New guidance to protect lawful free speech at universities has been unveiled following claims of censorship on campuses.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has worked with 10 leading organisations to develop a guide for student unions and institutions, providing advice on following the relevant law.

There was input from the National Union of Students, Universities UK, Charity Commission for England and Wales, Office for Students, Independent HE, Guild HE, Commission for Countering Extremism and Home Office.

The 53-page document clarifies the occasions where free speech can lawfully be limited.

EHRC chairman David Isaac said: “The free expression and exchange of different views without persecution or interference goes straight to the heart of our democracy and is a vital part of higher education.

“Holding open, challenging debates rather than silencing the views of those we don’t agree with helps to build tolerance and address prejudice and discrimination.

“Our guidance makes clear that freedom of speech in higher education should be upheld at every opportunity and should only be limited where there are genuine safety concerns or it constitutes unlawful behaviour.”

In 2017, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights held an inquiry into the state of free speech in UK universities, following concerns over increased bureaucracy and potential self censorship from students on campus.

Sector leaders agreed during a Department for Education summit in May 2018 to create the new guidance which has now been published.

It says:

– Everyone has the right to free speech within the law.

– Higher education providers should always work to widen debate, never to narrow it.

– Any decision about speakers should seek to promote and protect the right to freedom of expression.

– Peaceful protest is a protected form of expression; however, protest should not be allowed to shut down debate or infringe the rights of others.

– Everyone has the right to express and receive views and opinions, including those that may “offend, shock or disturb others”.

– Protecting freedom of expression is a legal requirement for most higher education providers.

Alistair Jarvis, chief executive of Universities UK, said: “Universities are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting free speech.

“Universities host thousands of events each year, among a student population of more than two million, and the vast majority of these pass without incident.

“Although there is little evidence of a systematic problem of free speech in universities, there is a legal duty on the higher education sector to secure free speech within the law and it is important that universities continually review their approaches.

“This new guidance provides a useful tool that will help universities balance the numerous requirements placed upon them, including student safeguarding responsibilities, and supports their significant efforts to uphold freedom of speech.”

Amatey Doku of the NUS said: “As the guidance rightly notes, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and that students’ unions and universities must balance that right with other legal duties.

“We were pleased to input into the drafting process in order to help identify where confusion can arise and to dispel some of the common myths around students’ union activity.”

Universities minister Chris Skidmore said: “The guidance provides a clear framework for institutions and student unions to work within, and provides additional clarity on the contentious issue of hate speech.

“It also sets out a clear benchmark of good practice around how these organisations can work together to facilitate and uphold free speech, alongside other requirements such as the Prevent Duty, which requires higher education institutions to safeguard staff and students from being drawn into terrorism.”

Social media, including Facebook, must proactively block content inciting hatred and prevent online campaigns which target minorities, such as those undertaken in Myanmar, the United Nations human rights chief said on Wednesday.

Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, was speaking after U.N. experts accused Myanmar generals of “genocidal intent” and said Facebook had allowed its platform to be used to incite violence against Rohingya.

Facebook said on Monday it was removing several Myanmar military officials from the social media website and an Instagram account to prevent the spread of “hate and misinformation” after reviewing the content.

Zeid, whose spokesman said he has met with major tech companies in Silicon Valley, including Facebook and Google, in recent months, was speaking to a news conference before his four-year term ends on Aug. 31.

Zeid said he didn’t feel Facebook took the issue seriously at first but that the company’s attitude began to change after Yanghee Lee, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, told a Geneva press conference in March that Facebook was being used in the country to spread hate speech.

“But it shouldn’t be because the press or the human rights community highlights the problem for them then suddenly to respond. They should be aware of it ahead of time,” he said.

“So I don’t think they should wait until the crisis begins. They should be thinking proactively about what steps they will take to mitigate that,” he added.

Facebook said on Monday that while it was too slow to act in the case of Myanmar, it was now making progress, with better technology to identify hate speech and improved reporting tools.

However, Zeid said there was a danger that social media could be over-regulated in a way that breaches human rights law including the right to freedom of expression.

Tech giants should “keep the broadest space available and open to the exercise of freedom of expression”, relying on international human rights law for regulation, he said.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday accused Google’s search engine of promoting negative news articles and hiding “fair media” coverage of him, vowing to address the situation without providing evidence or giving details of action he might take.

Trump’s attack against the Alphabet Inc. unit follows a string of grievances against technology companies, including Twitter Inc and Facebook, which he has accused of silencing conservative voices.

Much has been said about social media platforms though we have seen some significant and positive changes in Twitter and Facebook over the last year.

We have seen a real desire to reach out and to listen to organisations working with communities and in areas such as tackling hate incidents and crimes. Both organisations are making changes and supporting counter-speech and this is to be welcomed. Interestingly, changes are taking place on these platforms much more regularly and which take into account feedback by users.

For example, today, we have learnt that Twitter provides this much needed reporting in facility. The facility allows users to report in multiple tweets, thereby providing greater context on the information and actions of perpetrators of abuse. The greater the context, the more information that can be acted on.

