Monthly Archives: September 2021

On 12 May 2021, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill wasintroduced to Parliament, to tackle what the government refers toas the 'growing chilling effect on campuses' whereby itfeels students and academics are being silenced and censored.

The Bill has been strongly opposed by opposition parties butwill in all likelihood be passed considering the government'sconsiderable majority. Therefore higher education providers shouldbe using the time before the Bill becomes law to consider how theywill manage its implications. Critics of the Bill have commentedthat providers may find they are facing more uncertainty, ratherthan less, about how freedom of speech should be dealt with oncampus.

So what exactly is this Bill trying to address? There havecertainly been high profile cases of speakers being'no-platformed' by university students' unions, such asformer Home Secretary Amber Rudd. Recent debates around'de-colonising' curriculums have led to comparisons withcensorship. However, the Office for Students has releasedstatistics showing that in the Year 2017/18, of 59,574 events heldat higher education institutions, only 53 events were rejected,indicating that 'no-platforming' is in fact a relativelyminor problem.

Furthermore, there already is legislation protecting freedom ofspeech. The Education Act 1986 places a duty on universities,polytechnics and colleges to take such steps as are reasonablypracticable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law issecured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers. TheEuropean Convention on Human Rights also protects free speech.

This raises the question, given the incidents that thegovernment are aiming to address seem to be relatively rare andlegal protections already exist, will the additional protections tobe introduced by the Bill be proportionate?

The Bill is bringing in a number of changes. The implications ofsome will be clear, but for others, higher education providers maybe left scratching their heads about how to respond. For example,the Bill now requires higher education providers to have'particular regard to the importance of free speech' whencarrying out the duty of ensuring that freedom of speech issecured.

How a higher education provider could change what they are doingin practical terms to demonstrate this 'particular regard'is not entirely clear. Should it now take precedence over otherduties? On the other hand, the Bill will now impose a duty onstudents' unions to protect free speech, which will close a gapin the law.

As part of the duty to protect free speech, Higher EducationProviders must also secure the 'academic freedom' of theiracademic staff. This is defined as staff's 'freedom withinthe law and within their field of expertise (a) to questionand test received wisdom, and (b) to put forward new ideas andcontroversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves atrisk of being adversely affected'. The definition restricts amember of staff's freedom of speech to their field ofexpertise. The Education Act duty to protect free speech will stillapply to an academic who is expressing a view outside their fieldof expertise, but the distinction drawn in the Bill may cause someconfusion and seems out of place when the intention is tostrengthen protection for academic staff.

Freedom of speech is defined by the Bill as including freedom toexpress ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverseconsequences. The extent of what constitutes an 'adverseconsequence' is not defined. If interpreted as a low bar, thiscould include criticism. For example, if students choose to walkout of a lecturer's class, would that be an adverseconsequence, and if so, how would that interact with thestudent's right to freedom of speech? There is uncertainty overthe extent of a higher education providers duties to protectfreedom of speech, which is a particular issue as the Bill alsointroduces the ability for a person to bring a civil claim againsta higher education provider in respect of a breach of the duty.

The Bill also requires both higher education providers andstudents' unions to ensure use of their premises are not deniedto someone because of their ideas, beliefs or views, and that theterms on which premises are provided are not based on such ideas,beliefs or views. If a particularly controversial speaker isattending a students' union, could the students' unionintroduce terms to ensure the event is held safely? Even ifsensible, would these terms be a breach as they are based on thefact that the speaker held a particular view?

A more concrete change to be introduced by the Bill is theenhanced role of the Office for Students (OfS), overseen by a new'Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom'. TheOfS will be promoting the importance of free speech and running ascheme to determine free speech complaints in the higher educationsector.

Conditions for registration with the OfS will include that aprovider's governing documents and management arrangementsenable it to comply with the duties in the Bill relating to freespeech. Compliance will also be an ongoing registrationrequirement. In addition, the OfS will be tasked with monitoringwhether students' unions are complying, and registered highereducation providers are required to keep the OfS informed about itsstudents' unions.

The new complaints scheme will be for members of staff, studentsor visiting speakers who have been adversely affected by a highereducation provider's or students' union's breach of itsduties in relation to free speech. Before a compliant can be madehowever, any internal procedures must first be exhausted. If theOfS considers a complaint to be justified, it may make arecommendation to the higher education provider or students'union to take action, including paying a fine, or refrain fromtaking certain action. Interestingly, the question of whether afree speech complaint is justified will in many situations requirean assessment of the law by the OfS to determine if the speech inquestion was within the law. The government has insisted that theBill will not protect any unlawful or 'hate' speech, butthe OfS will be able to make such legal judgments, which wouldusually be reserved for the courts.

