U.N. racism conference documents show serious threats to press freedom

Analysis

By Gene Mater
freedomforum.org

08.24.01

Printer-friendly page

An analysis of documents prepared for the upcoming United Nations World Conference Against Racism has world media organizations expressing concern about potential threats to press freedom.

U.N. conference documents present two draft proposals of particular concern.

The first is a proposal for governments to create standing national consultation bodies to monitor, mediate and prepare codes of conduct for the press.

"These would amount to state press councils to regulate the news media," said the the Virginia-based World Press Freedom Committee. "While this would be unacceptable, even if it were solely to regulate racism and 'hate speech' in the press, it seems obvious that any such councils would inevitably be called upon to broaden their mandates to regulating other subjects as well."

The second proposal calls on the U.N. Human Rights Commission to draw up an "international code of ethics for communications media" to combat "unlawful dissemination of information that is racist, discriminatory, xenophobic or relating to intolerance."

"Not only is any international ethics code a dangerous idea that has been consistently opposed by press freedom groups when proposed elsewhere, it is certainly not the business of any UN agency to write, adopt or try to enforce" such a code, according to WPFC.

"In any case," the WPFC argues, "the categories of 'information' to outlaw are so broad and so subject to differing interpretations that such a text would certainly be used to repress in some countries forms of expression that would be considered legitimate in others."

"The draft texts seem to assume that racial and ethnic tension and hate can be wished away by banning its expression in the press," WPFC contends, adding: "It should not be the news media's assigned role to fight racism or anything else. The main role of the press is to describe and inform. If media outlets also want to work actively against racial and ethnic hatred, that must be their free choice.

"This happens to be a choice that quality media have historically made, to great effect. If it were a legal requirement, it seems evident that such statements would be generally seen as official propaganda, thus rendering it ineffective."

Two and a half pages of the 65-page "draft program of action" are devoted to media, including the Internet. Although a U.N. proposal and indeed probably decisions coming out of the conference would not have the force of law on member nations, they might provide the excuse for media controls.

The draft program "urges states to make punishable by law … incitement to racial hatred" and "calls upon all states to criminalize dissemination through the Internet of racist messages."

Going one step farther, the draft program also "requests states to take necessary measures to denounce, actively discourage and prohibit the transmission of racist and xenophobic messages through all communications media, including new communications technologies such as the Internet."

Similarly, the draft declaration says that "we recognize that the media should represent the diversity of a multicultural society and play a role in fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." But it also states that "we note with regret that certain media, by promoting false images and stereotypes of vulnerable groups and individuals, particularly of migrants and refugees, have contributed to the spread of xenophobic and racist sentiments among the public and [may] have encouraged violence by racist individuals and groups."

The declaration goes on to say that "we express deep concern about the use of new information technologies, such as the Internet, for purposes contrary to respect for human values, equality, non-discrimination, respect for others and tolerance, including to propagate racism, racial hatred, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance, and that children and youth have access to this material."

Although obviously well-intentioned, proposals such as these would be extremely troublesome to the ideals of free press and free speech.

"The whole philosophy of both the (conference) draft declaration and the action program as regards the press seems to involve state dictation of news media behavior, in clear contradiction of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," according to WPFC.

Article 19 states, "Everyone has the right to the 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."

In a letter to the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Mary Robinson, the Vienna-based International Press Institute says that it "fully agree(s)" with the WPFC position.

In its story, which covers much of the WPFC analysis, the Canadian journal Southern Africa Report contends that "much of the language (in the U.N. conference documents) on other points affecting the press is so broad that it could be used to throttle press freedom."

In its letter, IPI says that the two proposals attacked by WPFC also "would certainly meet with strong resistance from the international press freedom community."

IPI also said that it and other press-freedom groups "have time and again stressed that the idea of an international code of ethics for journalists is a dangerous one."

The racism conference will be in Durban, South Africa, from Aug. 31 to Sept. 7.