While there has been a great deal of hullabaloo concerning Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, one would probably not have expected senior officials at the United Nations to find it necessary to have their say on the matter. Yet on November 5th Volker Türk, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, did indeed weigh-in, sending an open letter to Mr. Musk to express his “concern and apprehension” about Twitter’s role in the “digital public square”. He urged Musk to make sure human rights would be “central to the management of Twitter”, and to “address harms” associated with the platform, and also took the time for a bit of finger-wagging at Twitter’s new CEO for sacking Twitter’s human rights team (no, I had no idea it had one either).
The letter was almost certainly only sent so that Türk, who assumed office in mid-October and is a comparative unknown (some UN insiders were apparently hoping for Michelle Obama or Angela Merkel), can get a bit of recognition. But it is instructive nonetheless in giving stark expression to the awkward position which human rights advocates have found themselves adopting when it comes to one of the most salient issues of the day – the regulation of speech online and particularly the subjects of disinformation and misinformation.
This happens in the course of two short paragraphs. Starting off, Türk is keen to emphasise the importance of protecting free speech. Twitter, he notes, is being pressed by governments to take down content or use upload filters, and he urges it in clear terms to “stand up for the rights to privacy and free expression to the full [sic] extent possible under relevant laws”. So, on the one hand, he adopts a strong position against censorship, implying that speech should only be restricted online where it would cross the border into illegality.
Yet on the other hand, in the very next breath, he declares that “free speech is not a free pass” and that the “viral spread of harmful disinformation…results in real world harms”. Therefore, in his view, Twitter must take responsibility to “avoid amplifying content” that results in harms to people’s rights – whether or not, by implication, it is technically legal. Hence, for example, scepticism about the efficacy of vaccines, legally expressed, ought nonetheless to be supressed given the impact it might have on the right to health.
This can only be described as cakeism. For Türk, it is apparently desirable both to protect freedom of expression to the fullest extent possible under the law, and yet also to restrict lawful speech where it might result in ‘harms’. It is easy to see the appeal in the abstract of the idea that these positions can be reconciled, and Türk indeed concludes his letter by suggesting that “our shared human rights offer a unifying way forward”. But it is difficult to see from its content how this could be so. Does Türk believe that freedom of speech should be protected insofar as it is possible to do so? Or does he believe lawful speech should be suppressed to prevent harm? He can believe in one, but he surely cannot coherently believe in both.
The wider point is that human rights advocates like Türk have rather lost faith in their own model. For decades, it has been orthodox human rights doctrine that all human rights are, in UN-speak, “indivisible and interdependent”. The rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, non-discrimination, health, food, housing, education, and so on, all support one another and, indeed, cannot properly be enjoyed without the others. It is therefore not only possible to secure (say) freedom of expression and the right to health – they actually bolster each other.
The rationale for this can be readily understood: if freedom of expression is secure, then people will have access to the full range of information and opinion available on any given topic, and therefore policymakers, healthcare providers, doctors and patients will be able to make better health-related decisions than they would otherwise. There is therefore a direct link between securing freedom of speech and the right to health. (And conversely, of course, securing the right to health means increasing opportunities for people to express themselves freely – one will find it much easier to actively participate in public discourse if one is in good health than not.) What is true in this example is true across the round, and the orthodox position in the UN human rights system has long been that these mutually-supportive linkages can be found throughout the human rights corpus.
This is not, however, the position that Türk adopts in his letter. To reiterate, for the new High Commissioner, freedom of expression and the right to health are not in fact “indivisible and interdependent”, but incommensurate. If people are able to express themselves freely, they will circulate dangerous disinformation about vaccines, and harm will result. Freedom of expression does not reinforce the right to health; it undermines it.
Türk is no loose cannon. As short as his letter to Musk is, it essentially summarises the position adopted in a recent report to the UN General Assembly by the Secretary-General himself. This report manages somehow to express a robust defence of the “right to hold opinions without interference” and an insistence that “free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues… is essential”, while at the same time advocating for state intervention to prevent the spread of inaccurate information concerning “public health, electoral processes or national security” and the demonetisation of legal-but-harmful content. The same schizophrenic attitude is adopted as in Türk’s letter, but the message is clear enough: while it is necessary to pay lip service to the importance of freedom of expression, the system as a whole now disavows the “indivisible and interdependent” doctrine, and instead sees freedom of expression as being potentially antagonistic to other rights.
What are we to make of this? The clue is in the types of harmful inaccurate information that both Türk and the Secretary-General identify as particularly dangerous and hence warranting state suppression – i.e., those implicating public health, electoral processes and national security. It is no accident that these subjects map pretty closely to the issues that are of greatest concern to the global bien pensant class in which these figures are so firmly entrenched – Covid vaccines, ‘election denialism’, and Russian disinformation. And it is not really a great surprise that when the chips are down and the consensus within that class is that oppositional views on those topics represent a genuine threat, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary-General suddenly find that freedom of expression is not so “indivisible and interdependent” with respect to other rights at all. Indeed, it is to be sacrificed where those particular concerns are raised. Human beings, as we know, can be remarkably flexible on points of principle when peer pressure is applied – even, it turns out, senior human rights lawyers and UN Secretary-Generals.
