A
global protocol against incitement of hatred urgent
Dimas Muhamad and Astari
Anjani ;
The writers work for the Foreign Ministry
|
JAKARTA
POST, 05 Februari 2015
Observing the aftermath of the attack on Charlie Hebdo is
akin to watching a rerun of a TV series whose plot we know all too well.
Similar patterns have occurred several times, such as the backlash over the
Jylland Posten Prophet Muhammad cartoon fiasco in 2006 and the Innocence of
Muslims film controversy in 2012. In all of these cases, the ensuing fury led
to many unnecessary deaths, as well as expanding the schism between Islam and
the West.
On one side, the West seems to be more emboldened in
defending freedom of speech while being oblivious to the ferocious uproar
that may arise out of the abuse of such freedom. On the other hand, the
“provocative” arts affirm the conviction of some hardliners in the Muslim
world that the West is hell-bent on assaulting their way of life, and that
they ought to stand up for it, even by raising arms.
With this mutual demonizing and self-righteousness, the
greatest tragedy of all is that it might only be a matter of time before
another inflammatory piece of art explodes into violence.
The grievances of the Muslim community are made worse when
the West seemingly applies a “double standard”, where mockery of Judaism
bears a negative “anti-Semitism” mark, while ridicule of Islamic practices
are justified under the banner of free speech. Indonesian religious
intellectuals happen to share such resentment, as in a recent public
discussion concerning freedom of expression that was initiated by
Muhammadiyah, a prominent religious organization in Indonesia.
The international community has deplored the attack on
Charlie Hebdo, but it is not enough. They should strive to prevent such
bloodshed from recurring. A global dialogue involving government officials,
media, artists, religious figures and other stakeholders might be worth considering.
One of the tasks of such a forum would be to do something, which until now
has proven elusive, to draw a line between freedom of speech and hate speech
in the form of a global protocol against incitement of hatred.
To this end, the global community can refer to
international human rights legal instruments, as well as jurisprudence, state
practices and publications, to seek guidance in drafting such a protocol.
As a starting point, Article 19 and 20 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) allow state
parties to enact laws that limit the freedom of expression to ensure respect
of the rights and reputation of others, as well as protecting national
security, public order, public health or morals. It also requires the prohibition
of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Furthermore, the
covenant stipulates that the right to freedom of expression entails special
duties and responsibilities.
Our way forward is to draw up robust definitions of
ambiguous terms contained within the article, such as “protection of public
order”, “advocacy of religious hatred”, “incitement to discrimination” and
the “special duties and responsibilities” one must bear in exercising freedom
of expression. The Camden Principles might be one of the references to
deliberate this matter. For instance, the principles define incitement as
“statements about national, racial or religious groups that create an
imminent risk of discrimination, hostility or violence against persons
belonging to those groups”.
Judicial decisions can also shed some light on
responsibilities entailing the freedom of expression. For example, the
European Court of Human Rights deems that such rights entail “an obligation
to avoid as far as possible expressions that are gratuitously offensive to
others”. Unambiguous definition to differentiate genuine exercise of freedom
of expression from incitement to religious hatred is vital to ensure that
laws against hate speech cannot be misinterpreted for ill purposes, such as
imprisoning journalists and political opponents.
Restraint from ridiculing faith should not be considered
as bowing to extremism, but rather seen as an act of respect, wisdom and
maturity. The last thing we want is to stifle constructive interfaith
dialogue, or stand in the way of healthy discussion of religion. The global
protocol would only ban derogatory attacks that do nothing to promote
tolerance and mutual understanding, while encouraging people to express their
opinions in an educated and elegant manner.
Drawing a threshold for freedom of expression does not
mean that we give people free pass to attack others who create something they
deem offensive. We should still rightly condemn and punish those who commit
violence against others.
We cannot bring back the lives of the Charlie Hebdo
cartoonists or the protesters, but we must do everything in our power to
avert such atrocities from occurring ever again. Otherwise, no matter how
many times we shout “Je suis Charlie,” we have let their demise and sacrifice
be in vain. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar