THE PROMOTION OF PEACE CONGRESSES

This year, the Nobel Peace Prize has been shared by Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, both journalists, "for their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace", and for their courageous fight to defend freedom of expression in the Philippines and Russia. The Nobel committee called the pair “representatives of all journalists who stand up for this ideal”.

Ms Ressa, co-founder of the news site Rappler, was commended for exposing “abuse of power, use of violence and growing authoritarianism in her native country, the Philippines”.

 

Mr Muratov, who co-founded the independent newspaper Novaja Gazeta and had been its editor-in-chief for 24 years, had for decades defended freedom of speech in Russia under increasingly challenging conditions.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

 

A peace congress, in international relations, has at times been defined in a way that would distinguish it from a peace conference (usually defined as a diplomatic meeting to decide on a peace treaty), as an ambitious forum to carry out dispute resolution in international affairs, and prevent wars. This idea was widely promoted during the nineteenth century, anticipating the international bodies that would be set up in the twentieth century with comparable aims.

 

So one might ask what freedom of expression has done to encourage fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace.

 

That freedom of speech is a pre-condition for democracy has been accepted since the 6^th Century BC in Greece. The values of the Roman Republic included free speech and freedom of religion, to a degree.

 

John Milton (1608-1674), poet and intellectual, argued that freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

1-    The right to seek information and ideas;

2-    The right to receive information and ideas;

3-    The right to impart information and ideas.

 

One of the world’s first freedom of the press acts was introduced in Sweden in 1766. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. This was included and adopted on the 15^th December 1791 in the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States, which reads:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

 

So the appreciation that freedom of speech is an essential part of human existence has been documented for at least the last 2500 years; yet still, governments around the globe are intent on limiting any free speech that is inconvenient to the maintenance of power. The current leaning to the right is underway in the western democracies in surreptitious and devious manner.

 

The present Home Secretary’s view of increasing Police powers to stop civil demonstrators from having a say, and imposing severe custodial sentences, because some people were late for work, is an outrage; however, she is of course delighted to have the opportunity to impose restrictions because of a public mood of discontent over being stopped for a few hours on the motorway. Accidents can cause such stoppages but the use of motor vehicles on the highways is not restricted and drivers are not threatened with imprisonment for just being on the road. It is a cloak for eliminating public rights of assembly all together, not just climate change activists. Similarly, the proposed limitation on the rights of the Judiciary from interfering in whatever the Government wants to do, is just as dangerous. To prevent the Courts from examining administrative behaviour is likewise insidious and an open door to dictatorship. To prevent the citizen from appealing to the law against Government misrule is a colossal breach of freedom of expression. Why then is Parliament even considering it? It should be stopped in its tracks.

 

So long as the so called freely elected representatives comport themselves without honour or semblance of integrity (I refer to Boris’s bullies) then freedom of expression is constantly under threat, just as much as it is in Russia, Belarus, Myanmar, Hungary, China, the USA, North Korea and many other countries. Make no mistake, the bumbling pretence of democracy by the conservative party majority, is really about maintaining power at any cost, and that cost will be your civil liberties, which would put the cost of inflation, as bad as it is and will be,  in the shade.

 

So whilst I applaud the newly appointed Nobel Laureates, it is more a reward for sheer courage in the face of serious adversity, but I am afraid, given the current powers that be,  hardly likely to bring about “the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".