Welcome Letter

Greetings delegates,
We welcome you all to the simulation of the United Nations General Assembly
SOCHUM at BITS GOA MUN 2017. It is a privilege and honour for us to be the part
of the Executive Board of this prestigious committee, for the duration of this grand
conference. SOCHUM is an essential and a paramount international forum, for
discussing issues pertaining to the agendas decided. In this simulation we will be
discussing in depth regarding agendas which have been in the highlights for quite
some time now. The agendas at hand are vast and multifarious and a successful
discussion on them would require the collective participation of all of you. All of you
need to realize that these agendas have layers and a plethora of substantial points,
which the Executive Board expects you to discuss during the span of the conference.
We will be following the UNA-USA rules of procedure in this committee. Those who
are not well versed with these rules of procedures, kindly have a look at it before the
committee begins. However, the Executive Board will take an orientation session in
the beginning of the committee. The Executive Board will ensure that the first timers
will understand each and every aspect of the rules of procedure, the council in general,
as well as the agendas.
Delegates, you all are advised to go through the background guide properly. This
document will help in your research. The aim of this guide is to provide clarity
regarding the various aspects of the agendas as well as providing direction to
channelize your research. However, you all should realize that this guide is not the
ultimate source of information. This study guide has been structured in such a way
that you can get a basic idea of the agendas and we strongly recommend that you
research on various things on your own and try to understand the intricate details of
the agendas.
We sincerely hope that the simulation of SOCHUM at BITS GOA MUN 2017 will
help you gain experience to become better professionals and persons in future. We are
always at your disposal and please do not hesitate to contact us.

Looking forward to see you all in action.

Regards,

Anastassiya
Sarthak Tandon Akshay Ventatesh
Goncharova
Chairperson Vice Chairperson Director
SOCHUM SOCHUM SOCHUM
Committee Introduction GA 3 -
SOCHUM
The General Assembly Third Committee, also known as the Social, Humanitarian, and
Cultural Committee (SOCHUM) is one of the six Main Committees of the United Nations
General Assembly. This committee discusses and offers solutions for social, cultural, and
humanitarian matters.1 Over time, the work of this committee has evolved to deal with mostly
human rights issues, making it the worlds largest and most prominent forum for international
human rights norm creation. The Third Committee derives its direction and work content
from a variety of UN documents. Articles 10-17 of the Charter are the principal guidelines for
the substance and scope of all GA committees.2 These articles state that the GA has the
authority to initiate studies and make recommendations, as well as receive and consider
reports from other organs of the UN, including the Security Council (SC).3 The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) also contains legal human rights guidelines
from which the Third Committee draws both its mandate and the focus of its work.4 In other
words, the mandate of the Third Committee was first shaped by the Charter, and then
strengthened and reinforced by the subsequent documents making up the International Bill of
Human Rights, which includes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). Over
time, the scope and content of work the Third Committee takes up has gradually been shifted
and reinterpreted to become more oriented towards human rights, especially since the
establishment of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2006. As such, it is the responsibility
of the Third Committee to deliberate and resolve issues among Member States involving
human rights, social development, and humanitarian themes, stemming from both its explicit
mandate in the Charter, and the enhanced scope formulated by additional human rights
instruments and the creation of the HRC. All the work of the Third Committee is of a
normative nature, as it does not actually carry out the operations of the tasks called for in its
resolutions. The job of operationalizing the Third Committees recommendations is mainly
delegated to the various agencies and offices of the Secretariat whose job it is to implement
such norms and policies agreed upon by the body.5 The Third Committee often requests
studies to be undertaken by relevant UN bodies such as OHCHR, the UNHCR, UN-Women,
and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

All main General Assembly committees begin their annual session in mid-September at the
UN headquarters in New York City. Each of the 193 members of the UN is a de facto member
of all six main GA committees. Each member of the GA has one vote.

1 UN General Assembly, Social, Humanitarian & Cultural: Third Committee, 2016.

2 Charter of the United Nations, 1945, Articles 10-17.

3 Charter of the United Nations, 1945, Articles 13 & 15.

4 Charter of the United Nations, 1945.

5 UN General Assembly, Functions and Powers of the General Assembly, 2016.

Agenda 1.0

The Issue of
Islamophobia
Introduction

A phobia is an extreme, exaggerated and sometimes illogical fear of an object or

a situation. Recently, the new phobia has overtaken the Western societies
Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is usually defined as:

An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is
perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the
marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from social, political, and civic life. 6

Source: http://www.telesurtv.net

The Runnymede Trust identifies eight components of Islamophobia as follows:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change;

2. Islam is seen as separate and other. It does not have values in common with
other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them;
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is barbaric, irrational, primitive and
sexist;
4. Muslims are seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism
and engaged in a clash of civilizations;

6 Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir, "Fear, Inc.: The
Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress,
2011)
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military
advantage;
6. Muslim criticisms of the West are rejected;
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards
Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society; and
8. Anti Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal. 7

Examples of Islamophobia:
1 Protests/attacks on houses of worship (vandalizing, burglarizing mosques
or other houses of worship, setting them on fire or threatening them
online, protesting, etc.)

2 Personal threats and attacks (inexplicable punches, stalking and

arraignments for being muslim, pulling off womans hijab, firing from job
for being muslim, physical assaults of children/teenagers, etc.)

The history of Islamophobia

The history of American and European interactions with Muslims around

the world is long and complex. Over time, geopolitical events abroad
wars, conflicts over natural resources including land and oil, and domestic
security threats posed by violent extremists have defined that
relationship and engendered Western narratives that portray Islam as the
source of violence and despair.

Writing at the time of the Crusades, Peter the Venerable referred to Islam
as a heathen religion spread by the sword one whose prophet,
Muhammad, was of the most foul and false lineage and whose utterly
laughable and insane fables rendered him not a messenger of God but
rather the Devils chosen disciple.

More than half a century later, during Americas first military battle as an
independent nation with Barbary pirates along North Africas coast,
imagery depicting Muslim men as violent and sexually perverse captors of
oppressed women circulated in literature, theater and other media.8

7 http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf

8 http://bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-the-right-word-for-a-real-problem/
Eliza Bradleys An Authentic Narrative of the Shipwreck and Sufferings of Mrs. Eliza Bradley, Wife of Captain
James Bradley of Liverpool, Commander of the Ship Sally, which was Wrecked on the Coast of Barbary In June
1818. [American ed.] Boston: Printed for J. Walden, 1823.

Islamophobia existed in premise before the terrorist attacks of September

11, 2001, but it increased in frequency and notoriety during the past
decade. The Runnymede Trust in the U.K., for example, identified eight
components of Islamophobia (see previous page) in a 1997 report, and
then produced a follow-up report in 2004 after 9/11 and the initial years of
the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The second report found the aftermath of
the terrorist attacks had made life more difficult for British Muslims.

In a 2011 meeting, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, as well as

the League of Arab States, a key partner, identified Islamophobia as an
important area of concern.9

Islamophobia in Western Society

Globally, many Muslims report not feeling respected by those in the West.
Significant percentages of several Western countries share this sentiment,
saying that the West does not respect Muslim societies. Specifically, 52%

9 http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx
of Americans and 48% of Canadians say the West does not respect Muslim
societies. Smaller percentages of Italian, French, German, and British
respondents agree.10

In the U.S., several key polls have indicated that not only does
Islamophobia exist but it also continues to rise on a yearly basis.
According to the U.S.A. Today/Gallup poll, 39 percent of Americans felt
some prejudice against Muslims. Almost the same percentage favoured
requiring Muslims, citizens and non-citizens alike, to carry a special ID as a
means of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States. Some 22
percent of the respondents of the U.S.A. Today/Gallup poll would not want
American Muslims as their neighbours. Interestingly, Representative Virgil
Goode slammed the proposed use of the Quran for the congressional
swearing-in ceremony for Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in America elected
to Congress. The New Yorker magazine published a satirical cover that
shows Senator Barack Obama in a Muslim robe and turban, his wife,
Michelle, as a terrorist holding a machine gun, the American flag burning
and a picture of Osama bin Laden in the background. The intention
obviously was to further instil fear in the minds of American people should
Obama, alleged to be a Muslim, be elected President of the United
States.11

10 Gallup Muslim-West Perceptions Index: Inaugural Findings report for methodology (2011).

11 The West, Islam And The Muslim : Islamophobia And Extremism by Abdul Rashid Moten
(http://www.searcct.gov.my)
Between 16% and 21% of people in France, Germany, and the U.K. say
they would not like Muslims as their neighbors, similar to the percentages
of each country's general population that say they would not like
homosexuals as neighbors. Generally, people in these countries are more
likely to say they would not like Muslims as neighbors than they are to say
the same about Jews, Christians, atheists, blacks, and Asians. An
exception exists in the U.K., though, where 22% of people say they would
not like immigrants or foreign workers as neighbors.12

Australia: The survey found that almost 70 per cent of Australians have a very
low level of Islamophobia, about 20 per cent are undecided and only 10 per cent
are highly Islamophobic. The survey found no significant differences between the
Islamophobic attitudes of women and men, and of people living in capital cities
or non-capital cities. The survey found that people are more likely to be
Islamophobic if they are older, have not completed Year 12, are not employed in
a professional or managerial role, or belong to a non-traditional Christian
denomination. People who have regular contact with Muslims are less likely to be

12 Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the West by Gallup (www.gallup.com)

Islamophobic, and so are people who have tolerant attitudes towards migrants or
who are not very worried about terrorism. 13

The role of media in Islamophobia

Given the time CNN dedicates to covering violence committed by Muslims, it is

useful to take note of some statistics to see the discrepancies. According to the
FBI Database, of all terrorist attacks occurring on US soil during the period from
1985 to 2005, attacks by Islamic extremists represent only six percent of the
total. Of the approximately 351 mass shootings so far in the US this year, only
two, yes two, were committed by Muslims, which represents a whopping 0.57
percent of all mass shootings in gun-loving America.

When Americans were asked to guess the Muslim population in the US, they
thought it formed 15 percent of the total, or over 47 million Muslims. In reality,
the Muslim population in the US is an estimated 2.6 million, which is about 0.8
percent of the total population. Interestingly, a national survey of US physicians
in 2005 revealed that Muslims represent 2.5 percent of a profession dedicated to
saving peoples lives.
Regardless of the statistics and arguments, the fact that a mainstream news
outlet such as CNN would dedicate half of its airtime in an hour of news coverage
to discussing Muslim violence and radicalisation places Muslims in the position of
the husband having to answer the proverbial loaded question of whether he has
stopped beating his wife.14

It is difficult to provide conclusive evidence that the media directly provokes acts of
aggression against Muslims, but the increase and type of coverage in the wake of
terrorist attacks (as much as 658% in the Sun following the 9/11 attacks) suggests that
Muslims, as a whole, have been held as public enemy number one and are collectively
responsible for terrorist activities. Mainstream Muslims reject these extremists;
unfortunately it is this minority of extremists -who interpret the Quran to suit their own
purposes who are constantly in the headlines, giving the impression to the general
public that they represent Islam as a whole. 15

Some mainstream news outlets, which rarely used the term in the past, seemed
more comfortable with the term, too. Chuck Todd, the host of NBCs Meet the
13 https://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/EASS/MnM/Publications/Islamophobia_report.pdf

14 How the US media is promoting Islamophobia by Mohamed Ghilan (www.middleeasteye.net)

15 http://www.onreligion.co.uk/ - Islamophobia the medias creation?

