The South African government has defended its controversial votes against key elements of a UN resolution supporting internet freedom, by referring to the domestic debate on criminalising racist hate speech.
Pretoria voted last week for amendments that sought to dilute a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva officially condemning countries shutting down access to the internet.
The resolution entitled “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet” effectively extends human rights held offline to the internet. The resolution was eventually passed by consensus, but only after South Africa, India, China, Russia and other countries tried hard to pull out key parts of the text through amendments that were eventually all defeated.
These states opposed the resolution’s focus on the need for an accessible and open internet, and its condemnation of violations – including death sentences – against people for expressing their views online.
These states also supported a second amendment to remove references to freedom of expression. So South Africa found itself in the company of several countries which “intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law…” which the resolution condemned.
“We are disappointed that democracies like South Africa, Indonesia, and India voted in favour of these hostile amendments to weaken protections for freedom of expression online,” said Thomas Hughes, the executive director of Article 19, an advocacy group for protecting freedom of expression.
He added: “The resolution is a much-needed response to increased pressure on freedom of expression online in all parts of the world.”
But Ncumisa Notutela, deputy ambassador to the UN in Geneva explained South Africa’s votes in the council by saying the resolution did not oppose hate speech. She said that SA’s constitution guaranteed the rights of expression and opinion.
“However incitement to hatred is problematic in the context where we are having our domestic debates on racism and the criminalisation thereof.
“The exercise of the right to freedom of expression and opinion is not absolute and carries with it duties and responsibilities for right-holders,” she said. “The draft resolution does not make reference to acts of hatred propagated through cyberspace, including cyber-bullying…”
She added that the assertion by the main sponsors of the resolution “that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion, online and offline, is not subject to limitations, is a false notion”.
“The draft resolution omits key provisions on the permissible limitations and prohibition of hate speech under international human rights law.”
However, article 11 of the resolution does in fact oppose hate speech. It “stresses the importance of combating advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination or violence on the Internet, including by promoting tolerance and dialogue”.
Nor does it suggest there should be no limitations on freedom of expression on the Internet.
It says people should enjoy the same rights online as offline, “in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice”.
It also says human rights violations enacted against people for making their views known online should be “condemned unequivocally,” and that states should be held accountable for any such violations.
South Africa Today – South Africa News
