DOCSLIB.ORG

Ethics, Authority, and War Also by Eric A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ethics, Authority, and War Also by Eric A Ethics, Authority, and War Also by Eric A. Heinze Waging Humanitarian War: The Ethics, Law, and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention Also by Brent J. Steele Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State Defacing Power: The Aesthetics of Insecurity in Global Politics Ethics, Authority, and War Non-state Actors and the Just War Tradition Edited by Eric A. Heinze and Brent J. Steele ethics, authority, and war Copyright © Eric A. Heinze and Brent J. Steele, 2009 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2009 978-0-230-61674-5 All rights reserved. First published in 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States - a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the World, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throught the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978-1-349-38014-5 ISBN 978-0-230-10179-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9780230101791 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ethics, authority, and war : non-state actors and the just war tradition / edited by Eric A. Heinze and Brent J. Steele. p. cm. 1. International relations—Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Just war doctrine. 3. Humanitarian intervention—Moral and ethical aspects. I. Heinze, Eric. II. Steele, Brent J. JZ1306.E878 2009 172.42—dc22 2009012782 Design by Integra Software Services First edition: December 2009 10987654321 Contents List of Tables vii Preface and Acknowledgments ix Notes on Contributors xiii 1 Introduction: Non-state Actors and the Just War Tradition 1 Eric A. Heinze and Brent J. Steele 2 From Versailles to 9/11: Non-state Actors and Just War in the Twentieth Century 21 Cian O’Driscoll 3 Authority and the Problem of Non-state Actors 47 Anthony F. Lang, Jr. 4 What Happened to Punishment in the Just War Tradition? 73 Harry D. Gould 5 War Crimes Trials and the Just War Tradition 101 Michael J. Struett 6 Private Military Companies, Just War, and Humanitarian Intervention 123 Eric A. Heinze 7 Gender, Just War, and Non-state Actors 151 Laura Sjoberg 8 “Justice is Conscience”: Hizbollah, Israel, and the Perversity of Just War 177 Brent J. Steele and Jacque L. Amoureux 9 Jus Post Bellum, Peacebuilding, and Non-state Actors: Lessons from Afghanistan 205 Melissa Labonte vi C ONTENTS 10 Conclusion: Elusive Distinctions, Epochal Changes 239 Nicholas Onuf Bibliography 253 Index 277 List of Tables 9.1 A Compilation of Emergent Principles of Jus Post Bellum 211 9.2 Jus Post Bellum Goals and Corresponding Peacebuilding Modalities 216 This page intentionally left blank Preface and Acknowledgments The idea for this book came about from a conference panel that the present editors organized on “Just War and Non-state Actors” at the 2008 International Studies Association (ISA) conference in San Francisco, CA. In addition to the original participants on this panel, we are extremely lucky to have been able to locate such a fine group of scholars to con- tribute to this volume. It should be mentioned at the outset that most of the contributors to this volume took their formal academic training as political scientists, or were otherwise trained in the fields of politics and international relations. We therefore approach the just war tradition not only as a philosophical doctrine or ethical tradition about armed conflict, but also as a political process, wherein certain acts and actors in inter- national relations may or may not be granted some degree of legitimacy. This volume thus construes “the just war tradition” in the broadest of terms to include not only the ecclesiastical writings associated with early Christianity, but also ethical traditions that flow from Modern natural law theory, various strands of political and international relations theory, con- temporary positivist international law, and indeed the broader normative conversation about the legitimacy of war, which now spans over two mil- lennia. While we invoke the just war tradition in the title of this volume, and employ it because it provides a familiar moral vocabulary about the legitimacy of war, few of the contributors to this volume actually con- sider themselves “just war theorists.” Rather, we are mainly scholars of international relations who are engaging in normative theorizing about a particularly salient issue in contemporary international affairs. In this sense, the volume before you is a synthesis of normative theory, interna- tional relations, ethics, philosophy, and international law, but is perhaps best understood as an exercise in international political theory. The reader may also notice that many of the contributors to this volume resemble what one reviewer referred to as “rising stars” in the field, rather than “established authorities.” We embrace this label