Press, was one of the most prominent journalists to embrace the term, using it in
a post-Charlie Hebdo interview with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and often in the wake
of the attacks in Paris. Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and
Martin OMalley also called out the Islamophobia plaguing the political climate,
with OMalley even acknowledging that a shadowy network of activists and
groups promotes fear and misinformation about Muslims.

And it wasnt just the term Islamophobia that got more play in the media.
Mosque vandalisms and other attacks against Muslims received more coverage
by national media than they did in years past. So did Muslims condemnations of
groups like ISIS.16

Women in Islamophobia

That is true that any person is affected by islamophobia, but the effect on
vulnerable people (women and children) is considered especially tremendous.

Comprehensive data on the effect of discrimination and hate crimes targeting

Muslim women are hard to find. But studies suggest that women, particularly
those who wear hijab or niqab, shoulder a unique burden. Because women who
wear hijab and niqab are visible representations of religion, they face a
significant risk of exposure to discrimination, harassment and attacks.

According to the researchers, 69 percent of Muslim women who wore hijab

reported at least one incident of discrimination; for those who did not wear hijab,

16 http://bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-in-2015-the-good-the-bad-and-the-hopeful/
it was 29 percent. Non-governmental organizations that track anti-Muslim
incidents in various parts of the world report record numbers of hate crimes and
violent incidents targeting Muslim women. In the Netherlands, 90 percent of
victims reporting incidents of violence to Meld Islamofobie (Report Islamophobia)
in 2015 were Muslim women; in France, the Collective Against Islamophobia
reported that 81 percent of violent incidents involved Muslim women, as did
more than half of incidents reported to Tell MAMA, an NGO in Britain. In each
study, women who wore visible symbols of Islam such as a hijab or niqab were
more likely to be targeted.17

Muslim women are being attacked both online and offline. Online abusive
comments and the impact of social media is certainly affect in the offline
actions: pulling off womans hijab, making abusive comments regarding the
womans look, stalking, even trying to set womans clothes on fire those are
just several examples of harassment and the impact of islamophobia on women.

Source: European forum for Muslim women (http://www.efomw.eu/)

For that reason, more and more women are protesting against islamophobia to
protect their human rights. Those movements do not only involve Muslim
women, but also representatives or other religions and atheists who support the
freedom of religion and fight the stereotypes.

The teenage Muslim pupils are also being harassed and affected by
Islamophobia:

In one case, a teenage Muslim pupil at a school in Oxfordshire was allegedly

slapped and called a terrorist by classmates after a teacher raised the murders
of 12 people at the French magazine in a classroom discussion and suggested
Muslims should be challenged by the display of cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammed. The boy told his parents he did not wish to return to school.

17 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/16/how-muslim-women-bear-the-
brunt-of-islamophobia
Another story that went viral is now famous clock-boy: he spent a weekend
piecing together the clock, using spare electronics parts left over from his
father's failed cell phone business, according to the lawsuit. He showed it to a
teacher, who took it and contacted school officials, who in turn called police.
Under questioning without his parents, he told them he had made an alarm
clock. But he was accused of making a fake bomb, and taken into custody.
Charges weren't filed, but he was suspended for three days for violating the
student code of conduct.18

Fight against Islamophobia

Governments, NGOs, activists and civilians are taking steps to fight Islamophobia
today. The example of Government response is the resolution 1605 by the
Council Of Europe that states as follows:

Council of Europe member states should continue to be vigilant in their work to

prevent and combat the phenomenon of Islamophobia.
9. In light of the above, the Assembly calls on the member states of the Council
of Europe to:
9.1. act strongly against discrimination in all areas;

9.2. condemn and combat Islamophobia;

9.7.6. encouraging the participation of people with an immigrant background in

political parties, trade unions and non-governmental organisations;

9.7.7. taking all the necessary measures to eliminate the inequality of

opportunity faced by immigrants, including unemployment and inadequate
education;

9.7.8. removing unnecessary legal or administrative obstacles to the

construction of a sufficient number of appropriate places of worship for the
practice of Islam;

9.7.9. ensuring that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or

threatening religion;

11.6. encourage young European Muslims to become imams;

18 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed-sues-texas-city-accusing-
him-making-n625401
11.8. encourage the promotion of fair coverage of Muslim reality and views in the
media and ensure that the voice of moderate Muslims is also reported;
11.9. develop ethical guidelines to combat Islamophobia in the media and in
favour of cultural tolerance and understanding, in co-operation with appropriate
media organisations;

The example of the NGOs involvement is the Open Society Foundation.

