Concern is mounting that moves by the United Nations aimed at curbing xenophobia in the media could be used to attack the freedom of the press in some countries. The United Nations’ willingness to use the word ‘defamation’ in conjunction with religion gives cover to countries that want to use blasphemy laws to target the independent media. In light of the jailing of journalists following the publication of cartoons which depicted the prophet Mohammed, free press campaigners are warning that the casual deployment of the phrase may mortally wound objective media outlets in some countries. (27-OCT-06)
 
The United Nations’ willingness to use the word ‘defamation’ in conjunction with religion gives cover to countries that want to use blasphemy laws to target the independent media. Steve Banks looks at the consequences of playing to the gallery at the UN.

Concern is mounting that moves by the United Nations aimed at curbing xenophobia in the media could be used to attack the freedom of the press in some countries. A number of documents have passed through the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly in New York that seek to prevent the “defamation of religions”.

However, in light of the jailing of journalists following the publication of cartoons which depicted the prophet Mohammed, free press campaigners are warning that the casual deployment of the phrase may mortally wound objective media outlets in some countries.The development comes as newspapers and television stations around the world attempt to cover issues such as the Pope’s controversial take on Islamic history and the suspension of an opera in Germany that included a scene that depicted the severed head of the prophet Mohammed and other religious figures.

Last month, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf called for a ban on the “defamation of Islam” in a speech to the UN. This followed the General Assembly’s adoption earlier in September of a global anti-terror strategy that pledged to prevent “defamation of religions”. The phrase has cropped up repeatedly at the UN in New York and Geneva over the past six years.

But the International Press Institute (IPI) warns that it carries more dangers than guarantees of freedom. “The growing acceptance of this phrase at the international level has worrying implications for freedom of the media,” says IPI Director Johann P Fritz.

“The UN’s willingness to use the word ‘defamation’ in conjunction with religion could provide suitable legal cover and justification for several countries wishing to introduce fresh blasphemy laws. If this were to happen the media would find it increasingly difficult to comment upon religious principles, religious practices and even religious leaders,” Fritz adds.

“While I accept that journalists should be tolerant of religion and, when necessary, express themselves sensitively, I am very concerned that the ‘space’ for the media to report critically is gradually being eroded. I am also worried that this disturbing trend is being aided and abetted by governments and inter-governmental organisations who share the view that the news media are playing a role in encouraging and promoting terrorism.”

“Xenophobia and racism should be rightfully condemned at every possible opportunity. However, in the argument about their impact on the promotion of terrorism, it seems that press freedom and freedom of expression are being increasingly ignored to the detriment of all who believe that a critical media has a role to play in democratic societies,” he concludes.

The row last year over the decision of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to publish cartoons that portray the prophet Mohammed had severe repercussions for journalists in a number of Islamic countries.

A case is ongoing in Indonesia against an editor who decided to reprint one of the cartoon images, while in Jordan two editors were jailed. The editor of the Yemen Observer spent 12 days in prison after his paper reprinted three of the caricatures. The punitive action came despite editor Mohamed al-Asaadi’s claims that he had run the images to criticise an attack on Islam. The Yemen Observer printed black crosses on top of the caricatures to signal its disapproval.

Campaigners against censorship claim that editors and reporters gagged in the wake of the cartoons row were mostly working for publications that were critical of the ruling groups in their countries. In Indonesia prosecutions were carried out under a law that forbade “insults against religion”.

Worldwide, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) found that at least nine publications were closed or suspended and 10 journalists were criminally charged following the cartoon uproar. Censorship orders and harassment were reported in 13 countries, the CPJ found.

In all, 10 journalists were charged with committing crimes; nine newspapers were suspended or closed; three assault and harassment cases were brought; and two censorship orders made.


The balance sheet in the wake of the Danish cartoons crisis

 •  Algeria: Two editors criminally charged
 •  Belarus: One newspaper suspended
 •  Denmark: Jyllands-Posten threatened with bomb attack
 •  India: One editor criminally charged
 •  Jordan: Two editors criminally charged
 •  Lebanon: Journalists assaulted during demonstration against cartoons
 •  Malaysia: Two newspapers suspended
 •  Morocco: Government organizes demonstrations against newspaper
 •  Russia: Two newspapers closed
 •  Saudi Arabia: Newspaper suspended
 •  South Africa: Censorship orders issued against two newspapers
 •  Syria: Writer criminally charged for commentary
 •  Yemen: Three newspapers suspended. Four journalists criminally charge