whole- heartedly. It goes without saying that we are extremely grateful to have x P REFACE AND A CKNOWLEDGMENTS outstanding chapters written by our more senior contributors, which are excellent contributions in their own right and undoubtedly add to the quality and erudition of this volume. Yet for the purpose of this book, the aforementioned reviewer’s choice of words speaks directly to what we hope to achieve with this volume. As the title indicates, this book is very much about “authority”—specifically, who is said to have the proper authority to initiate and participate in armed conflict. The just war tra- dition can be said to contain many different “theories of authority” that prescribe who may or may not legitimately engage in war, though with an unequivocal focus on the territorial state. States have been consid- ered to be the “established authorities” when it comes to war fighting, which has traditionally been considered both an empirical and normative observation. This volume contests such conventional wisdom—certainly on empir- ical grounds but correspondingly, therefore, on normative grounds. Non- state actors are participating in war and have been for some time. But many non-state actors today possess few, if any, of the state-like attributes that previously led international society to make exceptions for their war undertakings (e.g., control of territory, desire to participate in governance, etc.), and are increasingly challenging this statist paradigm. New actors outside of the “established authorities” of the states system—terrorist organizations, militias, private military companies—are fighting wars that increasingly have global consequences. We believe that such developments necessitate looking beyond the usual “established authorities” of an aca- demic field for answers to such challenges, and turning toward scholars who bring new thinking, fresh ideas, and original scholarship to bear on these questions. We hope that this volume leads its readers to think out- side the box when it comes to who is said to have the authority to do what, and for what purpose, and to perhaps consider different views— besides only those of the putative “established authorities”—that include new ways of thinking by scholars from an emerging generation about the challenges that confront the world today. As with any book project, the editors are extremely thankful for all the help we have received along the way in making this volume come to fruition. We especially want to thank the staff at Palgrave Macmillan— especially Toby Wahl and Asa Johnson—for moving quickly to get the manuscript reviewed and for procuring some very helpful and thoughtful external reviews of the project, and to Farideh Koohi-Kamali and Robyn Curtis for seeing it to production in such a timely fashion. We also want to express our deep gratitude to Nick Onuf, not only for writing the con- cluding chapter, but also for performing beautifully as the discussant on the original ISA panel that was the catalyst for this volume. We are thus P REFACE AND A CKNOWLEDGMENTS xi very thankful to scholars like Nick, who take the time to help younger scholars find direction in the profession and challenge us to think through our ideas. One could just as easily say the same of our friend, colleague, and contributor Tony Lang, who has helped both of us immensely in the early stages of our careers. And, of course, we are extremely grateful to all our contributors, both for coming on board the project when there was no guarantee of publication, and for all their hard work on their chapters since that time. All of the contributors have been extremely responsive to our suggestions, very patient as we worked out the details of the project, and, most importantly, very attentive to deadlines. Brent Steele would like to thank the following: Several of my col- leagues at the University of Kansas and elsewhere provided professional advice and moral support which helped to bring this project to an edited book, including but not limited to Ryan Beasley, Hannah Britton, Don Haider-Markel, and Juliet Kaarbo. Several individuals attended the ISA 2008 panel in San Francisco and provided insightful comments that helped the project as a whole, including my good friends Jon Acuff, Jon D. Carlson, and Jeremy Youde. I want to thank my family, most notably my grandfather, Eldon Akers, my brother-in-law Michael Strohman, and my brother Kyle Steele, who each in their own unique ways helped to take my mind away from work through chats about the more enjoyable things in life. Kyle’s family—Lisa, Brenan, and Kaleb—have been immeasur- able sources of support and encouragement for me throughout my career. My wife, Mindy, has been a basis of encouragement, love, and assistance for me even when I didn’t deserve it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism As
