> > > It's a pity this initative hasn't been extended to issues closer to home!
> > Then why not contact them to inform them of the restrictions to
> > freedom going on here in the UK. They're usually a pretty decent
> > bunch (or, at least, the ones I deal with are) and may be inclined to
> > support us.
> > Zoë
>
>
demolitionred, 04 Jun 2006 01:29:03
sorry. been away. I think its worth pursuing this. and aligning ourselves.. I'm also going to approach them re their campaign on gay pride marches...if sexuaL FREEDOM IS IN THEIR REMIT, SURELY sM FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FREEDOM MUST BE....
Teddy, 13 Jun 2006 17:30:05
Hi All,
I had another go at contacting Amnesty, in the light of the "irrepressable" campaign. I received a quite well thought out reply.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for supporting our Irrepressible campaign and for drawing our attention to this proposed legislation. I am sorry for my delayed reply.
This is not something that we are currently taking action on. Obviously freedom of expression generally is a complex area and we look at specific issues on a case by case basis and prioritise according to our capacity to respond, and the seriousness of the issue. You can find out more about the kind of issues we are tackling in the UK in our online library at:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-gbr/index
Our position on Freedom of expression in general comes from International Human Rights Law. We uphold the right of everyone to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But there are limits to freedom of expression. Under international law, governments may in strictly defined circumstances restrict particular forms of expression or information on narrow grounds such as national security, the protection of public morals or to protect the rights and reputations of others. But they can only do this to the “extent strictly necessary”. Amnesty International, for example, would always argue that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (often known as ‘hate speech’) should be prohibited.
However, international human rights law does not permit freedom of expression to be restricted or prohibited simply on the grounds that others may find it offensive or that the authorities say that it poses a risk to public order. International and regional human rights treaties apply strict criteria that any such restriction must be set down in law, have a legitimate aim and is a proportionate response to a real problem. The onus of demonstrating the validity of the restriction rests with the government.
Thank you once again for your support; it is much appreciated.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Author wrote:
> Lo and behold! Amnesty are getting stuck into a campaign about internet freedoms...which I would be inclined to support.
> http://irrepressible.info/
> It's a pity this initiative hasn't been extended to issues closer to home!
> T.
demolitionred, 14 Jun 2006 07:22:08
seems their line hasn't changed much.
snowflake, 14 Jun 2006 07:50:35
On 13/06/06, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> International and regional human rights treaties apply strict criteria that any such
> restriction must be set down in law, have a legitimate aim and is a proportionate
> response to a real problem. The onus of demonstrating the validity of the restriction
> rests with the government.
Which is pretty much what we've been saying all along. It seems it's
only the government can't see they're in the minority on wanting this.
Hell, let's be fair - the government probably has little to no
opinion on this anyway, it's morons within the civil service that are
doing this.
Zoë
--
www.t-vox.org
www.nobmouse.net: My own, weird website
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse
www.catnip-radio.com