Tell MAMA has been working with Twitter in trying to ensure that the context of hateful and abusive messages are taken into account. We are one of a handful of organisations who have made this case and we are very grateful that Twitter has listened and responded. We are starting to see a strong desire from Facebook and Twitter to make relevant and useful changes to tackle abuse and these steps are warmly welcomed. They will help victims of abuse.

The post Twitter Develops Multiple Reporting of Tweets to Provide Context appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Facebook briefly banned Britain First’s page on 30 November, sparking momentary cries of celebration on social media. But within an hour, the far right organisation’s page was restored, claiming Facebook’s censorship to be a ‘fascist attack’. Britain First currently has over 1 million likes on its Facebook page—more than Conservatives and Labour combined. Its page on average generates hundreds of likes for posts. Immediately following restoration, likes spiked into the thousands. Despite their inflammatory material, banning social media sites like Britain First is a highly ineffective approach.

Research points to the negative consequences that arise from exercising bans. The International Centre for Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) found through in-depth analysis that a systematic blocking of sites with extremist material is both impractical and counterproductive. It found that strategies which include removing websites, filtering content for accessibility, and hiding search engine results, have little to no effect hindering such networks. This is due to the particular challenges of internet regulation. The scale of website traffic makes identifying and monitoring content extremely difficult, as well as resource-intensive. Even when web page takedowns do occur, sites and forums tend to re-emerge rapidly.

The far-right website, Gates of Vienna, was taken down twice in 2013 on grounds of racial incitement. It has since moved to a self-hosted site. As of December 2015, gatesofvienna.net has witnessed a 13 per cent increase in global website rankings within the last three months. It features in the media spotlight for promoting controversial matters, including a (later cancelled) London exhibition on cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Leader of the radical right Dutch PVV party, Geert Wilders, was one of the planned attendees.

A similar study on ISIS Twitter accounts reveals comparable findings. Although mass suspension campaigns produce a significant decrease in online activity, it also results in a more internally focused network. This poses dangerous implications such as potentially alienating supporters even further whilst not actually preventing new members from joining. In some cases, new accounts are created with a more intense following and concentrated material output.

Extremist politics has historically been at the forefront of using innovate communication technology to mobilise support. Stormfront.org, the first major white supremacist website, was founded in the 1990s as a means to circumvent mainstream media channels. Al-Qaeda similarly was an innovator in cyberspace, initially disseminating propaganda on forums and chat rooms and eventually on social media platforms. Yet while the internet aids extremist networking, it is not its primary driver. Social media sites merely create a space to express and reinforce shared sentiments. They promote a sense of collective identification, but do not spark the initial desire to join an extremist network.

Banning these online echo chambers signals a reactionary rather than proactive move. Instead, approaches should be comprehensive in responding to extremism. This includes all users, not just those targeted as the most vulnerable to extremist messages. A holistic strategy takes into account critical thinking skills of social media users. For instance, claims of a racist comment, while indicative, fails to interrogate what makes such a comment ‘racist.’ It favours a dogmatic approach that shuts down any possibility for exchange. By encouraging social media users to question the meaning behind phrases rather than at face value, this is a significant step towards balancing the national conversation. Agency is the most resilient form of counter-speech.

Importantly, proscription is problematic not only due to proven adverse effects. It is fundamentally at odds with democratic values. Beyond free speech advocacy, banning runs counter to principles of engagement and dialogue. This simultaneously applies to social movements and political parties with views or courses of action outside mainstream opinion. An unpopular agenda should not be delegitimised because it is incompatible with personal beliefs. Doing so neglects extremist perspectives as symptomatic of trending issues within everyday politics. Such blindsiding often fails to recognise complex socio-economic debates at the expense of shallow labels. When simplified narratives become common practice, this comes at the expense of determining what is extremist content (let alone ‘extremism’).

What we are witnessing now is the upsurge of reactionary politics. Far-right views are increasingly influencing mainstream agendas on issues of immigration, employment, housing, and security. Yet somehow we do not tolerate radical beliefs, preferring to ban spaces where they are most vocal. At the same time, social media platforms amplify our inability to distinguish boundaries of extremist speech.

By choosing to ban, we are pushing away a value integral to democracy—pluralism. Isolating extremists only makes it more difficult to challenge alternative views. We risk reproducing an ‘us versus them’ logic that continues to polarise society.

Eviane Leidig did her Master’s Degree at the University of Bristol, with an MSc  in Sociology (Ethnicity and Multiculturalism). Her dissertation looked at ‘Visualising Violent Nationalism: A Comparison of Far Right and Islamic Extremism’. She tweets at @evianeleidig and writes in a personal capacity.

The post Why extremist groups want you to ban their online content appeared first on Religious Reader.

When Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of The Prophet Mohammed early in 2015 there was a violent and deadly backlash. The magazine’s office were invaded and several employees were murdered in cold blood. A few years ago a Danish magazine published other cartoons and there was a vociferous Muslim outcry. These and other events have prompted many commentators, comedians and controllers of various media to speak in defence of the ‘freedom of speech’. Why should they restrain themselves when discussing Islam? A new phrase ‘self-censorship’ has been coined and applies explicitly to matters with a Muslim and Islamic links. The implication is that commentators are being asked by the state or the establishment voluntarily to impose restrictions on what they say.

Let me say from the outset that I am not a Muslim but I have a personal interest in the history of religious practices and from that an interest in interfaith issues. Until late in life I had no idea what about Islam. Like many older people, my religious education did not introduce Islam as a religion, but from history I learned that Moors were ‘alien invaders’ spreading across North Africa until they were halted in Spain by Christians. My knowledge of the Crusades paints a picture of an ‘alien culture’. And Muslims are antithetical to Christianity in a now largely secular Western world.

As I learn more about Islam, I learn that its underpinning principles are sound, but that some Muslims just do not get it. These views can and should be challenged. This challenge will only prove successful if the challenger is informed.

Most Western commentators and opinion formers are ill-informed. I do not consider myself to be anywhere near the best informed but I know when I need to ask questions and undertake research.

For many of us, Muslims are people who have strange codes, have peculiar eating fads and a strange addiction to hygiene. Most of all they have a cruel method of slaughtering animals to eat. We have no idea that the ‘strange’ dress codes have evolved from a Middle Eastern culture that informs many Western dress codes – even if only in vestigial form. We fail to emphasise with the fact that in the Middle East, in particular, eating pig meat would have been a public health disaster and that hygiene is associated with the preparation of meat. Western professionals, who should know better, deny that correct halal slaughter is a humane process.

Most of us just do not understand Islam and fear it. We mistrust Muslims (hardly surprising when a violent rogue minority blow up planes over Egypt).

In the first week of November (2015) the BBC commissioned or permitted Roger Scruton to challenge the concept of “self-censorship” and the implied threat to the freedom of speech. Not only did he have two “Points of View” he was given a further run in an ensuing “Feedback”.

One comment leapt out immediately. It seems victims have a duty not to take offence. A second hit me after a goodnight’s rest and related to the antisemitism before World War II.

I am sorry but no one of us has the right to tell someone else that they are wrong to be offended. How do we know? We don’t. My nephew’s partner is christened “Katherine” and hates the short form “Kate”. Many shortened names are used endearingly. A colleague at work announced that she wants to be addressed as “Steph” because “Stephanie” is what mother calls her when she’s been naughty. We endearingly use other nicknames but do we know that the named party is happy with theirs. If they are not and say so repeated use constitutes bullying.

We must never presume that the targets of our “freedom of expression” will not and should not take offence. We need to negotiate. I call one young lady at work “Eric” (after Eric Morecombe). This was arrived at after negotiation. The details are work specific and personal. I am not sure that they would want others to copy me.

I doubt for one moment that Roger Scruton hates Muslims in general. No doubt he associates with some and may have worked closely with others with no ill-will.

Before the outbreak of World War II, antisemitism proved endemic. It was ‘normalised’. Those of use born during and after the WWII can only look back to the pre-war years through the prism of a modern attitude to Jews and Judaism. These are those post-Holocaust years and when we look back we cannot conceive Nazi Germany’s genocide. The post-Holocaust images simply haunt us – but this is after the event.

Just look at the Catholic Church’s complicated relationship with antisemitism and the death of Christ. Not until 1965 did the church acknowledge that Jews could not historically nor in the modern sense be collectively blamed for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Former Pope Benedict took this a step further in 2011.

Before WWII, antisemitism did not receive the scrutiny it would today. It was normalised and even parts of the Royal Family were not immune from it. This is important. Roger Scruton suggests that antisemitism occurred because “freedom of expression” was suppressed. He argues that non-Jews whose spoke in their defence were silenced but hold that thought: Jews were in a minority and a nominally Christian Western world was mostly antisemitic. Non-Jews speaking for Jews proved a minority.

Fast forward to 2015 and our understanding of Islam remains poor. Few non-Muslim community leaders know how to challenge the foundations underpinning anti-Muslim sentiment. Those people who do, people like me perhaps, are in a minority. Like Muslims themselves they have poor access to the media, which are no better informed than many community leaders.

Before the war I wonder if many reasonable people, especially those in leadership, ever thought to question why a minority group, Jews, should be ridiculed because they did not eat pig meat. Did they know why pig meat was offensive? Probably not. In 2015 and defiling a mosque with a pig’s head will be logged as specific hate crime. This was not some years ago. I recall the BBC broadcasting a comedy programme in which the victim of an analogous hate crime was mocked because he reacted to it. Yes, the victim overreacted and the reaction may not have been Islamic but “freedom of speech” currently permits such ridicule and Roger Scruton’s defence of this stance must surely be questioned by the “institutions” that seek to preserve the right to offend.

Bruce Brown (@theoldbrewer) writes in a personal capacity. You can find more of his musings here.

The post How do you balance between free speech and criticism of religion? appeared first on Religious Reader.