Country intepretation: Difference between revisions
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Question|Country intepretation|Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Question]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:40, 5 January 2023
Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
| Right | Breakout | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom of Association | The right to freedom of association is recognized by the United Nations as universal and intrinsic to every human being, encompassing an individual’s right to interact and organize with others to collectively “express, promote, pursue and defend common interests”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key text in the history of international human rights law, states in its Article 20 that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and “no one may be compelled to belong” to one, with an individual’s right to “form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” being expanded upon in Article 23 (UN General Assembly 1948, 5-6). Freedom of association is also closely related to freedom of assembly, with the latter often being seen as falling under the umbrella of “association”. However, this freedom is not guaranteed to the same capacity in every state, with countries having their own interpretations and practices of the right within their legal code, in part due to their unique cultural and political context. This results in different protocols and limitations related to the formation of associations, with some states interpreting the right in a more restrictive manner and outlawing certain groups, placing obstacles in their creation, or impeding them through particular practices, while other states are more lenient as long as the organizations are not engaging in violent practices.
While the Constitution of the United States recognizes and protects the rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government, it does not explicitly mention the right to freedom of association. However, as the report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the U.S. affirms, “The right to freedom of association is implicitly guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution, read together, which protect the rights of free speech and assembly and due process, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases” (“Report..” 2017, 10). These cases include NAACP v. Alabama and Bates v. Little Rock (1960) in which the Supreme Court recognized the right of individuals to “associate together free from undue state interference” and that “freedom of association finds protection within the First Amendment’s free speech and assembly clauses” respectively (“Case Studies” 2023, 1). This gives citizens the ability to “associate, organize and act collectively”, forming special interests groups and allowing workers to unionize, though the latter is “regulated by several pieces of legislation at the federal, state and local levels” and laws that are “supplemented by court and tribunal decisions that establish related standards and principles” (“Report…” 2017, 10). The freedom of association is not absolute in the United States, as “forms of association that are neither ‘intimate’ nor ‘expressive’ within the meaning of First Amendment Case law may not receive constitutional protection” (“Overview of Freedom of Association” 2023). Nevertheless, even individuals who form associations for the purpose of engaging in assembly can be subject to government oversite, as the UN’s Special Rapporteur wrote that the “Supreme Court has held that the right to assemble is not absolute, allowing the authorities to impose restrictions on the time, place and manner of assembly and to require permits”, though they are “prohibited from restricting assemblies based on their content”. He further noted that the “interpretation by the Supreme Court of this right falls short of international standards, owing to the approach to restrictions on the time, place and manner of assembly” (7). Under the legal code, the Supreme Court has also held that “compelled association” can violate the Constitution: "in some circumstances, laws requiring organizations to include persons with whom they disagree on political, religious, or ideological matters can violate members’ freedom of association, particularly if those laws interfere with an organization’s message” (“Overview of Freedom of Association” 2023). Freedom of association in Niger is explicitly granted in article 9 of the country’s constitution, giving citizens the right to form unions, non-governmental organizations, and political parties with certain restrictions. During a visit to Niger to report on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Special Rapporteur Clément Nyaletsossi Voule noted: “Ordinance No. 84-06 of March 1, 1984, on the regime of associations reaffirms discrimination in the Nigerien Constitution against territorial associations and indigenous peoples, where associations of a regional or ethnic nature, specifically associations of ethnic groups, tribes and other territorial divisions are prohibited (Voule 2022, 13). He further wrote that this “censorship of certain types of associations is not in line with international standards relating to freedom of association and the obligation of democratic states to guarantee pluralistic spaces and to ‘leave no one behind’ in the implementation of sustainable development goals.” (13). The legal code in Niger does not allow for the creation of these groups, interpreting the right to freedom of association differently than in countries where it is not prohibited to form political groups along those lines. Though the Constitution of Niger does provide for the right to association, Special Rapporteur Voule emphasized that in practice it can be quite difficult to exercise in the country: “The Special Rapporteur became aware, during interviews with representatives of civil society, of the time needed to register associations and receive recognition orders, which can range from two to ten years. While these deadlines are provided for by Ordinance No. 84-06, the procedure established by Decree No. 2022-182 may accentuate the slowness of the process, making it practically impossible to create associations, in particular those whose purpose is to respond to the current political and social situation and to act accordingly.” (Voule 2022, 16) Niger’s ability to exercise the right is considerably hindered by its slowness in carrying out the registration process, creating a discrepancy between its legal code and the reality for its citizens. Iran, a theocratic state, guarantees freedom of association in its constitution, though with certain restrictions. In its 2022 