As the Bill makes its way through parliament, some of theambiguity may be ironed out, but until then, it would not beunreasonable if Higher Education Providers felt unsure of how bestto prepare for the changes it will bring in.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

More:
The Freedom Of Speech Bill: What It Means For The UK Higher Education Sector - Consumer Protection - UK - Mondaq News Alerts

Hong Kongs new museum of visual culture, M+, has decided to exclude a number of my artistic photographs from its opening exhibition. The problem? One photo in my Study of Perspective (1995) series shows me giving the middle finger to Beijings Tiananmen. Others show me doing the same to a number of other politically or culturally hallowed structures around the world; in Hong Kong, though, the national security law that Chinas central government passed last year has ruined the local political environment almost overnight, and has left the Chinese governments promise of one country, two systems as mere waste paper.

Influenced by the national security law, M+s decision to exclude my work deviates from art collector and Swiss former ambassador to China Uli Siggs original intention when he decided to donate his collection (including twenty-four works by me) to the citys spanking new museum.It seems hard to believe that my work, which originated in Tiananmen Square 26 years ago, has again become a flashpoint at a major historical turning point, and is a piquant footnote to the story of Chinas political censorship of culture and art. In 1989, just six years before I raised that middle finger, government tanks and armed soldiers had invaded the square to drive out peacefully protesting students. A single contemptuous gesture by me was never a match for an armed assault, of course; but it does breathe life into a durable item of faiththat the value of art in politics cannot just be erased.

The fate of the M+ Museum that we are witnessing today brings to mind how certain other Western museumsthe Centre Pompidou in Paris and the Victoria & Albert Museum and Tate Modern in Londonrecently have rushed to cozy up to China, bowing and scraping before the great rising authoritarian power, bubbling with flattery at every turn.

Study of Perspective (1995-). Photo courtesy Ai Weiwei Studio.

In spring 2021, I received a surprising notice from another kind of Western institution, Credit Suisse. The bank informed me that it was terminating my account in Switzerland. They did this, they wrote, in accordance with a new policy of closing all accounts with people who have had criminal records. They believed (or pretended to believe?) that I had been convicted of a crime in China. Just a bit of homework could have shown them that I was never formally charged, let alone convicted of a crime. When the Beijing regime detained me and smeared my name, it was only applying its normal techniques of persecuting political opponents.

So why was Credit Suisse using my crime as its reason to terminate my bank account? Not long ago the institution announced that it was accelerating its recruitment of employees in China. It wanted to triple their numbers in five years. At the same time, it would be seeking to take majority control of its joint ventures in the securities market and to apply for a license that would allow it to expand its business in both personal and investment banking.

Credit Suisse was already well aware of a magical strategy in China; hire princelingsoffspring of top Communistsin order to pave the way to success in business. In 2018, the bank was obliged to pay $77 million to settle a charge by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that employment of friends and family of senior Chinese officials in its joint ventures violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In China and elsewhere, political connections are the fuel of the economic colonialism that occupies the core of todays surging globalization. In Chinas state capitalism, high officials enjoy unchecked power and wield it in an environment totally empty of democratic supervision. As a consequence, behind the strong organizational structure of the Communist Party of China, there has arisen an immensely complex web of private interests of the highest-ranking Party families and their minions in the bureaucracies. No item of business with a foreign country can possibly go forward without involvement with this web. Shared corruption is the name of the game, and the pattern is so common as to be accepted as commonplace.

In globalization, countries or regions find themselves in relationships where each side is pursuing its own political and economic goals; at the same time, the two sides often look for people within the other side to be its agents. The Communist Party of China, in pursuit of its political ambitions and ultimately its dream to be a superpower, has been doing precisely this in the West for some time now. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson recently declared the arrival of a happy world in which we are inside you and you are inside us.

The Chinese regimes goal, in this happy world to come, is to establish that its way of doing things is normal and legitimate. Its leaders are well aware that spread of its culture will enhance the allure of its political system. What Western museums and other art institutions want is to attract Chinese financial backing. At a personal level, movers and shakers in the Western art world are also looking for political and economic advantages inside China. Every museum in China, whether run by Chinese or Westerners, wants a special relationship with that one government, that one Party, whose favor is essential for success. This marks the final triumph of cultural globalization. We think of war as invasive and bloody, but cultural invasion and war, fought with invisible gunpowder and producing odorless gore, is in fact just as cruel and unscrupulous.

