I’ve just discovered the wonderful new(ish) blog Human Rights in Ireland, a group blog about – well, the clue is in the name – human rights issues in Ireland and Irish scholarship about human rights more generally. With apologies for the nkotb title, I can say without fear of contradiction that there’s lots of great stuff there; one piece in particular caught my eye, by Fiona de Londras (pictured above left):
In Ireland we are quite accustomed to our freedom of expression being significantly limited where that freedom is abused. This results from the express limitations in both Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Irish Constitution) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. International law also prohibits propaganda to war as our colleague Michael Kearney has explained and examined in detail in his bookThe Prohibition of Propaganda for War in International Law(2007, OUP). In the United States, however, the constitutional protection of free speech (First Amendment), while not absolute, is certainly broader than is the case in Ireland or indeed under the ECHR. This makes the appeal argument by counsel for Al Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul—the only person currently in Guantánamo Bay to have been convicted of an offence relating to the ‘War on Terrorism’—all the more interesting. …
If you want to know more about the Irish position on this issue, I’ve blogged about it briefly in a post on Terrorism and Speech as well as in my more general posts on Sedition. If you want to know more about the argument that counsel for al Bahlul is making, read all about it in the remainder of Fiona’s post. Welcome to the Blawg O’Sphere, Human Rights in Ireland – I am certain that you will rapidly establish yourself as the pre-eminent online forum for discussion of human rights issues in Ireland and abroad. Go n-éirí go brea leis an dea-obair!
The current issue of the European Human Rights Law Review ([2009] 3 EHRLR | table of contents (pdf) | hat tip ECHR blog) contains a wonderful piece by my colleague Dr Ewa Komorek entitled “Is Media Pluralism a Human Right? The European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe and the Issue of Media Pluralism” [2009] 3 EHRLR 395.
Here is the abstract (with added links):
The need for pluralist media stopped being purely a national concern a long time ago and thus it has for decades been subject to scrutiny by the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. Media pluralism has always come to their agenda as a prerequisite for freedom of expression guarded by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It is important to distinguish the two ‘faces’ of media pluralism: internal (which may also be called content pluralism or diversity) and external (or structural). This article focuses on television broadcasting and argues that while the Court of Human Rights has essentially been successful in safeguarding internal pluralism, the protection of structural pluralism proved more difficult to achieve by means of the Court’s case law. This prompted the Council of Europe to step in and attempt to fill the gap with regulatoryproposals. The conclusion is that although there is still a need for a binding ex ante action at the European level aimed at safeguarding pluralism in this ever concentrating sector, the efforts of the Council of Europe and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are vital for awareness raising and stimulating debate.
In Ewa’s view, therefore, media pluralism should be given a far stronger voice in European debates than it currently enjoys, and one way to achieve this would be to strength its status as a right not only in the Council of Europe but also in the EU. For example, Article 11(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that “the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected”, and Ewa’s compelling analysis of the cognate Article 10 can go a long way towards giving full effect to this provision. But this is not the only interesting piece in the journal. Indeed, this issue is a veritable Aladdin’s Cave of fascinating articles: Read the rest of this entry »
On the top right hand corner of a cover of Hot Press (pictured left) runs a quote from the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), BrianCowen:
Those paintings didn’t bother me
It is a teaser for a full interview with Jason O’Toole in which Cowen talks about the current economic crisis and his party’s electoral prospects. This is what he said about those paintings:
Do you read any of the political blogs written about you and your government?
No, I don’t. I’ve been too busy trying to do my job.
Do you think the recent controversy over the painting was blown out of proportion?
I made no comment about it at the time. As far as I was concerned, it was obviously a stunt. I know some people thought it wasn’t in great taste, but I just stayed out of it. I have a thick enough political skin at this stage – formed over the 25 years I’ve been in this business – not to be bothered by something like that.
Silvio Berlusconi and Mara Carfagna, though not by Filippo Panseca
Yesterday’s Times Online has a short piece which begins [with added links]
A scarf is the only thing protecting the modesty of Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, in a painting of him and his Minister for Equal Opportunities, Mara Carfagna, 32, a former topless model, as angels. The work by Filippo Panseca is in a show at Savona on the Italian Riviera. Mr Panseca, 69, said that he wanted to pay tribute to the Prime Minister, 72, in the exhibition, which also includes a painting in similar style of Mr Berlusconi’s wife Veronica Lario.
Berlusconi bought the paintings he would donate the money to the earthquake victims of Abruzzo. Mr Berlusconi has yet to comment. But he seems unlikely to buy the pictures: last year, he censored a bare nipple in a copy of a renaissance painting hung in the government press room.
More seriously, though, it seems that 144 people complained to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission about RTÉ’s coverage, 9 about the original report, and 135 about the apology; and Suzy has posted a copy of RTÉs response to the BCC regarding those complaints. In essence, RTÉ’s position is that the original story was not a breach of taste and decency; whilst the apology was not a breach of objectivity. But this is inconsistent. As Clockwork Chartophylax points out
Either the original report was offensive and required an apology, or it was inoffensive and the apology was unnecessary and only made to avoid angering the Taoiseach, which is a clear failure of objectivity and impartiality. RTE management can’t have it both ways.