The Open Society Foundations have worked for over a decade to combat
discrimination against Muslims in Europe and to make sure that Muslim
minorities co-exist with equal rights in their national communities. For example:

They have published reports on Muslims in France, Italy, and the UK (2002);
policy reports on British Muslims (2005); detailed city-level studies on the
realities of integration experienced by Muslims in 11 cities across the European
Union (2009) including a further seven reports on the specific experiences of
Somalis in Europe (2014); and reports that give voice to the experiences of
Muslim women wearing the full-face veil (niqab) in France and the UK;
Have supported groups that work on a broad range of issues affecting Muslims
through various approaches, such as campaigns aimed at countering
stereotypes, hate-crime monitoring, capacity building, and opposition research
aimed at uncovering and monitoring the counter-jihad network;
They engage in advocacy at local, national, and European levels, either by
directly calling, for instance, for equality data collection; advocating for improved
integration policies based on Open Society research; or through support to NGOs
like the European Network Against Racism, as well as engage in strategic
litigation to challenge discriminatory practices, public policies, and laws. 19

But activists and civilians are also taking actions to stop Islamophobia. For
example, Anti-Islamophobia advocates Roqayah Chamseddine and Imraan
Siddiqi prepared this simple infographic explaining how a civilian can do his/her
part. It boils down to reaching out to local Muslim leaders and asking them how
you can support their efforts, calling out hate speech when you hear it, and
confronting everyday interpersonal bigotry: 20

19 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/islamophobia-europe

20 http://www.alternet.org/fear-america/7-ways-people-are-fighting-back-against-islamophobia-
and-how-you-can-too
Conclusion

Islamophobia is prejudice against hate or fear of Islam or Muslims. It is it also

refers to discrimination against Muslims by excluding them from the economic,
social, cultural and public life of the nation. Examples include both personal
attacks and attacks on places of worships. These attacks have become wide
spread across Europe and the US (more rarely in Australia). Some Western
people do not associate Muslims as the members of Western society and think of
them as the threat to European culture.

Islamophobia is a problem for many European Muslims. It is limiting the rights of

Muslims and especially preventing young people from realizing their full
potential.

Media is playing the huge part in spreading the news about Islam and crimes
committed by Muslims, thus raising the Islamophobia rates across the West.

The governments, NGOs and activists see the violation of human rights in
Islamophobic actions, so they're taking steps to eliminate the problem and break
the stereotypes, also protecting Muslims from the negative effect of the
Islamophobia. However, the problem still exists, moreover continues to widen
across the region, which leads to the fact that measures taken to prevent the
society from Islamophobia are not enough. There is an urgent need to significally
expand the measures taken by the governments to avert European and
American Muslims from becoming victims of the hatred behaviour caused by
Islamophobia.
 Agenda 2.0

Providing for freedom

of speech and
addressing press
censorship
Introduction
Ifliberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear.

George Orwell

The term censorship originates from censors instituted in Ancient Rome, when
democracy emerged. The censors were magistrates, whose responsibility was to
regulate both the moral and political conduct of citizens. The ancient view was
that censorship was a task to be done in the best interest of the public and that
anyone who violated the moral and political code of that time would be
punished. Censorship soon became a problem amongst the religious power in
Europe. Freedom of expression was a challenge to the guardians of Christianity.
The invention of the printing press in Europe in the mid-15th century had
increased the need for censorship and aided the Catholic Church. This
restrictive, strict and harsh form of censorship is still used by many countries
today like China and was used by the Soviet Union (USSR) and was the longest
lasting and most extensive form of censorship of the 20th century. The cultural,
music, art and theatre community was held on a tight reign and media was
restricted to such an extent that the weather forecast was doctored to prevent
people from skipping work.

In modern day society, the term censorship refers to the act of restricting and
suppressing information, ideas and opinions, with the purpose of protecting a
specific social institution. According to the Global Internet Liberty Campaign,
these institutions can be categorized into the following: the family, the church
and the state. As well as information, ideas and opinions which are censored can
be categorized into the following: moral, political, religious, military and
corporate censorship. Some of the worst examples of rigid press censorship
induced by military dictators in the 20th century were those of Spain (Spanish
Civil War 1936-39, the regime lasted from 1936-1975), Greece (1967 -1974),
Chile (1973- 1990) and Nigeria (1966-1999). Despite countless pleas from the
international community, Turkey still upholds strict censorship through the
AntiTerror Act of 1991, under the pretext of ensuring national security against
"the enemy within", here referring to the Kurdish minority.