Study of Perspective (1995-). Photo courtesy Ai Weiwei Studio.

As for Credit Suisse, it turns out to be no stranger to foul commerce, indeed it might be called an old hand at it. In 1996, Holocaust survivors and families of its victims filed a class-action lawsuit against Credit Suisse and the United Bank of Switzerland, accusing the banks of intentionally hiding assets that originally had belonged to Holocaust victims. Last year the Simon Wiesenthal Center announced the discovery in Argentina of a list of 12,000 Nazi persons or organizations that had used Credit Suisse accounts to hold purloined funds. Credit Suisses clientele also included IG Farben, the company that produced the Zyklon-B gas that killed 1.1 million Jews.

Switzerland has long enjoyed privileges on the world stage that derive from its reputation for neutrality. In practice, however, its banks have used neutrality as a label under which to nestle as they quietly side with the powerful and reap indecent benefits. It is no secret in China that high-level officials maintain covert bank accounts with Credit Suisse. That fact alone should dispel any doubts about its neutral position.

On June 24, 2021, the management of Credit Suisse called to inform us of their decision to close our bank account as soon as possible, explicitly stating a recent interview I did with the Swiss daily 20-Minuten as the reason. This interview, in which I criticized the Swiss people for voting in ever more anti-immigrant policies, has had repercussions across the social spectrum in Switzerland. Ex-colonel and FDP member Roger E. Schrer summarized the response in a follow-up interview with the paper: He must not defame Switzerland so much, as the country showed him so much hospitality, he said. Here he finds all the freedom that was denied him in China.

According to the news article, Schrer believes my testimony constitutes a criminal offense, and wants to file a criminal complaint against me for violating Switzerlands Rassismusstrafnorm, an anti-racism law, unless I apologize.

The bank account at issue here is that of my Fart Foundation, which I started 2016 as a way to promote free speech. The foundation has recently supported the creation and distribution of a number of documentary films on China. One looked at the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan, and another on how the people of Hong Kong rose in unison to resist an extradition law imposed by Beijing. That I have won a bit part in the China Dream of certain giant multinational corporations and their associated cultural predators makes me feel well honored!

Ai Weiwei is a Chinese conceptual artist, sculptor, and curator. This article has been translated by Perry Link.

Continued here:
As They Hasten to Cozy Up to China, M+ Museum and Credit Suisse Have Let Freedom of Speech Fall By the Wayside - artnet News

Freedom of speech and expression in India has become as nebulous a concept as the right to practise, profess and propagate any religion of your choice. This has become obvious with two recent controversies involving Union Minister Narayan Rane who was arrested for declaring that chief minister Uddhav Thackeray should have been hit with slippers for allegedly forgetting the year India achieved Independence and Javed Akhtar, who reportedly compared the RSS with the Taliban.

Voltaire on free speech

Voltaire was the pen name of Franois-Marie Arouet, who died in 1778. He famously, or perhaps infamously, declared: I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. Now, if we contrast this statement with the judgment of Justice Sarjoo Prasad of the Patna high court, who held in 1949 that if a person were to go on inciting murder or other cognizable offences either through the press or by word of mouth, he would be free to do so with impunity. He would claim the privilege of free speech, makes us do a double-think on what Voltaire said.

This passage from Justice Prasads judgment was the result of a woman called Shaila Bala Devi who managed a press called the Bharati Press at Purulia in Bihar in 1949. Her press had published a leaflet called Sangram in high-flown Bengali which espoused bloody revolution as advocated through the mouth of the mother goddess Kali Mata.

In July-August 1950, a powerful Punjabi leader known as Master Tara Singh advocated a separate Punjabi-speaking state, which was the seed in later decades to blossom into the Khalistani secessionist movement. But when Singh was prosecuted for sedition (section 124-A) and promoting enmity between groups, (section 153-A), the Punjab high court held both sections were unconstitutional because they were too broad.

Frankly speaking

Now, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of the Jana Sangh in 1952 which has now blossomed into the BJP, openly flayed the then Pakistani government for the anti-Hindu policies of its citizens. In a speech in Parliament in August 1950, Mookerjee, who was also for some time the vice chancellor of Calcutta University, declared the Nehru governments appeasement of Pakistan must cease. And that either economic sanctions must be imposed or military action must be taken against Pakistan.