While we await the BCC’s reply, perhaps Messrs Cowen and Berlusconi might have friends visiting Iowa in the near future? If they do, they might receive an interesting present: a copy of Bill that seeks to prohibit political cartoons (at least in some election contexts) (see Volokh here and here, and Rick Hasen; hat tip: Media Law Prof Blog). Meanwhile, in an echo of my speculation about whether the caricatures constitute seditious libel, a Thai blogger has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment after pleading guilty under Thailand’s ugly lèse-majesté laws – his crime was to have posted anti-monarchy pictures and comments on his blog, and two journalists in the Ivory Coast have been convicted of “offending the head of state” and fined 20 million CFA francs (US$40,500 dollars) each.
I wonder whether anyone has suggested that Conor Casby’s caricatures of Cowen constitute a seditious libel? It’s not that fanciful a question: the common law crime still exists, and has been used against milder criticism. But the mere fact that the question can be asked in this context demonstrates just how ridiculous the crime actually is. It’s on the way out in Australia. Now, thankfully, its days may now finally be numbered, both in Ireland and in the UK too!
As for Ireland, the Minister for Justice suggested this week that we could see the enactment of the Defamation Bill, 2006 before the summer. Since it was introduced in July 2006, the Bill has suffered more delays than Ryanair, to say nothing of the long journey to reach that point which began with the work of the Law Reform Commission in 1991 (Consultation Paper and Report on the Civil Law of Defamation; Consultation Paper and Report on the Crime of Libel). The tortuous passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas has taken so long that I won’t hold my breath, but the fact that it is likely to recommence its less-than-steady progress is welcome news nonetheless. One of the many great benefits of this enactment will be the abolition of the common law crime of seditious libel. Section 34 of the Bill as introduced provides:
The common law offences of criminal libel, seditious libel and obscene libel are abolished.
Section 35 provides for the enactment of a new, much narrower and much more focussed, offence of publication of gravely harmful statements to replace these abolished common law offence. [Update: as Daithí points out in the comments below, this section has been removed from the Bill]. In the United Kingdom, Evan Harris MP has been working to achieve the same end. Writing at Index on Censorship yesterday, he explained his efforts:
The UK government’s retention of this archaic legislation only serves to justify oppression in other countries, writes Evan Harris
In 1763, journalist John Wilkes and 49 of his publishers were arrested for seditious libel. Their crime was to have written and disseminated an editorial criticising the state, in the person of King George III.
It would be unthinkable for the state to use such power today — but nearly 250 years on, the laws of sedition still sit in this country’s statute books. … It is not acceptable that 21st-century Britain hasn’t got rid of these laws yet. That’s why I, along with English PEN, Index on Censorship, Liberty, Article 19, and many others, have come together to campaign for their abolition. The Coroners and Justice Bill is currently making its tortuous way through Parliament, and it is a large beast of a bill which is a struggle to scrutinise. But such a portmanteau bill is the opportunity I have been looking for to table amendments which would repeal these ridiculous bits of legislation. …
… Writers, journalists, activists, and citizens worldwide are looking to Britain to lead the way. After all, how can we criticise other nations, when we haven’t got our own house in order? John Wilkes would be turning in his grave. As comedian and activist Mark Thomas has said, ‘I hope MPs will weed out the ancient, twisted law of seditious libel so I can get on with the job of describing them accurately.’
The Cowengatecontroversy certainly caught the imagination this week; and, by way of update to my earlierposts on the topic, I’ve collected some more links about the affair below. Perusing the coverage in print, broadcast, and online, a question has repeatedly occurred to me: for all that there was online outrage, how much of it was reflected in the print or broadcast media? My impression is that whilst online commentary reflected and often relied upon the print or broadcast media, there was (by and large) very little traffic the other way. Is this a fair assessment? Answers, please, in the comments below.
[The remainder of the post is another compendium of links relating to the Cowengate controversy]. Read the rest of this entry »
Suzy must get the prize for popularising the best political coinage of the day, for – so far as I can see – it is she who has run with the name “Cowengate” for the sturm und drang surrounding satirical portraits of the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), BrianCowen. In a piece of guerrilla artistry as ingenious as the coinage Suzy has popularised, caricatures of Mr Cowen were anonymously hung on the walls of the National Gallery of Ireland and the Royal Hibernian Academy. Once they were discovered, they were removed, but not before they had garnered sufficient publicity for RTÉ (Raidio Telefís Éireann, the national state broadcaster) to broadcast a story about them on the flagship 9:00pm television news programme.
It has been the occasion for lots of bad puns and some embarrassment on the part of the Taoiseach, the Gallery and the Academy, but in the ordinary course of things, the story should have blown over after about 48hours. However, things then took two turns for the worse. First, RTÉ apologised to Mr Cowen and his family or for any disrespect shown to the office of Taoiseach by their broadcast. Second, when the radio station Today fm covered the story, the Gardaí (the police) arrived at the station asking that an email with the artist’s details be handed over (.wav). Leaving the obvious jokes aside (because they have all been done better elsewhere), these two quite sinister developments raise some profound questions about freedom of expression in Ireland. Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve just discovered the wonderful new(ish) blog Human Rights in Ireland, a group blog about – well, the clue is in the name – human rights issues in Ireland and Irish scholarship about human rights more generally. With apologies for the nkotb title, I can say without fear of contradiction that there’s lots of great stuff there; one piece in particular caught my eye, by Fiona de Londras (pictured above left):
I wonder whether anyone has suggested that 
Entries (RSS)