority towards Danish case were incompatible with the principle of democracy and put the state far from the sense of democratic society.
C. Freedom of expression and the Notion of tolerance
According to Tarlach McGonagle[29], tolerance is
“ a concept of complex, composite coloration: at least seven different shades of tolerance can be identified. These reflect, to a greater or lesser extent, the different intensities of meaning, which the term conjures up for different people. Tolerance must begin with awareness; a consciousness of the other (person or opinion); but it must also go further than that. Mere awareness does not imply any degree of engagement with the other; it is still possible to damn him/her with indifference. The next shade of tolerance could therefore be said to be forbearance, which in turn leads on to a form of acceptance in the guise of non-discrimination. From this passivity, a more active form of acceptance – entailing affirmative efforts or measures - can emerge. Its manifestation is as equality. In its turn, equality is a precursor to full respect for the dignity of the other and full respect for the difference of the other.
In other word, freedom of speech is asking for “duties and responsibility”. The message must not subjective and based on the fact, research or data. If the information given tend to insult the rights of others and ignorance the fact that they can be insulted, there is no doubt that incitement to violence or hatred will intent to be constructed. Some medias in European countries are re-publishing the cartoons. Through the Internet people from all around the world can see the picture of the cartoons. As the result, Muslims around the world have been shocked because of its. Democracy without any tolerance is nonsense. Danish cartoons have been insulted the right of Muslims beliefs and cause an extraordinary outcry had spread to the Muslim world at large and the protest of 5000 Muslims in
More over, Bollinger[30] brings tolerance and hate speech[31] together in his tolerance principle of free speech, the starting-point of which is “an understood commitment to extraordinary self-restraint; coupled […] with a willingness to be sensitive to context.” He states that the “strong presumption in favour of toleration […] can be overcome only after it is determined that the society has little or nothing to gain” from exercising tolerance, “and, by comparison, a great deal to lose.” This is an allusion to the theory that hate speech – despite its moral repugnancy - can have some, limited, instrumental value to society.
Human Right Watch states that to constitute such incitement, the discrimination, hostility or violence must be urged or promoted by the speech in question. It is not incitement when opponents of speech or those who find the speech offensive use violence, since that would give censorship over any speech to those who are willing to employ violence to attack it. In this case, the main complaint against the cartoons is that they offend Islam, not that they have inspired acts of violence, criminal harassment or tangible discrimination against Danish or other Muslims. Speech that targets a religion for disrespect, as opposed to speech that targets believers for unlawful acts, is protected, however offensive it may be.
In my opinion, through these cartoons can also advocate the religious hatred in the long-term processes it could constitute imminent incitement to unlawful acts of discrimination, hostility or violence. In other word, the state should responsible not only to protect such human rights but also to prevent the possibility of human rights violations. As what Rance D’ Souza mentioned the state have justification to suppress the information regarding to the need and perfectly understandable attempts to prevent racism, violence, or religious intolerance. However, I agree that censorship is the first instrument of government intent to departing from democratic procedures and we believe at Article 19 that we have special responsibility to understand better how democracy is destroyed through censorship. For example, in
III. THE DISPUTED OVER THE CARTOONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Danish cartoon caused an immediate public outcry. It would more naturally seem to fall under Article 10, but in fact the European Commission of Human rights has given abroad interpretation to the words. In Danish case it held that his cartoons against the right of belief and religions of others fell within the scope of Article 9, being a manifestation of expression, and was, in principle, to be permitted. Unfortunately, the applicant had expressed his views so loudly an in such a persistent manner that had provocated the applicant of the exception under Art 9 (2) whereby his freedom of expression could be restricted for protection of the right of others.
The European Court of Human Rights in
“However, as it borne out by the wording itself of Article 10 para.2, whoever exercise the rights and freedoms enshrined in the first paragraph of that article 10 undertake duties and responsibilities. Amongst them- in thr context of religious opinions and beleiefs- may legitimately be included an obligation to avoid as far as possible expression that gratuitously offensive to others and those an infringement of their rights, and which therefore do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affair.
The court further stated that the justification for the restriction upon freedom of expression was the need to protect the right of citizens not to be insulted in their religious feelings by the public expression of view of other persons. In another passage is referred to their “right to respect for their religious felling”, a right which is not expressed, an so can only be implicit, within Article 9.