    LCH0010.1177/1743872118780660Law, Culture and the HumanitiesGould 780660research-article2018 LAW, CULTURE AND THE HUMANITIES Article Law, Culture and the Humanities 1 –34 Legal Form and Legal © The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permissions: Legitimacy: The IHRA sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872118780660DOI: 10.1177/1743872118780660 Definition of Antisemitism journals.sagepub.com/home/lch as a Case Study in Censored Speech Rebecca Ruth Gould University of Birmingham, UK Abstract The challenge posed by legal indeterminacy to legal legitimacy has generally been considered from points of view internal to the law and its application. But what becomes of legal legitimacy when the legal status of a given norm is itself a matter of contestation? This article, the first extended scholarly treatment of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s new definition of antisemitism, pursues this question by examining recent applications of the IHRA definition within the UK following its adoption by the British government in 2016. Instead of focusing on this definition’s substantive content, I show how the document reaches beyond its self-described status as a “non-legally binding working definition” and comes to function as what I call a quasi-law, in which capacity it exercises the de facto authority of the law, without having acquired legal legitimacy. Broadly, this work elucidates the role of speech codes in restricting freedom of expression within liberal states. Keywords free speech, academic freedom, censorship, speech codes, hate speech, legal indeterminacy, Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Studies, political theory, universities, Israel/Palestine “In a democratic society the only speech government is likely to succeed in regulating will be that of the politically marginalized.” —David Cole1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship
    Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship © Eric Heinze (OUP, 2016) (Please do not cite, reproduce or circulate without permission) The text below comprises Chapter 1 (Introduction) of the monograph Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship to be published by Oxford University Press in February 2016 (http://tinyurl.com/o8gb8om) Prof. Eric Heinze Faculty of Laws Queen Mary University of London London E1 4NS [email protected] 1. Introduction In late September 2005, an ordinary newspaper sparked an extraordinary war. The Danish Jyllands-Posten dropped not a single bomb—except one sketched into the Prophet’s turban. As the New Year arrived, disputes around its twelve Muhammad cartoons were still mostly confined to Denmark. But within the month, reprints began to emerge in Norway, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Reports soon rushed in about ‘anger flashing through the Muslim world.’1 Syrians sacked and burned the Danish and Norwegian embassies. Protests in Afghanistan and Somalia claimed several lives.2 It was a war about free expression. The Iranian-American scholar Reza Aslan blasted the cartoons as ‘fodder for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East against West.’3 Yet the British columnist Bruce Anderson railed at ‘soggy liberals’ in the West to ‘stop cringing’ and ‘stand up for our own values’.4 The French writer Pierre Jourde saw some irony. ‘In the West, the most sacred God, the one we dare not touch, is Allah. We laugh at Jesus and his father as much as we like.’5 Jourde’s compatriot Régis Debray fired back: ‘The lack of historical sensitivity among the hard-and-fast libertarians betrays a thoroughly imperial attitude.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 the Reality and Hyper-Reality of Human Rights
    Comp. by: KNarayanan Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 10 Title Name: DICKINSON Page Number: 0 Date:17/9/11 Time:15:55:00 10 The reality and hyper-reality of human rights: public consciousness and the mass media eric heinze Introduction Scholarship on international human rights generally adopts two approaches. The normative approach focuses on treaties or other authoritative sources. The institutional approach emphasises govern- ments, organisations or other actors charged with the norms’ implemen- tation. Much writing inevitably involves both approaches. Any critical stance is then often limited either to examining obstacles within the norms or their interpretation, or to pointing out the shortcomings of actors responsible for implementation. The authors of human rights scholarship are often activists, lawyers, diplomats or judges, and may include scholars with professional affinities to those circles. They largely confine their critical scope to those normative or institutional levels. Some theoretical writings go further, proposing broader frameworks, such as liberal, legal-realist, post-Marxist, post-colonial, feminist, communitarian or deconstructio- nist. Those analyses too, however, frequently focus either on prevailing norms (individually or as a system) or on the performance of the relevant actors. In this chapter, I shall examine a third layer of activity, the mass media. I shall treat the media as being on a par with, or more powerful than, the dominant systems of norms, in so far as the media determine the situations with which those norms are associated in the public mind; and as being at least on a par with organisations and governments, in so This chapter benefited from discussions within the Newcastle Law School’s ‘Retreat from Human Rights’ series, session of 27 November 2009, chaired by Colin Murray.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech Bans, Democracy, and Political Legitimacy James Weinstein