Of all media which can be used to spread and share information, the Internet is
perhaps the most difficult to regulate in terms of censorship of its content. The
reason for this is the fact that the Internet is a global medium of communication
with universal reach, so there are conflicts which can arise as to who should
have ultimate control over the Internets content; whether that be individual
countries, or a mutual decision amongst all. Due to the ever-growing magnitude
of the Internet, censoring all content which is seen as unsuitable for public
viewing is a task which is wholly unconceivable. This is why there is the
necessity to find a justified balance between appropriate expression of opinion
and free speech through the Internet, and prohibited content which is to be
restricted by means of censorship.
Important Definitions
Human Rights: Any right which all the humans are entitled to.
Free Speech: Free speech is the human and political right to speak and
communicate ideas and opinions without limitation. This is established as
a human right in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR).
Hate Speech: This is speech which attacks or threatens one or more
individuals of a certain race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc.
Democracy: This is a governmental system with a constitution that
supports and upholds human rights and fair elections.
Communism: This is a governmental system in which private ownership
does not exist. In theory, there are no social classes in this system,
however in reality there are generally two classes; a ruling and a working
class. The social and economic activities are controlled by a single
political party.
Moral censorship: This is the censorship of materials which can be
considered vulgar, inappropriate or morally questionable. Common
examples of this are child pornography and paedophilia.
Political Censorship: This type of censorship consists of concealing or
falsifying information received by citizens, with the objective of
preventing discordance with governmental/ political ideas.
Religious Censorship: This entails the use of censorship in order to
suppress opinions and ideas opposing those of conventional beliefs.
Military Censorship: Any type of censorship conducted by those
employed in the armed forces, generally in order to prevent the spread of
classified information.
Corporate Censorship: This is a censorship conducted by corporations,
where threats are held against those with important information, in order
to prevent them from spreading it.
Totalitarian Regime: A centralized governmental rule in which there is
only one political party that holds absolute authority and control.
Defamation: This is the act of falsely representing or communicating
words or actions with the intention of damaging/degrading a persons
reputation. This is relevant in particular when considering hate speech
 through means of the Internet, as it can be used to sway the opinions of
others about a particular person/group of people.
Circumvention: In the context of Internet censorship, circumvention
refers to the use of technology to bypass filtering in order to access and
view censored information and content. All the various methods of doing
so involve accessing a server which is unfiltered and is not subject to
censorship laws. As circumvention is a very technically challenging
process, it is not a very common issue and therefore censorship still
remains as an effective method of withholding information.
Sedation: This is speech or language used to instigate rebellion or protest
against the authority/ government of a state.
Web 2.0: Web 2.0 refers to a generation of the World Wide Web (WWW)
which allows for user-generated content. Examples of applications of
Web 2.0 are blogs, YouTube, wikis and forums.
Problem Statements
Why is media important?
Media such as newspapers, magazines, television, and radio and in todays time,
the Internet, acts as a mean of providing crucial information. These media
outlets collect information and make it available to the public. In modern
society, it is important to have availability of information for voters and
consumers. Therefore, freedom of expression has always been emphasized as an
essential basis for the democratic functioning of a society. It is important that
the citizens are able to know what is happening in different regions and different
sectors of the functioning of the society, and to listen to dissenting view,
approaches and comments, so that they can effectively participate in the process
of self-government. If facts cannot be freely presented and comments cannot be
freely exchanged, there is no way in which the citizens can even attempt to hold
the rulers to account. Throughout the world, governments regulate media using
measures ranging from content restrictions in broadcasting licenses to
constitutional freedom of expression provisions. The types of regulations and
their enforcement vary significantly from country to country. Currently most of
the serious attacks on freedom of expression are committed in non-democratic
countries, struggling democracies or new democracies. Even today, more than
half the worlds population still lacks an independent press. Considering how
crucial the press is to the process of democracy and its transparency, this is
indeed a tragic state of affairs.

Ownership of Media
One side argues that government ownership of the media is greater in countries
that are poorer, have greater overall state ownership in the economy, lower
levels of school enrolments, and more autocratic regimes leading to lack of
transparency of information. They argue that government control on media
would distort and manipulate information in favour of politicians, which would
undermine the entire concept of democracy. The argument from the other side is
that governmental ownership of the media is beneficial mainly because if
consumers are ignorant, and especially if private media outlets serve the
governing classes, then state media ownership can expose the public to less
biased, more complete, and more accurate information than it could obtain with
private ownership.
Overview
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states the
following:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

This right to freedom of speech is therefore fundamental to the protection of

human rights. The conflict which arises with this article is that of where to draw
the line between appropriate expressions of opinion, and speech which should
be prohibited, in particular hate speech. Article 19 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Politic Rights (ICCPR) states the following:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries
with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
restrictions, but these shall only be for example provided by law and are
necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order
public), or of public health or morals.

Article 20 of the same covenant states the following:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
As we can see, article 19 of the ICCPR has a similar message to article 19 of the
UDHR, and article 20 provides an indication as to when the right of free speech
is being abused when prohibited by law, and what content is unacceptable.
National Frameworks

In democratic countries, freedom of speech and expression play a great role

within society as they are recognized as a human right, as is stated in the UDHR
and the ICCPR. However, given that this right is very sensitive and can be
defined very subjectively, democratic countries generally enforce legislation to
overcome exploitation of this right. For example, in the United States, the
constitution prohibits the creation of laws that abridge freedom of speech and
expression. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was an attempt
to control pornography on the Internet as this topic is deemed by many as
inappropriate. There were many changes made to this act due to legal issues
concerning infringement on freedom of speech. Today, pornography regulations
are specified in the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA), among others. This
goes to show that although a democratic country may fully support the human
right of freedom of speech and expression, they will often use methods of
filtering in order to regulate content which is seen to be exploiting this right.
There are also those countries that maintain and strongly regulate content
through a variety of methods of censorship. This can be seen in China, where
the Great Firewall is an encompassing and highly technological system of
censorship which makes use of various developments in technology to provide a
highly censored Internet environment to the population. In this country, there is
little adherence to the human right of freedom of speech and expression. In
Islamic countries, for example Iran, censorship is also highly used. In these
countries, it is used in particular for the purpose of political censorship, in order
to prevent defamation and sedition which could lead to revolt.

These are only a few examples; however they clearly demonstrate the
immensely differing views on what is considered to be inappropriate content on
the Internet, and the levels to which censorship is put into practice worldwide.
In an ideal situation, significant global progress to resolve the conflict of
freedom of speech, expression and censorship on the Internet could be made as
a result of a mutual decision between all countries, defining what content should
and should not be viewable on the Internet. However, as policies and legislation
differ greatly in each country, solving this issue is not as simple as this.
International Frameworks

Due to the enormous and continuous growth of the Internet, there is an

increasingly greater need for UN involvement in order to maintain the
adherence to human rights standards whilst ensuring that Internet content is
appropriate. Listed below are the main events, resolutions and instances in
which the UN has become actively involved in the issue at hand.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Not all of this

document is relevant to the issue of the conflict of freedom of speech,
expression and censorship on the Internet; Article 19 is that which is
relevant.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Similar to

the UDHR, only specific articles are relevant. These are Articles 19 and
20, which together establish the right to freedom of speech and
expression, and draw boundaries at which this should be limited.