Country Report on Human Rights in Iran, the U.S. Department of State stated that the Iranian Constitution protects the “establishment of political parties, professional and political associations, and Islamic and recognized religious minority organizations, as long as such groups do not violate the principles of freedom, sovereignty, national unity, or Islamic criteria, or question Islam as the basis of the country’s system of government” (“Iran” 2023, 40). Authorities have the power to regulate them and decide whether an association violates the constitution, with the Department of State’s report stating that the government limited freedom of association through “the imposition of arbitrary requirements on organizations” and broadening “arbitrarily the areas of civil society work it deemed unacceptable, to include conservation and environmental efforts” (40). While providing for the right under its legal code, the government interprets it in a more restrictive manner and heavily regulates it, prohibiting the formation of several types of groups, such as trade unions and labor organizations The non-profit organization Freedom House found that labor organizations and nongovernmental agencies that seek to address human rights violations are routinely suppressed, though “groups that focus on apolitical issues also face crackdowns” (“Freedom in the World” 2023). While the right to freedom of association is considered a universal human right, it is not applied in a standard manner. Countries often hold different standards for the freedom, with their own rules and regulations, interpretations, and practices. References: “Case Studies: Freedom of Association.” 2023. Case Categories The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/12/freedom-of-association. “Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report: Iran.” 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2021. “Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report: Iran.” 2023. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2023. “Iran.” 2023. U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. March 20. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/iran/. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association on His Follow-up Mission to the United States of America.” 2017 “Overview of Freedom of Association.” 2023. Constitution Annotated. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/. UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, , 217 A (III), https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf Voule, Clément Nyaletsossi. 2022. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association in Niger https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G22/388/85/PDF/G2238885.pdf?OpenElement | |
| Freedom of Expression | The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948, recognized freedom of expression as a universal human right, inherent and applicable to all individuals. A milestone declaration, it has subsequently influenced countless state constitutions, treaties, and legal codes, defining the right as including the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (UN General Assembly 1948, 5). Though a majority of nations grant freedom of expression to their constituents in a formal capacity, there are often discrepancies in the way they are practiced and protected, as well as interpreted, in part because of a country’s history, political philosophy, and social factors. Some states are more restrictive of expression, prohibiting or discouraging acts and speech that reflect negatively on the nation’s religion, regime, or culture, while others safeguard this form of expression. Nearly all have censorship laws in place that touch upon defamation and libel, hate speech, and obscenities, though with varying degrees of consequences and protection.
Nations with strong secular traditions, such as France, allow for criticisms and negative portrayals of religion under the right to freedom of expression, while theocratic states, like Iran and Pakistan, completely restrict it under threat of punishment. Freedom of expression has been a fundamental right for French citizens since the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789, which provided a “limited freedom of expression whose scope is defined by law,” leaving it up to legislators to establish those limits (Guedj 2021, 1). The right was redefined by the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881, which reemphasized the public’s ability to express itself while forbidding libel, defamation, offence to public decency and provocations to crimes, among others, and then again with the Pleven Act of 1972 and the Gayssot Act, which prohibited incitement to racial/religious hatred and Holocaust denial respectively (Colosimo 2018, 2). Those who violate these laws can be subject to fines or imprisonment. However, under France’s legislature, it is “possible to insult a religion, its figures and symbols,” as long as it does not incite violence or “insult members of a religion” for belonging to that faith (Colosimo 2018, 2). Though the lines between the two can be blurry, the right to freedom of expression in France is quite liberal when it comes to discussion around religion and allows for acts of expression that go against theological doctrine and criticize it. There are several theocratic states that have provisions within their legal framework that also guarantee freedom of expression, though they heavily restrict it through strict anti-blasphemy laws that prohibit any act or speech that can be perceived as negative by governmental authorities and carry punishments. Article 24 of Iran’s constitution states, “Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law” (“Islamic Republic of Iran” 2023, 14). Pakistan has a similar provision in its constitution with Article 19: "Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, committing, or inciting an offence" (Pakistan Constitution, ch. 1, art. 19). While Iran and Pakistan do have a legal freedom of expression, they restrict it, with the international non-profit organization Reporters Without Borders (RWB) citing various cases in which they censored and filtered what is put online and “punished citizens for statements that were considered blasphemous” (“2023 World Press Freedom Index” 2023, 5). Restrictions of expressions on religion are not only enforced in theocratic countries, however, as Finland forbids breaching the sanctity of religion “which includes ‘blaspheming against God,’ publicly defaming or desecrating to offend something a religious community holds sacred, and disturbing worship or funeral ceremonies” with violators being subject to “fines or imprisonment of up to six months” (“Finland 2021 Report” 2021, 