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2017 Hate Speech Bans, Democracy, and Political Legitimacy James Weinstein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Weinstein, James, "Hate Speech Bans, Democracy, and Political Legitimacy" (2017). Constitutional Commentary. 465. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/465 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 - WEINSTEIN INTRO.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 9/29/17 4:41 PM HATE SPEECH BANS, DEMOCRACY, AND POLITICAL LEGITIMACY James Weinstein* Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or sexual orientation are an essential means by which modern liberal democracies promote equality and protect human dignity. Consistent with these laudable goals, most liberal democracies, with the notable exception of the United States, also prohibit hate speech, including expression that demeans people based on characteristics protected by antidiscrimination laws. Ironically, however, hate speech restrictions can undermine the legitimacy of antidiscrimination laws, both in terms of their popular acceptance but even more crucially with respect to the morality of their enforcement. For instance,
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Harm of Hate Speech?
    Ethical Theory and Moral Practice https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10002-0 What Is the Harm of Hate Speech? Eric Barendt1 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract In Jeremy Waldron’s book, The Harm in Hate Speech, it is not always clear whether he argues that hate speech causes harm or whether it constitutes harm. This article considers this uncertainty, concluding that the best understanding of Waldron’s argument is that hate speech tends to cause harm - a weak form of the consequentialist case for its proscription. His argument is not advanced by his apparent reliance on speech-act theory. Keywords Waldron . The harm in hate speech . Causing or constituting harm . Speech-act theory 1 Introduction What is the harm of hate speech - the harm for which hate speech is responsible? Is this harm sufficient to justify its proscription or regulation, given the strong protection liberal democra- cies often give freedom of speech in their constitution? The United States is unusual in affording racist hate speech more or less absolute protection under the First Amendment, but European jurisdictions too, including the United Kingdom, ban extreme speech only in relatively narrowly circumscribed circumstances.1 One reason for reluctance to take this step is that hate speech is hard to distinguish from political speech which is strongly protected in liberal democracies; indeed, some speech, say, by a politician at a public rally calling for a halt to immigration can be regarded as both political and hate speech. The recent literature on hate speech is much more voluminous than that on any other area of free speech philosophy or law.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles for a Meta-Discourse of Liberal Rights: the Example of the European Convention on Human Rights
    PRINCIPLES FOR A META-DISCOURSE OF LIBERAL RIGHTS: THE EXAMPLE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Dr. Eric Heinze* CONTENTS 1. STANDARD APPROACHES 1.1 Discursive Unity through Standard "Political"Concepts 1.2 Discursive Unity through Standard "Judicial"Concepts 1.3 Discursive Unity and ConceptualDeterminacy 2. ELEMENTS OF THE META-DISCOURSE 2.1 Actors (1) 2.2 Harm (r) 2.3 Consent (K) 3. GENERAL FORMS OF ARGUMENT 3.1 Violation and Non-Violation of Rights (u positions) 3.2 Legal Regimes (ppositions) 3.3 The General Formulas 3.4 Institutionaland ProceduralFactors 4. CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION The word "right," when "taken in an abstract sense, means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals."' When "taken in the concrete sense, [it denotes] a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another."2 Maclntyre speaks of rights "which are alleged to belong to human beings as such, and which are cited as a reason for holding that people ought not to be interfered with in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness."3 Yet Hohfeld proposes an analysis in which "the term 'right' will be used solely in that very limited sense according to which it is the correlative of duty." 4 Indeed, for Posner, any broader concept of rights is * Faculty of Laws, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London. Maitrise 1985, Universit6 de Paris Vin; J.D. 1991, Harvard University; Ph.D. 1994, University of Leiden. This paper was presented in Great Britain at the 1998 Critical Legal Studies Conference, held at the University Lancaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Is the Protection Against Sexual Discrimination in International Human Rights Law? Kerstin Braun