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression - was

established by resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights in
1993. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur requires that information be
gathered from governments, NGOs and others on the discrimination,
violence or harassment of persons, including professionals, in the
exercise of their right of freedom of opinion and expression. The
Rapporteur submits an annual general report plus country reports on site
visits, and makes recommendations on the better promotion and
implementation of these rights. The Special Rapporteur focuses on both
broad thematic issues as well as individual cases in which he intervenes
through urgent actions and communications. The Rapporteur is able to
visit countries for on-site assessment at the invitation of the government
in question

Convention on the International Right of Correction (1952) - This treaty

offers a mechanism whereby states can clarify differences or problems
arising from incorrect or misleading news dispatches.

The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet,

29 June 2012, (A/HRC/20/L.13)

International Telecommunication Regulations (Updated in 2012 at the

Dubai International Telecommunication Union world conference.)
 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) conference on Freedom of Expression on the Internet in
Marrakech

Even prior to the establishment of any United Nations endorsed bodies or

treaties on the promotion of human rights, the United Nations General
Assembly addressed the freedom of expression as a human right in its first
session in 1946. Resolution 59 (I), passed without vote on December 14, 1946,
stresses the significance of the international community taking an active role in
defending the freedom of information, defined aptly as the right to gather,
transmit, and publish news anywhere and everywhere without fetters. The
United Nations passed its first formal document specifically outlining the rights
that should fully be practiced by all members of the international community on
December 10, 1948. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has
taken the initiative to frequently reiterate and defend this freedom with
numerous conferences and documents. The UNGA Third Committee
constructed a resolution that guarantees the freedom of journalists especially
those in areas of conflict. One of the ten cases that initiated the United Nations
mission to create this resolution is that of a young man named Dawit Isaak.
Since September 18th 2001, he has been imprisoned in an Eritrean detention
center for founding a pro-reform newspaper titled Seti. Isaaks detainment is
illegal under the resolutions that Eritrea has been in agreement with such as
A/RES/1738. This resolution specifically highlights the duty member nations
have to protect journalists from confinement. This is only one of the many cases
that fight against the impunity of governments. Impunity being the exemption
from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action. The
Global Campaign Against Impunity was created by the Committee to Protect
Journalists (CPJ) due to the fact that in the past decade 370 journalists have
been murdered in the field yet the murders were hardly ever tried in court or
convicted. These actions not only violate freedom of the press but the basic
human rights to freedom of expression highlighted in the UDHR. The UNHRC
has backed multiple missions similar to this one, successfully, by following the
guidelines set up in the UDHR. The United Nations has included missions to
protect against internet censorship in order to comply with rights given in the
UDHR. Consequently, the international community has held meetings for the
purpose of interpreting the UDHR to have an affiliation with the International
Telecommunications Regulations, which is monitored through International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) and responsible for global communication
technologies. This was extended to set international guidelines to the censorship
of the internet while protecting the rights of citizens globally. Additionally, the
United Nations realizes the importance of promoting absolute freedom of
expression with the passage of A/HRC/20/L.13, a resolution that promotes and
protects the enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, therefore reaffirming
its commitment to protecting safe and secure expression. The International Gay
and Lesbian Human Rights Commissions is a United Nations funded program
directly supporting human rights among the LGBT community in different
countries. The direct discrimination and violation of expression rights that this
community has experienced in the past years has made the UN focus their
efforts on to the cause more so than ever before. Since 2011, the United Nations
Human Rights Council has passed numerous resolutions that specifically protect
the rights of the LGBT community with freedom of expression being among the
most salient issues discussed. During its 27th session, the UNHRC passed
A/HRC/27/L.27, which equates the rights of the LGBT community to human
rights and explicitly protects this communitys right to freely express their
sexuality without fear of persecution or discrimination. By realizing the LGBT
communitys freedom of expression as a topic of utmost importance, the United
Nations has brought this issue before the international community and forced
countries all over the world to reconsider before persecuting these individuals
on the basis of expression.
Blasphemy and Religious
Censorship
Religious censorship is a form of censorship where freedom of expression is
controlled or limited using religious authority or on the basis of the teachings of
the religion. For centuries, free speech and religion have been cast as opponents.
They might exist harmoniously on paper but free expression and religion often
conflict in practice, and free speech is often trampled in the name of protecting
religious sensibilities whether through self-censorship or legislation that
censors. This does not indicate that they are completely incompatible. Both
religion and free expression are offered protection by The United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) drafted in 1949. Article 18 protects an
individuals right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and the
freedom to change religion or beliefs. Article 19, as previously mentioned,
embraces the concept of freedom of speech and expression.

The action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things is

called blasphemy. Blasphemy laws are being challenged in a new global
campaign launched by a coalition of humanist organizations. The International
Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) says that, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo
attacks in France, the time is right for countries to abolish laws that protect
religious sensibilities. But blasphemy laws nevertheless remain popular in many
parts of the world. Blasphemy in the West is the exception, not the rule. There
are remnants of a legal framework protecting religion in many European
countries. Until 2008 the UK still had old anachronistic blasphemy laws on its
statute books. They were once thought to be abandoned to disuse in the 1970s,
but they were revived in the 1990s. They only protected Christians, and were
considered by activists (and Law Lords, by the 2000s) to be prejudiced,
outdated and a threat to free speech. Before being abolished, they were already
partially overridden by Free Speech laws and European Human Rights Law.
Blasphemy in the West is the exception, not the rule. There are remnants of a
legal framework protecting religion in many European countries. Until 2008 the
UK still had old anachronistic blasphemy laws on its statute books. They were
once thought to be abandoned to disuse in the 1970s, but they were revived in
the 1990s. They only protected Christians, and were considered by activists (and
Law Lords, by the 2000s) to be prejudiced, outdated and a threat to free speech.
Before being abolished, they were already partially overridden by Free Speech
laws and European Human Rights Law. The concepts of free speech and
freedom of belief are not acceptable to Islamic states. Their concept of
blasphemy is absolute: no-one is allowed to criticize or question Islam, nor to
attempt to convert Muslims away from their religion. They are allowed to
preach to others, but, not the other way around. Their concept of "defamation of
religion" boosts the idea of blasphemy to such as extent that many other rights
are trampled.

