ARTICLE 19 has issued a public statement in the wake of the London bombings. The free expression organization has voiced concerns about how proposed security measures will affect fundamental freedoms. (30-AUG-05)

In the wake of the 7 July bombings in London, new security measures will have a dramatic impact on fundamental freedoms, reports ARTICLE 19.

On 5 August, Tony Blair outlined a wide-ranging set of proposals to address terrorist threats in the UK, many of which affect the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The proposed legislation includes specific targeting of those who attempt to justify or condone terrorism or violence, associated with hate speech law.

Under international law, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right which may legitimately be subjected to restriction, provided these restrictions meet a strict three-part test: interference with the right to free expression must be provided for by law; any interference must pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in international law, including public order and national security and the prohibition of hate speech; the restriction must be necessary and proportionate to secure the legitimate aim.

Any government considering amendments to already-existing free speech laws to should do so in light of the argument that combating hate speech is never a legitimate and effective alternative to combating the hatred underlying it. More broadly drafted hate speech laws in France and Spain, far more actively applied, have proven ineffective in the fight against terrorism. History is replete with examples of government efforts to suppress speech on the grounds that it was necessary for survival. In retrospect, these efforts are regarded as dangerous decisions made in moments of crisis. Recent history should give the British government strong grounds for being very tentative in restricting freedom of expression and information in the name of national security. The claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions was the main legal, political, and ideological justification behind the war. This claim was supported by little evidence and transparent discussion, and it was proved to be entirely wrong.

The proposed measures allow for restrictions on speech on dubious grounds, employing overarching definitions that obscure rather than clarify (“condoning or justifying terrorism”, “justifying or validating” violence). Some of the proposed restrictions are so ill-defined that ARTICLE 19 is concerned they will not meet the threshold of “prescribed by law”. Furthermore, they hinge on a mere showing of an indirect link between the speech in question and the risk of harm, a key historic problem with national security laws and one which is particularly open to abuse.

As such, they breach international standards on freedom of expression, for example as identified in the Johannesburg Principles: National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, adopted by experts in 1995, and since widely endorsed and relied upon by judges, lawyers, civil society actors, academics, and journalists.

Full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression is at the very heart of the tolerance of the British people, something Prime Minister Blair applauded in his speech, no doubt with the full endorsement of the rest of the nation. ARTICLE 19 recognises the importance of taking effective steps to address national security concerns and the need to consider new measures in light of the terrible recent attacks in London. However, Unduly restricting cherished rights is precisely the wrong response to terrorism. It is to abdicate rather than defend our values in the face of an attack.

ARTICLE 19 urges the British government to reconsider the proposed measures in light of their international obligations, as well as the question of whether they will actually yield positive results in combating “terrorism”.

For additional information or interview:
Please contact Agnes Callamard, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19:
Tel: 020-7278-9292
Direct line: 020-7239-1184
Mobile: 0774-771-1918