The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway

Last updated

The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway (Communication No. 30/2003) was a case decided by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2005. [1]

Contents

The case involved an antisemitic speech given during a march in commemoration of the Nazi leader Rudolf Hess. [2] The Supreme Court of Norway acquitted the giver of the speech, [3] [4] and found that penalizing approval of Nazism would involve prohibiting Nazi organizations, which it considered would go too far and be incompatible with the right to freedom of speech.

Afterwards the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that the acquittal by the Supreme Court of Norway was a violation of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. [2] As such, the UN Committee found that the speaker's comments contained ideas of racial superiority and hatred, making the speech "exceptionally offensive" and not protected by the right to freedom of expression. [5]

Background and case results

In 2000, a group known as the "Bootboys" organized a march in commemoration of Rudolf Hess, near Oslo. There was an antisemitic speech by the march's leader Terje Sjølie, the Nazi salute was made and "Sieg Heil" shouted. [1]

Some witnesses filed a complaint with the police, and Sjølie was charged with a violation of section 135a of the Norwegian Penal Code (threatening, insulting, or subjecting to hatred, persecution or contempt, any person or group of persons because of their creed, race, color or national or ethnic origin). [1]

Sjølie was initially acquitted by the Halden City Court, then convicted by the Borgarting Court of Appeal. [1] He was finally acquitted again by the Supreme Court in an 11-6 decision on 17 December 2002. [6]

The Supreme Court of Norway found that penalizing approval of Nazism would involve prohibiting Nazi organizations, which it considered would go too far and be incompatible with the right to freedom of speech. The majority held that the speech contained derogatory and offensive remarks, but that no actual threats were made, nor any instructions to carry out any particular actions.

CERD proceedings and opinion

On 17 June 2003, representatives of the Jewish community and the Norwegian Antiracist Centre filed a communication before CERD. [1]

On 9 March 2005, the Committee declared the communication admissible. [1]

On 15 August 2005, it delivered the decision. The Committee reaffirmed that the prohibition of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the right to freedom of opinion and expression and concluded that the statements of Mr. Sjolie [ sic ], given that they were of exceptionally/manifestly offensive character, are not protected by the due regard clause, and that accordingly his acquittal by the Supreme Court of Norway gave rise to a violation of article 4, and consequently article 6, of the Convention (Para 10.5). [1]

Significant conclusions include also that the deference to Hitler and his principles and 'footsteps' must in the Committee's view be taken as incitement at least to racial discrimination, if not to violence (Para 10.4). [1]

With the trial, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that the statements in question "ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred," and that "the deference to Hitler and his principles and 'footsteps' must ...be taken as incitement at least to racial discrimination, if not to violence. As such, the "exceptionally/manifestly offensive" statements were not protected by the due regard clause. It found as such, that the acquittal by the Supreme Court of Norway was a violation of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. [2]

Adopted standard

The standard adopted for determining who qualifies as a 'victim' for the purposes of seeking relief was broad in the case, with the Human Rights Committee and the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination disagreeing as to the exact scope of the standard. The standard established by the Human Rights Committee in 2003 has "also been adopted by the European Court of Human Rights." [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Hate speech is a legal term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</span> Treaty adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1965

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty that commits nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. It was adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976 after its thirty-fifth ratification or accession. As of June 2022, the Covenant has 173 parties and six more signatories without ratification, most notably the People's Republic of China and Cuba; North Korea is the only state that has tried to withdraw.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ernst Zündel</span> German Holocaust denier (1939–2017)

Ernst Christof Friedrich Zündel was a German neo-Nazi publisher and pamphleteer of Holocaust denial literature. He was jailed several times: in Canada for publishing literature "likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group", and on charges of being a threat to national security; in the United States, for overstaying his visa; and in Germany for charges of "inciting racial hatred". He lived in Canada from 1958 to 2000.

Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a crime under the laws of several countries.