3). Thailand, a constitutional monarchy, guaranteed freedom of expression to its citizens since the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and continues to guarantee it with the various different constitutions that have followed since, though it has a distinct interpretation of the right when it comes to the royal family. Thailand’s government is very restrictive of the way citizens can partake in this right, particularly with its strict lèse-majesté laws, seen as one of the harshest in the world. Lèse-majesté is an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state, an act that is prohibited under Thailand’s legal code which states, “Whoever defames, insults, or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir to the Throne, or the Regent, will be punished with a jail sentence between three and fifteen years.” (Mérieau 2021, 77). The state’s right to freedom of expression does not cover speech or acts that are deemed negative towards the monarchy, with the law being considered ambiguous and open to the interpretation of authorities. This distinct interpretation of freedom of expression derives from the influence of Hindu-Buddhist culture in Thailand where kings were seen as divine figures to be respected, giving them a form of sanctity that left a lasting impact on the country’s political system (Mérieau 2021, 78). Other states that interpret freedom of expression in a similar way include Turkey, where it is illegal under Article 301 of the country’s penal code to insult the Turkish nation, its government, and its national heroes under threat of imprisonment (“Turkey: Article 301” 2006, 1). Saudi Arabia, holds freedom of expression to a different status than the previously mentioned states, failing to articulate it in its law but still penalizing acts of expression that are deemed blasphemous or portray the regime in a negative light, with punishments ranging from hefty fines to death sentences. Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law of Governance, the country’s constitution-like charter, does not provide for freedom of expression or the press, simply stating, "Mass media and all other vehicles of expression shall employ civil and polite language, contribute towards the education of the nation, and strengthen unity. The media are prohibited from committing acts that lead to disorder and division, affect the security of the state or its public relations, or undermine human dignity and rights” (U.S. Department of State 2018, 23). This gives authorities ample power to determine what expression violates the law, placing heavy emphasis on the safeguarding of religious values and morals. A distinct feature of freedom of expression in the United States that differentiates it from many other nations is that certain hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. In the United States, “hate speech is given wide constitutional protection while under international human rights covenants and in other Western democracies, such as Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, it is largely prohibited and subjected to criminal sanctions” (Rosenfeld 2002, 1523). This was reaffirmed in the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court Case Matal v. Tam, in which the justices determined that hate speech falls under the protection of free speech: “With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys” (2). The expression may be subject to punishment if it seeks to incite an imminent violent or lawless action This is quite a different interpretation than many other democratic nations, where expressions that are considered hate speech can be punishable by law. In Germany, for example, acts of expression that are racist, antisemitic, advocating for Nazism, denying the Holocaust, or glorifying the ideology of Hitler are illegal (“Germany: Freedom in the World” 2023, 9). The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a fundamental human right that applies to all individuals by the United Nations, being adopted and incorporated into the legal code or constitutions of a majority of states around the world. The right differs, however, in its interpretation and practice within each individual country, as well as the extent to which it is protected. Some states interpret freedom of expression through a more restrictive lens, prohibiting negative acts of expression that touch upon religion, government, or culture, while others allow it with more lenient limitations. A state’s interpretation of freedom of expression can be influenced by its unique history, its political climate, as well as social and religious factors, resulting in different interpretations and practices of freedom of expression around the world. References: “2023 World Press Freedom Index – Journalism Threatened by Fake Content Industry.” 2023. RSF. Accessed June 14. https://rsf.org/en/2023-world-press-freedom-index- journalism-threatened-fake-content-industry. Colosimo, Anastasia. 2018. “Blasphemy in France and in Europe: A Right or an Offense?” Institut Montaigne. November 16. https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions “Finland 2021 International Religious Freedom Report.” 2023. U.S. Department of State. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/FINLAND-2021 “Germany: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report.” 2023. Freedom House. Accessed June 9. https://freedomhouse.org/country/germany/freedom-world/2022. Guedj, Nikita. 2021. “The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881: A Text That Both Guarantees and Restricts Freedom of Expression.” Fondation Descartes. July 16. https://www.fondationdescartes.org/en/2021/07/the-law-on-the-freedom-of-the-press-of- 29-july-1881-a-text-that-both-guarantees-and-restricts-freedom-of-expression/. “Islamic Republic of Iran 1979 (Rev. 1989) Constitution.” 1989. Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iran_1989?lang=en. Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Tam. 582 U.S. (2027) Mérieau, E. 2021. “A History of the Thai lèse-majesté Law”. Thai Legal History: From Traditional to Modern Law, 60-70. Rosenfeld, Michel. 2002. “Hate speech in constitutional jurisprudence: a comparative analysis.” Cardozo L. Rev., 24, 1523. “Turkey: Article 301: How the Law on ‘Denigrating Turkishness’ Is an Insult to Free Expression.” 2006. Amnesty International. March 1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/003/2006/en/. UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, , 217 A (III), https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf U.S Department of State. 2018. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017: Saudi Arabia. | |