    American University International Law Review Volume 29 | Issue 4 Article 6 2014 Do Ask, Do Tell: Where is the Protection Against Sexual Discrimination in International Human Rights Law? Kerstin Braun Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Braun, Kerstin. "Do Ask, Do Tell: Where is the Protection Against Sexual Discrimination in International Human Rights Law?" American University International Law Review 29 no. 4 (2014): 871-903. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DO ASK, DO TELL: WHERE IS THE PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW?* KERSTIN BRAUN** I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 872 II. ASPIRATIONAL STATEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO LGBT PEOPLE............................................................................. 876 A. DEFINING ASPIRATIONAL STATEMENT .......................... 876 B. IS AN ASPIRATIONAL STATEMENT SUPERFLUOUS? ......... 877 1. Human Rights Treaties and International Jurisprudence ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inside the Outsider: Critical Race Theory Against Human Rights?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by bepress Legal Repository 05/03/2006, 15:03 Heinze, CRT & HR 1 Inside the Outsider: Critical Race Theory against Human Rights? © Eric Heinze1 (2006) Reproduction, citation and distribution prohibited without express permission of author PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FILE IS IN BRITISH A4 FORMAT. PAGINATION IN US TEXT MAY THEREFORE BE IMPERFECT. HARD COPY OR DIRECT E-MAIL SUBMISSION CAN BE SUPPLIED UPON REQUEST. FOR COMPUTER FILE: FOOTNOTES MAY DISAPPEAR IN “NORMAL” VIEW, BUT SHOULD APPEAR IN “PRINT LAYOUT” VIEW OR IN PRINTED COPY. Abstract. Although critical race theory and international human rights law share important concerns, there is little clarity about the relationship between them. Two trends have emerged so far. One is alliance: some critical race theorists—this article focuses on Mari Matsuda—recognize the importance of a relationship, but mischaracterize it by seeing international human rights law as straightforwardly endorsing substantive norms advocated by critical race theorists. Yet the dominant trend is sheer neglect: critical race theorists and international human rights scholars have, for the most part, ignored each other. In this article, both of those trends are rejected. In particular, it is argued that Matsuda’s suggestion of an alliance between the two movements, far from serving the aims and methods of critical race theory, utterly abandons them. It is argued that critical race theory should certainly engage with international human rights law, but that its stance towards international norms and institutions should remain fundamentally critical. CONTENTS I. On Neglect A.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Obedience and Disobedience in Plato's Crito and the Apology
    Article Obedience and Disobedience in Plato’s Crito and the Apology: Anticipating the Democratic Turn of Civil Disobedience Marcou, Andreas Available at http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/38473/ Marcou, Andreas ORCID: 0000-0002-7311-1356 (2020) Obedience and Disobedience in Plato’s Crito and the Apology: Anticipating the Democratic Turn of Civil Disobedience. The Journal of Ethics . ISSN 1382-4554 It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10892-020-09346-y For more information about UCLan’s research in this area go to http://www.uclan.ac.uk/researchgroups/ and search for <name of research Group>. For information about Research generally at UCLan please go to http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/ All outputs in CLoK are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including Copyright law. Copyright, IPR and Moral Rights for the works on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the policies page. CLoK Central Lancashire online Knowledge www.clok.uclan.ac.uk The Journal of Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-020-09346-y Obedience and Disobedience in Plato’s Crito and the Apology: Anticipating the Democratic Turn of Civil Disobedience Andreas Marcou1 Received: 11 November 2019 / Accepted: 6 August 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Faced with a choice between escaping without consequences and submitting to a democratic decision, Socrates chooses the latter. So immense is Socrates’ duty to obey law, we are led to believe, that even the threat of death is insufcient to abro- gate it.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Orientation and International Law: a Study in the Manufacture of Cross-Cultural "Sensitivity"