The SOVA Center for Information and Analysis is a Moscow-based nongovernmental organization and think tank conducting sociological research primarily on nationalism and racism in post-Soviet Russia. Currently, SOVA devotes its monitoring, research and advocacy to three projects: Misuse of Anti-Extremism Legislation, Racism and Xenophobia, and Religion in Secular Society. SOVA publishes print reports in Russian and maintains a website updating readers in both Russian and English. Its reports are often cited by Western media sources including The New York Times and The Guardian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of Holocaust denial</span> Overview of anti-antisemitic legislation

Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany perpetrated the Holocaust: a large-scale genocidal campaign in which approximately six million European Jews were systematically murdered throughout German-occupied Europe. Since World War II, several countries have criminalised Holocaust denial—the assertion by antisemites that the genocide was a myth, fabrication or exaggeration. Currently, 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, have laws in place that cover Holocaust denial as a punishable offence. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial, including that of the Holocaust. Among the countries that have banned Holocaust denial, Russia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania have also banned Nazi symbols. Any expression of genocide justification is also a criminal offence in several countries, as is any attempt to portray Nazism in a positive light.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech by country</span>

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hate speech laws in Canada</span> Canadian laws relating to hate speech

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, or race. Some jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

Defamation of religion is an issue that was repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) from 1999 until 2010. Several non-binding resolutions were voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion". The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), now known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, sought 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 condemned the resolutions arguing they amounted to an international blasphemy law. Critics of the resolutions, including human rights groups, argued that they were used to politically strengthen domestic anti-blasphemy and religious defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents.

The trial of Geert Wilders, a member of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, took place in the Netherlands in 2010 and 2011. Wilders was accused of criminally insulting religious and ethnic groups and inciting hatred and discrimination. He was found not guilty in June 2011.

The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Belgium</span>

According to international observers, human rights in Belgium are generally respected and the law and the judiciary provides effective means of addressing individual instances of abuse. However, some concerns have been reported by international human rights officials over the treatment of asylum seekers, prison overcrowding and the banning of full face veils. Capital punishment in Belgium is fully abolished and a prohibition on the death penalty is included in the Constitution of Belgium. Belgium was a founding member of the European Union and the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Belgium has minimal issues regarding corruption and was ranked 15 out of 167 countries surveyed in Transparency International's 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Expression of racism in Latvia include racist discourse by politicians and in the media, as well as racially motivated attacks. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance notes some progress made in 2002–2007, mentioning also that a number of its earlier recommendations are not implemented or are only partially implemented. The UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance highlight three generally vulnerable groups and communities: ethnic Russians who immigrated to Latvia under USSR, the Roma community and recent non-European migrants. Besides, he notes a dissonance between "opinion expressed by most State institutions who view racism and discrimination as rare and isolated cases, and the views of civil society, who expressed serious concern regarding the structural nature of these problems".

The Norwegian Centre Against Racism or Anti-Racism Centre is a non-governmental organization based in Oslo, Norway established in 1983. The organization’s main objective is to achieve a socially just society through the fight against racism and discrimination. The Centre works toward its objective through the documentation and prevention of racism, racism awareness, and the mobilization of the minority population in Norway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination</span> 1969 United Nations human rights instrument

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. A third-generation human rights instrument, the Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races. The Convention also requires its parties to criminalize hate speech and criminalize membership in racist organizations.

Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.

Online hate speech is a type of speech that takes place online with the purpose of attacking a person or a group based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, and/or gender. Online hate speech is not easily defined, but can be recognized by the degrading or dehumanizing function it serves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Sweden</span>

Human rights in Sweden are largely protected in the country's constitution and ratified international law. The three Constitutional acts concerning human rights are Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government, Regeringsformen, the Freedom of the Press Act, Tryckfrihetsförordningen (1949) and Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen (1991). Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into Swedish domestic law since 1995.

Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, Communication No. 30/2003, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/67/D/30/2003 (2005)". University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  2. 1 2 3 Manual on hate speech. Council of Europe. January 2014. ISBN   9789287178770 . Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  3. ↑ "Neo-Nazi leader escapes jail after trial". Dagsavisen. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  4. ↑ "Boot Boys leader acquitted in Supreme Court". Dagbladet. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  5. ↑ Compass - Manual for Human Rights Education with Young People (2012 edition. Council of Europe. June 2015. ISBN   9789287181558 . Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  6. ↑ "The Supreme Court looks at the boundary of racism". DT. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
  7. ↑ "Taking "Great Care": Defining Victims of Hate Speech Targeting Religious Minorities". Chicago Bound. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.