| Freedom of Religion | The right to freedom of religion is interpreted and expressed in a number of different ways all over the world. Most modern states’ constitutions recognize freedoms of belief, faith, and practice of religion within their borders, so long as that practice does not pose a danger to the state or society. Many of these countries respect their citizens’ right to freedom of religion, though some do place certain restrictions on the right by requiring religious organizations to register, outlawing certain religious practices, or restricting religious toleration to a few choice faiths. The United States was one of the earliest countries to embrace the principle of freedom of religion, but its implementation of that right within its legal framework is rather unusual. While the country was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom, it does not specify the right to religious freedom within its Constitution. Rather, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (United States Bill of Rights, Article I). This means that the government must respect the people’s religious freedom, but it does not specifically establish the right to the free practice of faith or belief. Of course, the right has been exercised freely throughout the country’s history, and over the years the courts have determined that the right is implied within the Constitution. Canada also guarantees the right to religious freedom, but it does so more directly than the United States. Its constitution guarantees that “freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion” (U.S. State Department, “Canada,” 2018, 1). By directly invoking freedom of religion in its legal system, Canada leaves less to interpretation than the United States Bill of Rights. It also allows citizens to protect their own right to religious freedom by appealing directly to the right in legal cases. A 2018 U.S. State Department report on Canadian religious freedom notes that while Canadian law “imposes ‘reasonable limits’ on the exercise of these religious rights only where such restrictions can be ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,’” the law also “permits individuals to sue the government for ‘violations’ of religious freedom.” (U.S. State Department, “Canada,” 2018, 3).
Of course, not every country that guarantees the right to freedom of religion allows its citizens to exercise that right. The People’s Republic of China, for instance, guarantees its citizens the right to freedom of religion, but places heavy restrictions on the practice of that freedom. The U.S. State Department reports that the PRC government “limits protections for religious practice to ‘normal religious activities’ and does not define ‘normal,’” and that it “continues to exercise control over religion and restrict the activities and personal freedom of religious adherents when the government perceived these as threatening state or Chinese Communist Party (CCP) interests” (U.S. State Department, “China,” 2018, 1). The report also states that in 2018 “there continued to be reports of deaths in custody and that the government tortured, physically abused, arrested, detained, sentenced to prison, or harassed adherents of both registered and unregistered religious groups for activities related to their religious beliefs and practices” (U.S. State Department, “China,” 2018, 1). Reports show that Muslims have recently been the most heavily targeted religious group as the Chinese government continues to crack down on religious expression. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is guilty of similar rights violations. While the North Korean constitution also guarantees freedom of religion for its citizens, the State Department reports that within the country“there was an almost complete denial by the government of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and in many instances, violations of human rights committed by the government constituted crimes against humanity” (U.S. State Department, “North Korea,” 2018, 1). While information on the North Korean government is notoriously difficult to acquire, accounts from witnesses and refugees indicate that the country is reluctant to allow the free practice of religion, and that it actively represses the people’s exercise of this right through the use of force. The State Department reports that “one [North Korean] refugee said there was no religious freedom in the country, and another said that if someone were found to be a Christian, he or she would immediately be shot.” (U.S. State Department, “North Korea,” 2018, 3). Such horrific conditions prove that while many states may claim to respect their citizens’ freedom of religion, this right is often subject to heavy regulation and restriction. Iran is almost unique in its treatment of religious freedom, because its government does not guarantee the right at all. “The constitution defines the country as an Islamic republic, and specifies Twelver Ja’afari Shia Islam as the official state religion. It states all laws and regulations must be based on “Islamic criteria” and an official interpretation of sharia” (U.S. State Department, “Iran,” 2018, 3). The discussion of other religions is restricted within the country, and the constitution states that “no one may be ‘subjected to questioning and aggression for merely holding an opinion.’” According to the State Department, the law also “prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs” (U.S. State Department, “Iran,” 2018, 3). This does not mean that minority religions are outlawed; recognized minority groups are allowed to operate private schools, though they are subject to a number of restrictions (U.S. State Department, “Iran,” 2018, 7). In such a theocracy, the exercise of religious freedom is very difficult and exceedingly dangerous. Different countries interpret the right to freedom of religion in a number of varying ways, and this often leads governments to restrict their citizens’ exercise of that right. Most modern states guarantee the right within their constitutions, but the actual protection of citizens’ freedom of religion is not always observed in states controlled by authoritarian or oppressive regimes. References: United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. IRAN 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/IRAN-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FRE EDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. CHINA (INCLUDES TIBET, XINJIANG, HONG KONG, AND MACAU) 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CHINA-INCLUSIVE-2018-INTERNATIONAL-R ELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. Ochab, Ewelina U. “Is China Conducting A Crackdown On Religion?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 20 Apr. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/04/20/is-china-conducting-a-crackdown-on-religion/. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. ITALY 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ITALY-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FR EEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. IRAN 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/IRAN-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FRE EDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK) 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KOREA-DEM-REP-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RE LIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. RUSSIA 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RUSSIA-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-F REEDOM-REPORT.pdf. U.S. Mission Egypt, 23 June, 2019, Topics: News. “2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: Egypt.” U.S. Embassy in Egypt, 27 June 2019, eg.usembassy.gov/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom-egypt/. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. BELARUS 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/BELARUS-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS -FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. CANADA 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CANADA-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS- FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. NEW ZEALAND 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NEW-ZEALAND-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELI GIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. | |
| Freedom of the Press | In 2017, Freedom House estimated that only 13% of the world’s population lived in states with free press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Thirteen percent is low and creates little incentive for less-free media states to improve media freedoms (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). 45% of the population lived in states with ‘not free’ press, while 42% of the population lived in states with ‘partly free’ press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Freedom House defines free press on a spectrum, with free press being an environment that allows the right to seek and distribute information without interruption or censorship. These can take many forms, such as arresting or threatening journalists, being influenced by the government (monetarily or otherwise), or restricting access to news sources (i.e., disabling the internet) (Repucci, 2019) . The presence of these elements decreased media in the state and hinders citizens’ ability to get impartial information. In 2017, free states were, generally, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Partially free states were prominent in South America, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, Central America, and Central and Eastern Europe, with the additions of India and Mongolia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Not free states were common in Eastern Africa and Asia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15).
Freedom of expression is called for and agreed upon in many international conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19, American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, and the African Charter of Human Rights Article 9 (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly calls out freedom of the press (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2; Stier, 2015, 1274) . These conventions and declarations pave the way for freedom of the press in many states, though it is recognized that freedom of expression may be limited, mostly for the protection of something or someone. Exceptions, according to the Human Rights Committee, must be provided by law to safeguard a legitimate interest and must also be necessary to secure this interest (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2). Free: Though credited with some of the freest press in the world in 2017, freedom of the press in the United States looked to be declining (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Factors such as media polarization, mistrust, undermining, and profit-motivated media coupled with changing business models were contributing factors in this decline, though constitutional checks prevented even more decline (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Additionally, recent presidents’ actions have trended toward more restrictive of the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 1-2). Despite the Freedom Act of 2015, media monitoring is prominent in the United States, as well as other free media states such as Canada, Britain, Germany, and France, and becomes more prominent with less free media (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). Partly Free: In partly free media states, generally, media is not explicitly restricted or censored, but actions taken by the government have demonstrated restrictions. In Hungary, pro-government media was monetarily rewarded by Hungary’s government was only selling stories to specific media outlets (Abramowitz, 2017, 6; Banks, 2020) . These actions “unfairly starved independent media channels” while publicly funding channels that were politically advantageous to the government (Banks, 2020) . This practice began after Hungary adopted a new constitution in 2011 and the incident was taken up for investigation in accordance with the ECHR in 2020 after multiple complaints (Banks, 2020) . Brazil used five journalists’ trials as a warning toward journalists and potential stories rather than explicitly restricting the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). The five journalists were taken to court for 50 counts exposing the high earnings of judiciary members but placed the trials all over the country (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). This action imposed a large monetary and temporal cost on the journalists, causing journalists to think twice about a story before publishing. Not Free: The ten states with the least amount of press freedom are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crimea, Eritrea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). States such as these have restrictive media guidelines, such as media monitoring or elimination. In many states, from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe to Turkey, media has been shut down at crucial political moments such as elections or protests (Abramowitz, 2017, 5, 9, 20). Turkey is a state with constitutional protection of media, though it has laws that contradict this protection and criminalize reporting on some topics (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 599). In Egypt, the military influences the media, preventing