South African diplomats have voted against a key United Nations resolution which would promote internet freedom as a fundamental human right.
South African diplomats have voted against a United Nations resolution which would effectively prohibit nations from disabling internet access and interfering with internet freedom.
The resolution, which was formally titled “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet“ was officially adopted when more than 70 countries voted in favour of the resolution on the 1st of July.
The resolution, which stipulates that countries are now bound to refrain from “œmeasures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online” was designed to safeguard access to the internet as a key human right.
The resolution also was based on a ‘human rights approach’ would see countries resolve to provide and expand access to the internet, and included that states should refrain from disabling internet access during an election or after a terrorist attack.
South Africa was one of 15 states that voted against the resolution, among the likes of Cuba, India, Indonesia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
Further, South African voted for an amendment to the resolution which would remove explicit references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which would – if it were passed – effectively remove internet freedom as a human right.
In voting for the amendment, South Africa was joined once again by India, Cuba, Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
Though the resolution was passed with no amendments, the move is part of a worrying precedent which has seen access to media and footage in South Africa curtailed or altogether censored.
The UN Resolution
Key extracts in the resolution pointed towards three measures which participating states should be bound to; specifically that
- The same offline human rights are preserved online, “in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice.”
- Subsequent human rights violations for prosecuting persons for views, as outlined above, are “condemned unequivocally,”
- Measures to “intentionally prevent or disrupt access” to the internet are also “condemned unequivocally,” and that nations should “refrain from and cease such measures.”
South Africa has had a turbulent history regarding the definition between hate speech and freedom of speech. Significantly, recent comments made online – drawn from persons such as Penny Sparrow, for example – have been faced with criminal charges for racism.
While Sparrow’s comments, in particular, were defamatory and unsavory, the lack of a legal precedent for views made online leaves a blurry definition for South African courts to prosecute and effectively address.
The right to freedom of expression
The United Nations resolution – now that it has been passed – effectively makes matters of prejudice and racism far more complicated to accurately define without legislature surrounding online internet freedom, and freedom of speech therein.
Speaking on SAfm, Executive Secretary at the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution Lawson Naidoo pointed out that while South African constitution enshrines the right to Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Expression, those rights are bound to others represented within the document.
“I think all of the rights in the Constitution need to be read, understood and interpreted in the context of the preamble of the South African Constitution; and I think because of the preamble that it is most pertinent when looking at the right to freedom of expression… It says that the Constitution should heal the divisions of the past and establish a society that is based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights. Now, those human rights include in particular the right to equality, the right to dignity as it is articulated in section 10… I think we should look into right to freedom of expression being balanced against those other rights, so in addition to the restrictions that you have already alluded to, those exclusions must also be seen in the context of other rights that exist within the Constitution.”
Further, in the same interview, Researcher at the Freedom of Expression Institute, Nomagugu Nyathi, stated that South Africans need to understand what the right to Freedom of Expression entails.
“œTo speak of an absolute right of freedom of expression is absolutely incorrect, it does not exist in any society. We have, for example, laws on defamation, laws against child pornography – those are restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, (and) we need to understand that a right exist in so far as helping to entrench and consolidate, and promote democracy within SA.
“People do understand that the right is granted to everyone, (and) they understand that it is their right to express themselves. South Africa is sometimes dubbed the capital of protests that is just evidence that people know that they have a right to freedom of expression. But with the debates that have been going on social media it is very evident that people are not aware of the limitations of the right to freedom of expression is about constructive dialogue. It has to do with good faith.“
The role of media freedom
On the subject of protests, decisions made by the state broadcaster – the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) – under COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng elected not to depict any form of violent protest on national media and further directed SAfm news broadcasters not to read from third party newspaper headlines.
While this decision was not made in specific regards to internet freedom nor online media, the implication and pretext that a state broadcaster can effectively curtail, limit or otherwise censor specific headlines, footage or events sets a precedent for South Africa’s vote against the resolution.
Two indications
Though South Africa is effectively bound to the passed resolution, voting against it could be representative of two troubling indications.
Firstly, voting for the proposed amendment to remove references to the UN Bill of Human Rights would see South African government effectively relieved of any international commitment – or later obligation – to proliferate internet access or move to offer a free internet service.
Up until now, South African metropoles have been left to field internet access at their own discretion. The City of Tshwane, for example, was the first to usher in a free Wi-Fi allowance to its residents in partnership with Project Isizwe.
Secondly, and more worryingly, voting against the resolution would indicate government interest in disabling internet access at key junctures. Two specific such instances – referred to in the resolution – are either terrorist attacks or elections.
The fact that South Africa proceeded to vote against measures which would technically bolster internet freedom and access are troubling; the nations it proceeded to vote alongside – namely Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India – have had turbulent pasts relating to both internet freedom and penetration.
The latter of which – India – has, however, been aggressive in securing partnerships which would enable internet access. The fact that the country – which rejected Facebook’s Free Basics offering on the grounds that it would violate net neutrality – has been particular on what grounds its internet economy grows.
A turbulent climate
While South Africa is now effectively bound to the resolution, the future of internet freedom within the country is worrying, given the complex plays between its constitution, state media broadcaster, and the legal precedents and rights pertaining to the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Only time might tell the future of South Africa’s role in securing internet freedom. While Article 19 – a charity dedicated to preserving internet and media rights, responsibility and freedoms – has criticized the vote, the fact that South Africa would proceed to vote twice in favour of more hostile policies indicates a turbulent media climate.
Have your say!
What are your thoughts on South Africa’s vote against internet freedom? Have your say in the comments below!
Follow Bryan Smith on Twitter: @bryansmithSA
Read the full resolution here