The Council of Europe has developed a considerable body of law, jurisprudence and standards regarding press freedom and access information. The primary statement of law is set forth in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The impact of Article 10 on press freedom and related rights has been authoritatively construed by the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court”) in a dozen or so decisions, and has been further elaborated buy non-binding reports of the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”). The judgments of the Court are legally binding only on the countries which are party to the ECHR include
Once it has been determined or assumed that an applicant’s right to manifest a freedom of expression under Article 10 (1) has been restricted, it is necessary to determine whether this interference can be justified under Article 10 (2). Article 10 (2) requires States to show that the limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in interest of public safety, for protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others. Loucides says that this structure is similar to that used determine permissible limitations to a number of other rights in the Convention, in particular Article 8 The right to privacy), Article 9 (the right of religion and beliefs), Article 11 (Freedom of peaceful assembly and association).[34] It is thus worthwhile considering how the Court and Commission generally deal with such clauses, as well as looking at the specific issues raised by freedom of expression. To be “necessary” a restriction does not have to be “indispensable” but it must be more than merely “reasonable” or “desirable”. A “pressing social need” must be demonstrated, the restriction must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and the reasons given to justify the restriction by “sufficient” reasons, the Court must consider any public interest aspect of the case. [35]
The Court has frequently reaffirmed the principle, first stated in the Handyside case, that Article 10 protects publication of information and ideas which are offensive or shocking as well as information which is not controversial:
“ Freedom of expression, as secures in paragraph 1 of article 10 constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions its progress…. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance, broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democracy society’.[36]
So in order to impose fairly stringent tests to be satisfied before such restriction, very often this requires legislatures or court to conduct a balancing exercise through “margin of appreciation”. The main requirements are that the restriction should be directed to meeting a “pressing social needs” and that it should not be disproportionate to that need. Whether “pressing social need” on the Danish case is in proportional need, the Court can observe the notion of Article 5 (1) ICCPR[37] that are aimed at the destruction of other rights. Whether or not the state, group or person correlated to the Danish cartoons is intentionally doing something which has, or is objectively likely to have, a destructive effect, or they must subjectively intend to produce the effect, or (perhaps) recognize the risk, and prepared to live with it, or it can objectively be seen to threaten rights, even if that is not the intended consequences. Following to the publishing of the Danish cartoons, some situations were happened. Not only debate, protest or Mr Selbekk and his family received numerous death threats
The Court held that two requirements, which flow from the expression, were:
(1) the law must be adequately accessible: the citizen must able to have an indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case;
(2) a norm cannot be regarded as law unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able—if need be with appropriate advice—to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances which a given action may entail.[38]
In the Danish case, the exercise of freedom of expression gives rise to arrange of potential conflicts with the rights and freedoms of others. Some of these conflicts overlap with other heads of permissible limitation discussed above. The right to manifest one’s expression through the ignorance of other belief, for example, interferes the right of others to respected their religion or beliefs. As the Court noted, in democratic societies, in which several religions coexist within one or the same population, it may necessary to place restrictions on (freedom of expression) in order to reconcile the interest of various groups and ensure that everyone’s beliefs are respected.[39]
Franco Frattini, the European Union commissioner for justice, freedom and security, revealed the idea for a code of conduct in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. Mr Frattini, a former Italian foreign minister, said the EU faced the “very real problem” of trying to reconcile “two fundamental freedoms, the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion”. The question is whether the idea of it self-censorship would be meet the requirements of restriction above will be debateable and a big question for the writer since Franco said that the media code of conduct would not have legal status. On the other hand, the respond from International Human Rights Organization such as United Nations High Commission of Human Rights following the meeting among state members of Organization Islam Communities (OIC) is still far from being an effectives rule as the ratified the Resolution Number 60/150 about Combating defamation of religions, which should prohibit defamation of all Prophets and faiths as yet, it is not adopting by any state or other regional organisation such as European Union or OIC.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conclusions:
1. Having regard to the theory of democracy, continuing publications of the Danish cartoons are incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination and the equal protection of the law.
2. The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right and it should be implemented by having regard to the distinction of the right as an essential means to challenging state power or military power, this free speech as a means of stigmatising vulnerable religious or ethnic minorities.
3. Reconciliation between the freedom of expression and the other rights should be based on International Human Rights Law and having regard to proportionality of the “pressing social need” and supported by willingness among International Communities.
B. Recommendations:
1. It is important to adopt necessary legislative measures by the EU against Islamophobia through the European Parliament.
2. The EU and the OIC should make joint efforts for the adoption of a Resolution by the United Nations on the lines of existing UN Resolution 60/150 (Combating defamation of religions) which should prohibit defamation of all Prophets and faiths.
3. The adoption code of ethics for the European media should take into account the sensitivities of the Muslims and defamation in any form or manifestation and the core beliefs of the religions including mocking and criticizing Prophets and it should be considered as an ethical offense in the European media code.
4. The United Nations should define the freedom of speech with regard to religious symbols and include operative provisions prohibiting blasphemy and defamation as well as incitement to hatred in the text of the resolution on the Statute of the Human Rights Council presently being considered at the UN.
[1] On September 30, 2005, On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammed that its editors said they solicited as part of an experiment to overcome what they perceived as self-censorship reflected in the reluctance of illustrators to depict the Prophet. The cartoons were highly offensive to Muslims because Islam is understood to prohibit graphic depictions of the Prophet and because most of the depictions were extremely derogatory, for example, by associating him, and by implication all Muslims, with terrorism.