private, independent media (Abramowitz, 2017, 17). In Syria, many journalists are exiled, and many surrounding states make it difficult for them to continue their work (Abramowitz, 2017, 4). In Venezuela, some actions against the media have consisted of preventing international journalists from covering a planned protest and reacting with violence when some chose to cover it anyway (Abramowitz, 2017, 13). Russia and China are restrictive of their press with both censorship and market influence, but they take advantage of the freedoms in the United States and France to try to influence perceptions in these areas for their state’s political gain (Repucci & Slipowitz, 2021; Stier, 2015, 1275) . Russia takes similar actions with its Russian-speaking neighbors, especially Ukraine, for similar reasons, and has begun to try to influence the EU as well (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). China is also restrictive due to its very strict penalties and monitoring for criticism, while also preventing its people from giving information to outside sources (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). Exceptions Exceptions to freedom of the press vary between states. Pew Research Center found that Americans are most likely to accept all types of free speech and people in most states are content with protecting speech against the government under freedom of expression, even if it may cause instability (Poushter & Givens, 2015) . However, this acceptance varies by region; there is over 90% support for this idea in North American and Europe, while there is less support, around 70% in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . Exceptions begin to appear beyond these boundaries (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . For instance, support for being able to say offensive words to minorities or about religious beliefs is below 50% in all regions of the world surveyed except for the United States and Canada (Wike & Simmons). Exceptions against freedom of the press with the most support are comments that are sexually explicit or call for violent protests. Each of these types has less than 40% support to be a protected form of speech (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . Defamation: Most common in media is defamation law, in which strictness varies between states based on the written laws, strictness of implementation, burden of proof, and punishment (Botsford). Internationally, defamation’s burden of proof is typically just the intent to make the statement, not that it was made in bad faith (Botsford). In most places, defamation is a criminal offense, though there are some advocates for a change toward a civil offense (Botsford). Defamation charges are somewhat common with just over half of EU states convicting a journalist of defamation between 2010 and 2015, though imprisonment was rare, and some states have such laws but do not enforce them (Botsford). Investigation for defamation can be very disruptive due to the seizure of personal and professional assets, preventing further journalism at the time (Botsford). Libel and insult charges against Russian Mikhail Afanasyev resulting from a piece he authored were quite disruptive to the media in the region (Botsford; Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . In the piece, Afanasyev claimed that Alexander Zlotnikov, who had testified to a court that Afanasyev had attempted to record a police arrest and was obstructive while doing so, was lying and immoral, among other things (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . A defamation claim was immediately filed against Afanasyev, and a four-month investigation commenced (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . Despite his eventual acquittal, the Russian investigation into Mikhail Afanasyev ruined media in his region of Siberia, as he was the only independent source (Botsford). This instance was not the first time he was targeted for his work at the Novy Fokus (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . Turkey also strictly implements defamation law, so that it not only is affecting journalists but those in other professions as well (Botsford). Italy, a partly free media state, routinely uses these laws and imprisons journalists for libel – the only EU state to do so (Botsford). On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, free media states, have repealed their libel laws, and South Africa, a partly free media state, has taken steps to eliminate the law as well (Botsford). References: Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf ARTICLE 19. (2004, Feb.). Briefing note on international and comparative defamation standards. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/defamation-standards.pdf Banks, M. (2020, Oct. 26). EU investigating whether Hungarian state aid spending is undermining media freedom. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/eu-investigating-whether-hungarian-state-aid-spending-is-undermining-media-freedom Botsford, P. (n.d.). Word crimes – defamation and freedom of expression. International Bar Association. https://www.ibanet.org/article/9E40E124-20BB-4533-A919-C7B5345F34C4 Committee to Protect Journalists. (2013, Apr. 15). Online journalist in Siberia faces defamation charges. https://cpj.org/2013/04/online-journalist-in-siberia-faces-defamation-char/ Poushter, J. & Givens, G. (2015, Nov. 18). Where the world sees limits to free speech. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/18/where-the-world-sees-limits-to-free-speech/ Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral. Repucci, S. & Slipowitz, A. (2021). Freedom in the world 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643 Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x Wike, R. & Simmons, K. (2015, Nov. 18). 2. The boundaries of free speech and a free press. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/2-the-boundaries-of-free-speech-and-a-free-press/ | |
| Privacy Rights | The right to privacy has been interpreted in various ways. The EU has strict legislation regarding data privacy and the Council of Europe has outlined in Article 8(1) of the ECHR ( 1950) the right to privacy in the four spheres of family life, private life, communication, and the home (Wolford, n.d.). On the other hand, the United States has outlined protections from government interference in the private sphere in the Bill of Rights, has comparatively less (& less encompassing) legislation on the issue, and has relied on the courts to protect people from private entities and in the home (U.S. Constitution; 1787, Amendment 4; Privacy, n.d.). These differences result in a more consistent application of privacy rights in Europe compared to the United States.