Defamation of religion is an issue that has been repeatedly addressed by some

member states of the UN since 1999. Several non-binding resolutions have been
voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion". The 57
Islamic States in the UN are organized into the Organisation of the Islamic
Conference (OIC). For 12 years, until 2011, the OIC ran a long and well-funded
campaign against free speech at the UN, in particular when it came to women's
rights and the Human Rights records of Islamic countries. The motions,
sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, aim to
prohibit expression that would "fuel discrimination, extremism and
misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous
unintended and unforeseen consequences". Religious groups, human rights
activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West have
condemned the resolutions arguing it amounts to an international blasphemy
law. Critics of the resolutions including human rights groups argue that they are
used to politically strengthen domestic anti- blasphemy and religious
defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other
peaceful political dissidents. Since 2001 there has been a clear split, with the
Islamic bloc and much of the developing world supporting the resolutions, and
mostly Western democracies opposing. Support has been waning in recent
years, due to increased opposition from the West, along with lobbying by
religious, free-speech, and human rights advocacy groups. Some countries in
Africa, the Pacific, and Latin America have begun switching from supporting to
abstaining, or from abstaining to opposing. The most recent defamation of
religions resolution in 2010, which also condemned "the ban on the construction
of minarets of mosques" four months after a Swiss referendum introduced such
a ban, passed with only 20 supporting, 17 opposing, and 8 abstaining.

The problems with it are numerous. By definition, a "religion" can't be protected

by Human Rights because it isn't a Human. The Islamic countries that attempted
to limit free speech over the 12-year campaign were acting to protect Islam but
also did not make any attempts to curb anti-semitic publications in their own
countries, some of which comes from the governmental and institutional level.
By 2008 a collection of Islamic states had played the "Islamophobia" card so
frequently at United Nations debates to stifle criticism of Islamic governments
and culture that infringe of human rights, that the IHEU had to specifically tell
the Human Rights Council that the concept of Islamophobia itself "is unhelpful
and misleading, wrongly implying that any criticism of Islam is based on
irrational fear and must lead automatically to hatred of Muslims" Such attempts
at silencing criticism is incompatible with free speech, especially when such a
forum is being used to raise awareness of human rights abuses.
Actors involved and their views
China
Modern day China, more than almost any other country in the world, severely
restricts its citizens freedom of speech and expression. Oddly enough, Article 35
of the current Chinese constitution, written in 1982, stipulates "Citizens of the
PRC have freedom of speech, publication, assembly, association, procession
and demonstration." Up to the advent of the internet, the Chinese government
had been able to successfully curtail this freedom in nearly all its physical
manifestations. China has a tightly controlled traditional media, China forces all
published information to be from official sources and to be vetted through the
state. China also has strong restrictions against assembly and worship,
demonstrated over the last few days with a crackdown on Tibetan protesters.

However, China has adapted its censorship policies to the internet, and by many
standards managed to stay ahead of the curve in restricting free speech in the
digital realm. This internet usage boom presents a variety of new challenges to a
government adept at censoring traditional media types. China has responded
with a vast centralized censorship program. The blocking has traditionally been
centred on political and opinion based sites. Some of the most likely to be
blocked are related to independence movements in Taiwan and Tibet, protest
groups like the Falun-Gong, political parties opposed to the state, and sites on
democracy. The filtering effort is in conjunction with a strict criminal
prosecution system working with laws that forbid the publication of anything
"(i) Denying the guiding status of Marxism, Mao Zedong Thought, or Deng
Xiaoping Theory; (ii) Violating the Party line, guiding principles, or policies;
(vii) Anything else that violates Party propaganda discipline or violates national
publishing administration regulations." These laws are enforced with the aid of
laws requiring all ISPs and internet cafes to record and store information about
all users and their internet use.

DPRK
In 2006, DPRK was described by Reporters without Borders as the worst
Internet black hole, and is on its list of the 13 Internet enemies. In DPRK, the
censorship and regulations on the Internet are perhaps the most extreme;
Internet access is illegal. Instead, the citizens are provided access to the
countrys own Intranet, called Kwangmyong. Its purpose is to restrict access to
foreign content which is deemed undesirable by the government (political
censorship in particular).

This Intranet does also not allow for freedom of speech or expression on the
Internet, so there are many that argue that it denies the domestic users of the
human right (as stated in the DOHR). Those authorized to use the global
Internet are a limited selection of government officials, and the Internet comes
from a North Korean- Chinese connection. The effect of this rigid censorship is
the following: the majority of citizens live their lives unaware of issues and
conflicts in the rest of the world. In a sense, they are completely isolated within
the boundaries of the manipulated information which is provided to them.
Cuba
The primary purpose of censorship within Cuba is to prevent the Internet from
being used in a manner which counteracts the revolution led by Fidel Castro.
Generally, the only manner for domestic citizens to access the Internet is
through Internet cafes, where they are given two options; national or
international Internet access. Given that international access is expensive, the
majority of Cubans opt for national access, which consists of only an email
connection. When users enter keywords which are recognized by technology,
the connection is broken. Foreigners on the other hand are able to access the
worldwide Internet. However they can be prosecuted if they allow domestic
citizens to access it. Through these means, freedom of speech and expression is
very much restricted in Cuba. According to Reporters without Borders, Cuba is
one of the 13 Internet Enemies. Cuba is also one of the world's worst offenders
of free speech according to the Press Freedom Index 2008. Reporters Without
Borders states that Cuba is "the second biggest prison in the world for
journalists" after the People's Republic of China.