In December 1950, Mookerjee spoke at an RSS function where he said the Partition of India had brought misery and humiliation to millions. While addressing Parliament that same month, Mukherjee said: We are supposed to be at war with Pakistan in Kashmir, and that Indias policy towards Pakistan should be based on complete reciprocity. And further that if the situation worsens, India will have to depend on her arms and ammunition or military strength. In March 1951, Mookerjee said in the Lok Sabha that Pakistan wanted war and that if they still wanted it, let them have the taste of that (war).

In October 1951, at his presidential address at the founding of the All India Bharatiya Jana Sangh, he said: We already know that the Partition of Bharat was a tragic folly. It has served no purpose and has not helped to solve any problem, economic, political or communal. We believe in the goal of a reunited Bharat . Mookerjee was arguably one of the architects of Akhand Bharat which again, is acceptable to patriotic Indians and some Bangladeshi citizens.

Amendment in 1951

As a result of such speeches and Justice Prasads vitriolic observations, the Nehru government introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha on May 12, 1951, to amend some fundamental rights including the right to free speech by introducing three broad heads under Article 19 (2). This was because the right to free speech has been held by some courts to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence. Nehru was obviously referring to Justice Sarjoo Prasad.

The Supreme Court had reversed Justice Sarjoo Prasads vitriolic judgment but the Nehru government had already reduced free speech to a chimera. When the right to free speech was introduced by the founding fathers, only the three heads of defamation, contempt of court, and obscenity curtailed free speech. Apparently, the previous generation had more freedom to speak their mind than we do today.

So, in June 1951, three vague and insensate restrictions of friendly relations with foreign states, public order and incitement to an offence were included under Article 19 (2) to curtail free speech. Today, these three heads further restrict free speech and press freedom to assist our imagination that we have unbridled free speech. This amendment was passed with 228 members voting in favour of it and only 19 opposing it. Today, when we have a bellicose China illegally occupying parts of Kashmir ceded to it by a weak Pakistan which can be easily overrun by our armed forces, the restriction of friendly relations with foreign states ought to be removed by the Modi government.

Palatable truths only?

There is also no doubt that Mookerjee loved his country despite being an atheist; the Godi media cannot accuse Javed Akhtar of being anti-national. We have the right to read the opinions of both Mookerjee and Akhtar. Mookerjee championed the reunification of India with Pakistan just as the controversial Justice Markandey Katju who got at least two contempt notices from the very Supreme Court where he once presided as a judge, also advocates reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh through his Indian Reunification Association, founded in 2017.

It was again Mookerjee, a president of the All India Hindu Mahasabha, seen as a patriot and great Parliamentarian, who famously declared that while the US Constitution created the right to free speech, the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution restricted it. Two of our founding fathers were reported to have said freedom of speech implied the right to speak only palatable truths but not unpalatable truths.

Today, when the Supreme Court has clearly said it cannot create a separate avenue for journalists to approach them under Article 32 to quash FIRs registered against them, journalists are reminded of the adage that in India, their freedom is that of the common citizen. Like Narayan Rane, or Javed Akhtar, or perhaps Param Bir Singh, whose complaint against his boss, former home minister, Anil Deshmukh, has landed him in more trouble than he can handle, we in India must remember free speech is a chimera.

The writer holds a PhD in law and is a senior journalist-cum-advocate of the Bombay high court

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

Read more:
We have the right to read the opinions of both Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Javed Akhtar, writes Olav - Free Press Journal

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA - South Korean legislation intended to combat what authorities view as fake news could undermine press freedom in one of Asias strongest democracies, analysts say.

The proposed revision to the Press Arbitration Act, backed by South Koreas ruling Democratic Party, would significantly expand the ability of courts to punish accredited reporters and media outlets deemed to have intentionally published false information.

If passed, the legislation would amount to a rare example of a liberal democracy responding to the growing challenge of disinformation by targeting traditional media, such as newspapers and television broadcasters.

"At a time when authoritarian governments are increasingly adopting so-called 'fake news' laws to stifle criticism, it is disappointing to see a democratic country like South Korea follow this negative trend," said Scott Griffen, deputy director of the International Press Institute, a Vienna-based free speech monitoring group.

UN concerned

Under the proposal, claimants would be able to sue for up to five times the estimated damage caused by a deliberate dissemination of false news.

That appears to be "utterly disproportionate," according to Irene Khan, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression.

In a letter to South Koreas government, Khan offered a detailed and forceful critique of the proposed legislation, saying it would provide excessive discretion to the authorities that may lead to arbitrary implementation.