In the home, Europeans have had a safe, private space since 1950 (ECHR, 1950, Art. 8(1)). In the United States, this right wasn’t concrete until long after the Supreme Court began ruling on the privacy cases in the mid- 1960s (Privacy, n.d.). However, it remains that Americans have a higher expectation of privacy in the home than in a public area (Electronic Surveillance, n.d.). In an extreme example of lack of privacy in the home, Albanians working for the Soviet government did not own anything in their homes – the state owned it all (Lubonja, 2001, 239). Exceptions to privacy at home include police entering with and, in some cases, without a warrant. New Zealand also utilizes court-issued warrants to prevent officials from entering the home, but if officials are actively preventing a crime, enforcing a law, making an arrest, or aiding in an emergency, they do not need a warrant (Community Law, n.d.). Within the European Union, this warrant can come from a court within any part of the EU’s jurisdiction. The European Evidence Warrant (EEW) allows a warrant issued to gather evidence to be valid across the EU and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) applies this principle to the arrest of criminals taking exploiting the open borders within the EU (European evidence warrant, 2006; European arrest warrant, n.d.). EEWs can also be used to get cell phone records (The European evidence warrant, 2006) . In the United States, a customer can ask for those records to be turned over to authorities or authorities can use a subpoena (FCC 2019) . The Prüm Convention demonstrates another aspect of inter-European collaboration in crime-solving efforts, leading to interesting implications for data privacy. Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and Spain all signed this treaty, to which other nations can opt-in, in an effort to increase cross-border security (Prüm Convetion, 2005) . At the roots, it allows the parties to ask each other for help solving crimes by sharing data from each nation’s crime database (Walsch, 2008, 86). By not creating an international crime database, each nation is required to ask other nations for the needed data (Walsch, 2008, 86). This method allows the shared data to be governed by each nation’s specific data privacy laws, but it lands in an unregulated grey area after the data transfer (Walsch, 2008, 85). Differences in privacy law become clear when looking at what personal data is collected from people. Some states collect DNA in all criminal cases, others only when the person has been in prison for over two years, and others do not collect DNA at all (Walsch, 2008, 86). In the context of solving international crime, these differences mean some states tend to be more helpful than others. References: Community Law. (n.d.). Entry powers: When the police can come into your home. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-31-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/ Electronic Surveillance. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance European arrest warrant. (n.d.). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. Nov. 4, 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf European evidence warrant. (2006, June 1). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/PRES_06_168 European evidence warrant, The: The acquisition and admissibility of foreign evidence. (n.d.). Academy of European Law. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2021, from https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=d241949ae554074b1e14fd12b7f05d3f5d1e38df00162723613600&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=121538 Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2019, Dec. 30). Protecting your privacy: Phone and cable records. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/protecting-your-privacy Lubonja, F. (2001). Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971449 Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy Prüm Convention. AT-BE-DE-ES-FR-LU-NL. May 27, 2005. 10900/05. https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/default/files/docs/body/prumtr.pdf U.S. Constitution. Amendment IV. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Walsch, C. (2008, Nov. 9). Europeanization and democracy: Negotiating the Prum Treaty and the Schengen III Agreement. Politicka Misao, XVL(5), 81-90. Wolford, B. (n.d.). What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law? GDPR EU. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2021, from https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ | |
| Voting Rights and Suffrage | Voting culture, practices, and attitudes vary from state to state; cultural and political factors provide for distinct voting practices. Over half of all countries and territories require citizens to register to vote (Shumacher and Connaughton, 2020). Currently, twenty-one countries have compulsory voting. (Central Intelligence Agency). The first country to introduce compulsory voting (for men) was Belgium in 1892 in an amendment to Article 48 of its Constitution (“Compulsory Voting,” “Constitution of Belgium”). Each state that has compulsory voting implements it differently; some states write it into law and impose legal punishments for those who do not vote, while others may not write it into law but still impose sanctions on non-voters (Birch, 2009). Birch reports notable examples:
“Singapore operates an unusual system that combines the removal of voting rights with a fine. Non-voters have their names automatically removed from the electoral register and must pay a fee to have them reinstated unless they can produce a ‘valid and sufficient’ reason for not having participated” (8); “Bolivians without a ‘suffrage certificate’ are forbidden from carrying out banking transactions or obtaining passports for 90 days following the election, and in Brazil such electors are in addition deprived by law of the right to state education. Until recently, non-voters in Greece were in theory unable to obtain driver’s licenses or passports” (9); “in Iran where ‘though voting is not compulsory, citizens may have to show the stamp impressed on voters’ identity cards in polling stations when applying for passports’” (Kauz qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5); in North Korea “‘although voting is not compulsory by law, the political prescriptions laid down in the party catechism prescribe it as the correct behaviour of every citizen. A simple negligence, let alone denial [sic] to take part in the polls, would be followed by harsh discrimination in the living and working sphere of the person concerned’” (Suh qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5). Birch additionally comments on the aspects of language that engender different interpretations of the right to vote in terms of compulsory voting. The specific term, “compulsory voting” in the English language has a somewhat negative connotation to it (in American English; Australians use the term happily) because compulsion implies being forced to do something one does not want to do. In other languages, specifically other European languages, the terms to describe compulsory voting imply that the practice is more of an obligation and duty than a coercion. Further, the Dutch language has a word, opkomstplicht, translating to “compulsory (or obligatory) attendance at the polls,” not compulsory (or obligatory) voting because once the voter is in the privacy of the voting booth, the state cannot do anything to stop them from casting a blank or invalid ballot (Birch, 2009, 2-3). Scholars have long disagreed over whether compulsory voting can be justified or not. Proponents of compulsory voting often argue that it increases voter turnout, therefore addressing issues of low and unequal voter turnout (Lever, 2010, 898). Additionally, supporters suggest it does not violate any rights in places where the ballot is secret (902). Opponents of compulsory voting argue that forcing people to exercise their rights is immoral; even if it is in one’s self interest to vote, people may disagree on what is in their self interest (906). There are also many unique methods of voting in different states around the world. In The Gambia, voters drop glass marbles into drums corresponding to each political party, a system designed in 1965 so citizens who could not read were still able to vote (Boylston, 2023). In certain areas in Switzerland, citizens will assemble once a year in the town square to vote on different issues by raising their hands for a simple majority, a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages when alpine communities were isolated from one another (Boylston, 2023). These types of practices are official and important to the political process, but they also serve to honor the history of the polity and celebrate their culture and community. Local elections are important in many places, but for some, especially those in autocratic and authoritarian regimes, local elections are the only way in which citizens can make their voices heard. Saudi Arabia does not hold national elections, so citizens must utilize municipal elections to contribute to the political system. Additionally, women were only granted the right to vote in these elections in 2015, and still face a multitude of barriers actually getting to the polls (Human Rights Watch, 2015). Despite the challenges, Saudi women are not giving up on fighting for their right to vote. In China, “two decades ago, leaders introduced village-level elections. Other innovations have followed, including approval and recall voting at the local level, public hearings, deliberative polls” (He and Warren, 2011, 269), though the regime seems to have no interest in democratizing at the national level. Chinese leaders have realized that allowing a controlled level of citizen participation provides them more legitimacy and allows them to maintain a social order while deflecting blame for tough decisions on to the electoral process (281). Nevertheless, “Chinese citizens are often insistently ingenious in organizing protests or engaging in public discussions in ways that work around official controls, while leveraging official rules and promises” (274).
|