Recently, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Irene Khan, traveled through Germany for about two weeks. During her winter tour, she first met with representatives of the federal government, the German states, and the highest constitutional judges in Karlsruhe. Ms. Khan had been invited by the federal government, presumably in the hope that she would give the government a glowing report. However, Ms. Khan also spoke with ordinary citizens and representatives of German human rights organizations. And Ms. Khan by no means delivered the hoped-for clean bill of health for the German government’s flawless human rights policy. On the contrary, the former director of Amnesty International reported a climate of intimidation and fear in Germany.
The German government justified the far-reaching restrictions on freedom of expression to the UN envoy by citing the increasing brutality and polarization spreading among the population through so-called social media. This is undoubtedly a major problem that should fill us all with great concern. The internet makes it possible to hurl insults at someone under the cloak of anonymity that one would never dare to utter in a face-to-face encounter. However, the German government and the agencies under its authority are very selective in their perception of what could undermine social peace. The German government repeatedly and more or less cleverly links the fight against hate speech to its own geopolitical agenda. To be clear: those who do not participate in the German government’s moral and mental campaign against Russia, China, and the Palestinians are preferentially targeted in the official fight against hate speech.
Understandably, Ms. Khan has to couch this fact in diplomatic restraint when she states:
“While the government has rightly taken these threats seriously, it has relied increasingly on security-oriented approaches to address them. Many of these measures – ranging from heightened protection of officials who are confronted with public criticism to blanket bans on slogans related to pro-Palestinian protests and surveillance of organizations on vague, undefined rounds of ‘extremism’– are inconsistent with international human rights standards. They have generated uncertainty as to the line between protected and prohibited speech, and encourage stigmatization and self-censorship.”...<<<Read More>>>....