USA
As stated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 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. This amendment prohibits the creation of laws which
have the intention of diminishing rights to freedom of speech. In accordance to
this amendment, private Internet connections in the USA are uncensored, as is
the case in many democracies with similar constitutions. There are several
common law exceptions including obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement
to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, fraud, speech covered by
copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct; this is not to say that it is
illegal, but just that the government may make it illegal.

At the meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Dubai

2012, the US, as well as 55 other countries, failed to sign on to a treaty which
would ultimately ensure globalized Internet censorship to a certain extent. This
treaty consequently failed. Instead, the US chooses to impart its own legislation
concerning censorship.

Europe

Citizens of the European Union enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of

assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. Currently, all
members of the European Union are signatories of the European Convention on
Human Rights in addition to having various constitutional and legal rights to
freedom of expression at the national level. The Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union has been legally binding since December 1, 2009 when
the Treaty of Lisbon became fully ratified and effective. Article 9 provides a
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom
to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship,
teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in
accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society" Finland has been
ranked in the Press Freedom Index as the country with the best press freedom.
In Germany freedom of expression is granted by Article 5 of the Basic Law for
the Federal Republic of Germany, which also states that there is no censorship
and freedom of expression may be limited by law. The most important and
sometimes controversial regulations limiting speech and the press can be found
in the Criminal code for example; Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and
Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public
peace (Section 166).

Reporters without Borders

Reporters without Borders, is a France-based non-governmental organization
(NGO) whose mission statement is the following:

To continuously monitor attacks on freedom of information worldwide;

To denounce any such attacks in the media;
To act in cooperation with governments to fight censorship and laws aimed at
restricting freedom of information;
To morally and financially assist persecuted journalists, as well as their
families.
To offer material assistance to war correspondents in order to enhance their
safety.
They have created the List of 13 Internet Enemies, and their archives contain
yearly reports on censorship and freedom of speech in a broad range of
countries.
Freedom House
This is a US based NGO that conducts research on issues related to human
rights, one of which is the issue of freedom of expression. As well as, it is
actively involved in the promotion of freedom of speech and expression through
cooperation and communication with organizations, advocates of free
expression and the United Nations (UN). A particularly relevant report by this
NGO is that titled Freedom on the Net: A Global Assessment of Internet and
Digital Media. This contains reports on a wide selection of countries, as well as
further information on the previously specified topic.
International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
This is a specialized agency of the UN, which focuses on information and
communication technologies. In 2012, the ITU held the World Conference on
International Telecommunications in Dubai. At this conference, changes were
made to the International Telecommunication Regulations, and some changes
were proposed but did not pass. One of these changes was the creation of a
treaty which would essentially result in global censorship to a certain extent,
however it did not pass. The ITU continues to remain active in the field of
Internet regulations.
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
The HRW is a NGO with a very similar purpose to AI because it monitors,
conducts research on and reports on human rights worldwide. One of the main
issues it focuses on is freedom of expression. As well as publishing many papers
on this topic, it is a founder of the International Freedom of Expression
Exchange.
National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC)
The NCAC is an alliance of organizations whose aim is to protect freedom of
speech and discourage censorship. They do so by providing education to the
public about censorship, and by reporting on issues which are currently
relevant. Amongst other types of censorship, Internet censorship is one of their
areas of focus.
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)
The IFEX is a network of NGOs worldwide who strive together to promote
freedom of speech and expression. They mainly do so by means of
campaigning, forming advocacy alliances, and publishing information and
reports on current issues relevant to the topic of freedom of expression. One of
the main subtopics, as is relevant to the issue at hand, is Internet censorship.
Timeline
2015 Elections in Ethiopia. During the run up to the elections, bloggers
and independent journalists are either detained or forced into exile.
2013 Edward Snowden leaks information about NSA surveillance and
the other classified documents to journalists, who then publish the
information via media outlets.
2011 The beginning of Arab Spring, with many of the conflicts sparked
by the widespread use of social media. The live coverage worldwide
allows for constant updates on the events each nation had gone through.
2001 Following the September 11 attacks, the Patriot Act is passed.
1999 - Both Yugoslav forces and NATO forces fight a war of words
utilizing media outlets to gain public approval of the bombings and
atrocities that ensued.
1998 50 year anniversary of t the UDHR. 118 journalist are imprisoned
and 24 killed.
1993 1995 Journalist and other media employees are executed in
Algeria as a result of an internal conflict after the election held in 1992.
1991 Turkey passes the Anti-Terror Act, which allows for increased
censorship in the interest of national security.
1991 Declaration of the World Press Freedom Day, signed in
Windhoek, Namibia.
1948 The UN holds Conference on Freedom of Information in Geneva,
Switzerland.
1940s The Second World War resulted in strict censorship in Nazi
controlled nations. This resulted in flourishment of illegal press.
1920s Soviet artist and writers are granted creative freedom, provided
they do not produce politically controversial materials.
18th 19th centuries Colonial powers exercise strict control over
political publications.
1766 - Sweden is the first nation to abolish censorship.