[2] The writer it self has been attending to the discussion forum about the cartoons in Utrecht more than three times with the speaker Prof. Leo van Zwaak, Prof. Inneke Boeferijn, Prof. An-Na’im during April to May 2005.
[3] See the cartoons’ debate on severals website such as
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002970.html and see also the debate among International experts such as Walter Reich, an international studies professor at
[4] On September 2005, the publication led to outrage among the Muslim immigrants living in
[5] Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that the decision by some European papers to publish the cartoons could encourage terrorists. Afghan President Hamid Karzai also strongly condemned their publication, saying it was “an affront… for hundreds of millions of people”. Hundreds of students demonstrated in the Pakistani cities of
[6] The publication led to outrage among the Muslim immigrants living in
[7] See at http://www.oic-oci.org/
[8] See at www.brusselsjournal.com/node/407 - 89k -
[9] This decision as a result of was reacted by the France Foreign Ministry that condemned the publication of the cartoons, for they hurt “individual in their believes or their religious convictions”. See on Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Dispute at http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698
[10] On
[11] See 12 Iranians cartoons of Holocaust at http://www.irancartoon.com/
[12] They are the Muslim concern over Art: 1989: the Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini calls on Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy in his book The Satanic Verses; 2002: Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel’s article about Prophet and Miss World contestants sparks deadly riots; 2004: Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh killed after release of his documentary about violence against Muslim women; 2005: London’s Tate Britain museum cancels plans to display sculpture by John Latham for fear of offending Muslims after July bombings
[13]The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1977 Article 19.
[14] Article 10 par. 1 and 2 about Freedom of Expression on the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
[15] Article 13 par. 1,2,3,4,5 of American Convention.
[16] Article 9 of the African Charter
[17] See Human Rights Watch: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE DANISH CARTOONS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: When Speech Offends, The cartoons caused extreme offense to many Muslims—why should the right to freedom of expression protect such cartoons? (Last Updated on
[18] It was supported by the fact that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has previously refused to meet with the ambassadors of some of the Muslim countries who wanted to discuss the cartoons, saying he had no power over the national media’s actions.
[19] Manfred Nowak, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, at Raija Hanski and Markku Suksi (ed.) An Introduction to the International Protection of Human Rights, A Textbook, Institute for Human Rights,
[20] D. Veldman, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in
[21] Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of
the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
[22] This term has also been referred to as “self -realization” (Edwin C. Baker), “self -development” (Eric
M. Barendt) and “self -actualization” (Owen M. Fiss).
[23] Democracy, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
[24] See Article 1 ICERD and art. 1 CEDAW
[25] Vandenhole, Wouter, Non-Discrimination and Equality in the View of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, p.35-36.
[26] See Article 26 of the CCPR: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground of such race, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national, or social origin, property, birth and other status.”
[27] Ibid. Art.26
[28] UN Doc.CCPR/C/D/273/1989.para.6.5, Communication No.273/1989, B.d.B.v. The
[29] See Tarlach McGonagle, “Wresting (Racial) Equality from Tolerance of Hate Speech”, (2001) 23
[30] R. C. Post, Constitutional Domains: Democracy, Community, Management (
University Press, 1995), p. 293.
[31] ‘Hate speech’ is a term which refers to a whole spectrum of negative discourse stretching from hate and incitement to hatred; to abuse, vilification, insults and offensive words and epithets; and arguably also to extreme examples of prejudice and bias.15 In short, virtually all racist and related declensions of noxious, identity assailing expression could be brought within the wide embrace of the term. Various rationales exist for legal prohibitions on hate speech. Robert Post has enumerated the main ones: intrinsic harm; harm to identifiable groups; harm to individuals; harm to the market-place of ideas; harm to educational environment. This list is not exhaustive and other authors prefer to focus on the identity-implicating nature of the offence and the “psychic harm” caused by hate speech.
[32] See FraMahmut Tali Ongoren, Government and the Media, page 31.
[33] Mr Gettermann entered the Danish Foreign Service in 1980. He has had postings in
[34] See Loukis G. Luicaides, Essays on the Developing Law of Human Right 183-5 (1995) at ….Limitation on Manifestations of Religions or Belief.
[35] Sunday Times cse, supra note 9 at para 49 at Sandra Coliver, Press Freedom Under the European Convention On Human Rights, chapter 12, p.219.
[36] Handyside case, supra note 12 at para 49; Lingens case, supra note 22 at para.41 at Sandra Coliver, Press Freedom Under the European Convention On Human Rights, chapter 12, p.219.
[37] see Article 5 par.1 ibid. p.7
[38] Para.49 of the majority judgment.
[39] Kokkinakis v.