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 22 Issue 2 2001 Sexual Orientation and International Law: A Study in the Manufacture of Cross-Cultural "Sensitivity" Eric Heinze Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, International Law Commons, Organizations Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric Heinze, Sexual Orientation and International Law: A Study in the Manufacture of Cross-Cultural "Sensitivity", 22 MICH. J. INT'L L. 283 (2001). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol22/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: A STUDY IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CROSS-CULTURAL "SENSITIVITY" Eric Heinze* I. DEVELOPMENTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ............. 285 A. The European Convention of Human Rights ....................... 285 B. The InternationalCovenant on Civil and PoliticalR ights ............................................................. 291 II. HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES AT THE UNITED NATIONS: THE BROADER CONTEXT .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech and Double Standards Thomas M
    HATE SPEECH AND DOUBLE STANDARDS THOMAS M. KECK Michael O. Sawyer Chair of Constitutional Law and Politics Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University ABSTRACT Many European states ban the public expression of hateful speech directed at ra- cial and religious minorities, and an increasing number do so for anti-gay speech as well. These laws have been subjected to a wide range of legal, philosophical, and empirical investigation, but this paper explores one potential cost that has not received much attention in the literature. Statutory bans on hate speech leave dem- ocratic societies with a Hobson’s choice. If those societies ban incitements of ha- tred against some vulnerable groups, they will inevitably face parallel demands for protection of other such groups. If they accede to those demands, they will impose an ever- tightening vice on incontrovertible free expression values; if they do not, they will send clear signals of unequal citizenship to those groups excluded from the laws’ protection. This paper elaborates this dilemma via exploration of a range of contemporary European legal responses to homophobic and Islamophobic speech. KEYWORDS: Hate Speech, Freedom of Speech, Civil Liberties, Islamaphobia, Homophobia IN MARCH 2015, an English court convicted street preacher Michael Overd un- der the Public Order Act for publicly quoting Leviticus 20:13 in the course of denouncing homosexuality as sinful, while simultaneously acquitting him (under the same Act) for characterizing the Prophet Muhammed (peace be
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech, Incitement to Hatred and Sexual Orientation In
    Challenging Hate Speech: Incitement to Hatred on Grounds of Sexual Orientation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland Kay Goodall Senior Lecturer in Law and Director of Research, School of Law, University of Stirling Kay Goodall is Senior Lecturer in Law and Director of Research at the School of Law, University of Stirling. She specialises in statutory interpretation, anti-discrimination law and hate crime. With Ian McLeod, she is co-editor of forthcoming editions of Bennion’s Statutory Interpretation. She has carried out empirical research in several areas, in particular the policing of crimes involving violence or racism. Room 41, Airthrey Castle, School of Law, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: In England and Wales (in 2008) and Northern Ireland (in 2004) legislation has been enacted to render it a criminal offence to incite hatred based on sexual orientation. This paper examines the relevant pieces of legislation and considers whether they can be kept sufficiently narrow in operation to protect one’s freedom of expression. The paper also addresses criticism of such legislation, notably by Eric Heinze, based on arguments on equal protection and cause and effect. It concludes that in the British context, narrowly drafted legislation may have a useful, if marginal, impact and will not necessarily lead to the immense restrictions on freedom of expression that Heinze fears. Nor, however, will the legislation be likely to achieve radical social change while other powerful sources of discriminatory discourse remain uncontrolled. Keywords: incitement to hatred; sexual orientation; criminal law; hate speech; United Kingdom Introduction Less than half a century ago, consensual sex in private between adult males was a crime in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]