The bills "very vague language," she added, "may limit a wide range of expression that is essential to a democratic society, including news reporting, criticism of the government, political leaders and other public figures, and the expression of unpopular and minority opinions."

Restoring public trust?

Supporters say the new rules will help improve the South Korean publics low confidence in domestic media.

According to the latest annual study by the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, just 32% of South Koreans trust the media. That is among the lowest of the 46 countries surveyed.

Even so, several opinion polls show only a narrow majority of South Koreans appearing to support the legislation.

"The revision of the [Press]Arbitration Act is the first step toward the media restoring its public credibility," said Representative Kim Seung-won, a member of South Koreas Democratic Party.

In an interview with VOA, Kim also said the bill will provide more redress for those hurt by inaccurate reports.There are more than 4,000 instances each year in which fake news is judged to have caused damage, he said. So, it is necessary to relieve those damages, correct misinformation, compel follow-up reports, and strengthen the medias editorial process.

Messy media environment

South Korea boasts a free but often divisive and boisterous press. Many of the countrys biggest newspapers have links to chaebols powerful, family-run conglomerates and traditionally take a conservative stance on political and economic issues. Other smaller papers are explicitly liberal.

As in other countries, social media has fractured the South Korean media landscape and deepened political divisions.

Polarization intensified after the 2017 impeachment of conservative President Park Geun-hye the daughter of South Koreas former military strongman, Park Chung-hee. She was subsequently sentenced to prison on corruption charges.

After the Park scandal, many older conservatives, who respected the countrys former military rulers, became disillusioned with traditional media. They instead migrated to YouTube, which offered alternative information sources.

Some of those far-right YouTube channels peddle far-fetched and unproven assertions, including claims that last years legislative election was rigged by shadowy communist forces.

During the pandemic, many conservative leaders have used YouTube to call for mass anti-government protests that violate South Koreas strict COVID-19 social distancing guidelines.

Other social media have problems, too, including cyberbullying and vicious personal attacks that came to the fore in 2019 after two female Korean pop stars took their own lives.

However, the law under discussion wouldnt apply to private individuals on social media, only to officially accredited outlets and reporters.

Elevating clickbait Many journalists complain the bill does not address another major issue: South Koreas massively influential online portals, such as Naver and Daum, which curate and host news stories from various outlets on their own websites.

Studies have found that most South Koreans rely on such portals as their main source of news. In turn, media outlets rely on the portals as their main source of clicks. That creates pressure for journalists to create content that will be snatched up by the portals algorithms.

If people are so worried about fake news, then they should do something about the editing and transmission rights of news portal sites that dominate South Koreas news market, as well as YouTubers. But no one talks about that, said a South Korean reporter at a daily newspaper. The reporter spoke with VOA on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

Ruling party lawmakers say they are open to portal reform. But critics say they have been reluctant to take action against the portals, some of which are linked to or run by major South Korean business interests.

South Korean journalists oppose

A wide range of South Korean newspapers, reporters, and journalism associations have criticized the proposal. Many say the new rules would discourage reporting that exposes powerful people and organizations.

If this act passes, the natural outcome will be more self-censorship by journalists, said Lee Jin-dong, who heads his own investigative news outlet, Newsverse. And their companies may pressure them to avoid lawsuits.

A young broadcast reporter at one of South Koreas top television news stations said he understands more media regulation is needed, but believes it should be done in a way that doesnt threaten the idea of journalism itself.

If this bill passes, I feel I will be unable to raise questions about presidential candidates or possible government ministers or conglomerates, said the reporter, who also requested anonymity.

Backlash forces delay

Even some ruling party politicians have spoken against the bill.

There are some problematic provisions within this law, Lee Sang-min, a Democratic Party lawmaker, told VOA. The intention is good, but we have to find a better balance between freedom of speech and legal regulation.

The backlash by South Korean civic groups may be having an effect. Though the legislation was expected to pass late last month, the Democratic Party agreed to delay it while an eight-member discussion body discusses possible changes.

In the end, the party can do whatever it wants, due to its parliamentary supermajority. Many journalists are watching closely.

The press has a lot of problems, its true, said a reporter who covers legal issues. The reporter, like others contacted by VOA, spoke only on condition of anonymity, added, But the solution is not the current media arbitration law. This will only worsen social conflict.

Read more:
South Korea Fights 'Fake News,' But Critics Claim It's Gagging the Press - VOA Asia