More broadly, if one were being especially cynical, one might say that this is further evidence supporting the long-term criticism of the international human rights system – that it is essentially a forum for pharisaical expressions of right-on opinions which vary in accordance with whatever the ‘current thing’ is. This would not be entirely fair – the UN human rights organs do very important work – but it is sometimes easy to see how this view proliferates. Türk’s letter is suggestive not so much of a commitment to the letter of human rights law, but rather only to the contemporary concerns of a particular elite constituency. This in turn indicates that the UN human rights apparatus as a whole is geared more toward addressing the anxieties of that constituency than it is towards standing up for human rights across the board. Is it any wonder, then, that ordinary people generally take a sceptical view about human rights in the round?
Dr. David McGrogan is Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It is a feature of pretty much every bureaucracy that it cares more about itself than the people it is supposed to serve.
The NHS stands out only because it is one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world and so its failings are bigger.
Channel migrant situation being one example: bureaucracy has unfolded itself to take over and ‘manage’, or give a veneer of management, its main goal however being its own existence.
Bureaucracies need raw material just like manufacturers do, and are neutral on what that is and what product they output.
Indeed. The WHO and SAGE are in the pandemic business, hence why they were/are happy for the “pandemic” to continue forever – I never really got why that wasn’t obvious to people.
The reason that lockdowns were protected and perpetuated is about control. Non Medical Interventions (Lockdowns) were an unnecessary device to control populations and in the UK to protect the NHS’s inability to cope which is obvious long before Covid.
The use of behavioural scientists (4 of them on SAGE) was an outrage and led to the awful propoganda which attempted and partly succeeeded in scaring everyone.
If anyone is even slightly sceptical that the Covid debacle was not driven by big pharma and political taskmasters, try seeking out Dr Mike Yeadon and evertything he has to say. He was the worldwide head of Phizer’s Respiratory Science for 17 years. The man knows it all and he says that Covid was not much greater than normal Winter Flu (death figures now concur that is the case), the vaccines were not fit for purpose biologically (could not stop infection or transmission) and are almost certainly creating the huge excees deaths now being recorded.
That’s a feature of every degenerate hierachical organisation: It is stuffed with people who care more for organizational and general politics than for getting the job done they’re supposed to do. Public services have no monopoly on that.
Eg, for the last couple of days, there was a bus from some private health care organisation in Broad Street. This was supposedly about marketing the services of said company. Obviously, they had rainbow flags all over their stall. I’ve seriously entertained the thought of approaching the people there to tell them that exellent private health care seems pretty unrelated to promotion of certain sexual practices to me and hence, why they’re promoting the latter and not the former. I didn’t do this as the people there wouldn’t have understood it, anyway, and didn’t make the decision to use this particular kind of decoration. Whoever made this decision is a person who shouldn’t be working for this particular company as he/ she obviously believes to have a general political duty that’s more important than the technical job duty while at work.
How about “every bureaucracy”?
Will the health chiefs and their families stay away from the NHS if needed, doubt it, as usual it will be do as I say not as I do. Billions ploughed into it and they still need more managers and admin
Depends what their salary is; they might shell out to use something else instead of relying on the NHS alone. Happens all the time in firms that offer private cover as a benefit.
That’s true, I’ve had to do it myself recently, there are many things in the ‘free’ NHS which we actually have to pay for
NHS chiefs, their families and senior medics will get the best treatment available. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.
And if that doesn’t work out they’re all paid so much they can afford private health care.
Healthcare is a scarce commodity so has to be rationed somehow. Admitting this would be a first step to improvement.
I have all but stopped using the NHS, except for a repeat prescription every month. I am losing weight and getting as fit as possible in the hope I can ditch the blood pressure medication (20lbs lost so far). As far as I’m concerned I receive no service from my gp at all. My medication is never reviewed, I am never asked in for a health check (I am late 60s), they just fork out the pills to me and hope I don’t bother them. If I need to see a gp there is a lovely private one in a nearby town. It’s £95, but for that you get half an hour to discuss ones health problems in a professional and friendly manner (rather than disinterest followed by a Google print out). If I need to see a consultant or have elective surgery I will pay for it. I live in fear of either my oh or me becoming suddenly very ill because the NHS will probably finish us off, like my father in law, who went into hospital with a water infection and then died from multiple injuries received on the ward (2 broken hips, a broken upper arm and head injuries. We sued and won).
I don’t hear ANYONE with a good word to say about the NHS anymore.
I’m staying well away from the NHS as I consider it to be bad for my health. I research natural methods instead. Its surprising how many natural ingredients are already in the kitchen cupboard!!
