Cross-border censorship
The Wall Street Journal (via) has picked up the previously mentioned news that a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans, including Geert Wilders, in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam.
The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.
Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10 editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law by releasing on the Web his recent film, “Fitna,” which tries to examine how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.
The article goes on to point out that, far from being an isolated case, this attempt at criminalising foreign free speech is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam.
In December, the UN General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. And, in June, the U.N. Human Rights Council said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to “a particular religion.”
The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse, and it follows the council’s March decision to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and the media for negative comments about Islam.
In the Jordanian case, the prosecutor is relying on a 2006 amendment to the Jordanian Justice Act – passed in response to the Muhammed Cartoons Controversy – that allows for the prosecution of individuals whose actions affect the Jordanian people by “electronic means,” such as the Internet. This amendment, in theory, means anyone who publishes on the Internet could be subject to prosecution in Jordan.
Obviously, neither Denmark nor the Netherlands are about to start turning over citizens over to face a charge as repressive as this one, and it is unlikely that any other Western democracy would either. But there is no such guarantee if any of the defendants travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.
Unless democratic countries stand up to this challenge to free speech, other nations may be emboldened to follow the Jordanian example. Kangaroo courts across the globe will be ready to charge free people with obscure violations of other societies’ norms and customs, and send Interpol to bring them to stand trial in frivolous litigation.
A new form of forum shopping would soon take root. Activists would be able to choose countries whose laws and policies are informed by their religious values to prosecute critical voices in other countries. The case before the Jordanian court is not just about Mr. Wilders and the Danes. It is about the subjugation of Western standards of free speech to fear and coercion by foreign courts.
The sort of libel shopping that UK courts allow is bad enough. An offendedness market such as this would be much, much worse.
Sunday 14 Sep 2008 | Paul | Jordan, World