The People’s Health Alliance has a directory of practitioners, I’m using the services of a herbalist to treat sinusitis. Working a treat & no profits to the lying nasty pharma.
She even accepts payment of freshly baked bread for administering the blood test at home 🙂
A Cochrane review found the standard treatment for sinusitis (antibiotics) was marginal and had to be weighed against the harm done by antibiotics https://www.cochrane.org/CD006089/ARI_antibiotics-sinus-infection-short-duration-adults
I know. I’m being treated by a herbalist not the NHS & not an antibiotic in sight.
But thank you for the link.
I used to get sinusitis regularly about twice a year, but no longer; the way I deal with it is prophylactic, treating upper respiratory tract infections, mainly by sucking zinc tablets, so that they don’t get a chance to develop into sinusitis.
This is as a result of a detox brought about by tapering off completely anti-depressants & Gabapentin. A side effect worth the price. Just got to clear the crap out…
Always painful getting from a bad place to a better one
Well done for winning, but sorry that it was the consequence of losing your father in law. How on earth did the hospital explain away all those fractures, other than losing his records no doubt??
Want to lose weight? Go Carnivore and dump ALL carbs. Whilst I was not overweight, 14 stone for years, 6’6″ and big boned, going Carnivore saw me lose 20lbs in less than two months without even trying. Better, the wright lost was all visceral fat (think “fatty” liver”) which you do not want and is the direct result of government and NHS dietary – which has in turn produced MASS obesity and diabetes or pre-diabetes in millions). I’m 71 and have muscle tone of a 30 year old.
Go on. What have you to lose (bar loads of visceral fat!)
Let’s face it there is no health service anymore, instead we have a pretence of one. Similar democracy and a British government (LOL), and as for an independent press – I have a bridge to sell you!
If it’s London Bridge then I’m interested!!
I don’t even think about there being a health service anymore. I’ve bought high quality dental tools, I’ve managed to train my eyes to use monitors and read books without any glasses (or at least get by with the pair of I was prescribed four years ago). I haven’t contacted a GP surgery since January 2020 except to get my regular Omeprazole prescription renewed (if necessary, I can buy it). That was done via the SystmOnline app.
I’m paying £120 (ouch!) to send my 85 year old Dad to a private GP today, because the NHS GP he saw a couple of weeks ago gave him two drugs that aren’t supposed to be coprescribed and he was violently ill. The (different) GP who saw him the next day treated him and my Mum like old fools and had them out of the surgery in 10 minutes dismissing the dangerous co-prescription. A doctor friend upcountry has since confirmed to me that the GP’s computer would have flagged up an alert and he would have had to override a block on co-prescribing those drugs. The pharmacy should also have warned my Dad about those drugs.
The NHS is the National Death Service now: it’s an incompetent bureaucracy that needs abolition. We need to create a new health system, not reform the current one. The system is de facto getting privatised anyway: I’m paying for my Dad to see a private GP, because the NHS is rubbish and doesn’t want to see anyone, equity firms are buying up all the surgeries in my city, my opticians run an insurance scheme even for NHS patients, there are no NHS slots available at any dentists, so you have to go private, paying another insurance fee. We’re getting all the worst aspects of privatisation, but none of the benefits (comprehensive GP, dentist, optician, emergency cover, for example) while having the money that funds the NHS taken by coercion.
National Insurance is a massive con trick: if a private business ran it, they’d be done for fraud. Basically, my National Insurance should go into an account, be invested and gain interest. I should be able to go online – as with my bank account – check my balance and control how the money is used. Instead, my money is taken from my earnings and used to pay my parents’ generation’s pensions (theirs was stolen to pay their parents’ pensions and hospital treatment) and to pay for fat, chain-smoking alcoholics in the next postcode to get treatment.
The Post War Bulge generation was the first to pay into NI for their entire working lives, yet they’re told there’s not enough money. Who in the state misappropriated and misused all that money and continues to do so? Civil Servants need to be made directly, individually liable for decisions and subject to court proceedings.
Some sort of new state/private health combo is needed. The state gets you to hospital in an ambulance and keeps you alive. What happens next is down to your insurance and doctor talking to each other. All the obese people need to be put on higher premiums than people who make an effort to stay in shape and eat properly. Offer fatsos subsidised gym memberships on the proviso that, if they reach certain weight targets, their premiums will be reduced. It’s interesting that trade unions are willing to negotiate with privatised power firms for cut price power deals for their members, but not for private healthcare. Such is the stupid religion of ‘Our NHS’!
COVID-19 showed we have a world-beaten failure of a health system, the ‘embarrassment of the world’ – a system so incompetent that their only option to continue running is to turn away patients. On the current trajectory, within a few years, the NHS won’t see any patients at all and will just have a million managers pushing paper.
In the meantime, according to the latest ONS weekly report, in week 32 death inflation was 10.1% using the 5 year average.
One of a series of excellent articles in today’s edition, especially re Australia.