Special pleading  Why are religious creeds given special license to block others freedom of expression? We live in a world of laws, supported by evidence on the basis of what can be perceived in the world around us. This applies in the fields of politics, law, science and others. Only when it comes to religion (and, possibly national identity) do we tolerate arguments made on the basis of unproven belief. There is of course a role for fantasy in life but protests as a result of people pointing out that it is fantasy seems to be taking things a little far.  Nobody appears to be suggesting that the film Innocence of Muslims was anything more than a badly made, ill-conceived, puerile bit of adolescent vitriol. By any reasonable scale it pales into insignificance compared with, for example, blowing up embassies or issuing death threats against foreign nationals [i] .  Were politicians to take action to urge the blocking of free speech on the rather more significant reasons for offence of misrepresentation of scientific data, libel, corruption of legal evidence or the, absolutely routine, misrepresentation of a political position, as President Obama did when calling Google, [ii] they would be written off as a lunatic. However, dress the idea up in a cassock and everyone seems to think that there is a meaningful issue to be discussed. There is no definable difference between saying something inaccurate or (in this case) impolitic about Nero, Plato, Sejong, Al’Khwarizmi or any other historical figure than about Christ, Mohammed or Moses other than the fact that the followers of the last three are more likely to resort to violence. Since when did that become a moral argument?  [i] Bermuda Sun. Obama on Religion. 28 September 2012.  [ii] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012,


The fact that religious thought tends to be subverted to defend the status quo is hardly a compelling argument as the same can be said for almost all forms of thought. There is a natural backlash from vested interests against any innovation and religion should not be blamed for having this same tendency. We should however not rule out the need to take a moral approach to some things for example; using stem cells might have huge medical benefits but it still needs to be considered whether it is morally right.


A one way street  Religion is at the heart of people’s identities and is based upon belief rather than reason so it is not surprising that religious groups sometimes take offence both quickly and easily. While political ideologies, or in certain scientific theories, may be believed as feverently religion by some with these beliefs come an acceptance that there are contrary opinions and a need to reason to persuade. This leaves open the possibility that they can be persuaded through reason that they are wrong. The stakes involved are very different, an eternity in Hell versus losing the next election. A political believer can afford to be malleable in a way a religious believer cant.  Increasingly religious groups offense seems to lead to threats of, or actual, violence [i] , the concerted apologies of elected representatives around the world and a total loss of any sense of proportion. If something is offensive to Christians or Muslims then, apparently, other considerations have to take a back seat. Whether it’s Christian homophobia in the Deep South or Islamic Xenophobia in the Middle East, offensiveness is a line that cannot be crossed.  Or, at least, it cannot be crossed in one direction.  For a group of creeds that are so quick to take offence, those religious groups that are the first to call foul seem happy enough to dole it out in the other direction. Even the basic tenets of the major faiths, say the eternal reality of Hell for non-believers [ii] , could be seen as offensive by those judged worth of being tortured for all eternity simply for getting on with their lives.  The very predicate of extreme faith – that everybody else lacks a moral compass and is going to suffer tortures for eternity as a result – is fairly offensive – and palpably untrue [iii] - by any standard. Once the discussion moves on to specifics, the insults become more pointed; perverts, fornicators, sinners and murderers (homosexuals, unmarried couples, divorcees and anyone involved with abortion, respectively). Their wrath isn’t limited to individuals, entire nations can be written off as corrupt and evil and damned to an eternity of suffering in the blink of an eye and for little apparent reason. In fact no reason, per se, at all.  If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule. Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction, so that could be the first set of offensive comments to go, closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith.  Any other position would be too inconsistent to be worth much consideration.  [i] Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide. Vexen Crabtree. 31 August 2009.  [ii] Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1033 – 1037.  [iii] The Daily Telegraph. Atheists ‘just as ethical as churchgoers’. 9 February 2010.


It is a massive over-generalisation to suggest a link between those who take offence from blasphemous or sacrilegious statements and violence [i] . Furthermore within the predicates of religious thought an offence against god has to be of a magnitude different from one against a temporal power – to question that basic fact is to question religions being religious; it’s nonsensical. Most religions claim a total, but self-supporting, basis for their concept of truth. It is all true or none of it is; it’s nonsensical to believe in an omniscient being who is only one view among many.  However, contrasting those traditions with the European Enlightenment tradition – and, apparently, criticising them for not sharing its values is not only contrary but hypocritical – the basis of the offence is the conflict between the two traditions.  [i] Greenboro News and Record. Anti-abortion violence negate pro-life goals. 11 October 1998.


Stifling progress and the right of others  The particular subjects areas often chosen by theists to find offensive make for an interesting list;  Freedom of expression,  The rule of law,  Scientific progress,  Medical progress,  Artistic expression  To name but a few. There are remarkably few areas of human progress and development – intellectual or societal – that have not caused ‘offence’ in some religious community somewhere. The best known is of course the Catholic Church’s forcing Galileo to recant his research in the 17th century. There is no need to seek out obscure fanatics for this purpose, mainstream religious figures seem to genuinely believe that the equality of women is still a difficult issue. To take just one example, in 2012 the supposedly moderate and progressive Anglican Communion is still unsure as to whether the ability to be a senior manager should be determined on the basis of somebody’s gender [i] . With the exception of a handful that are in thrall to religious dominance, every nation state, company, charity, university and scholarly discipline has resolved this question and found itself better as a result. Most religions haven’t even started the process. Now that’s offensive.  [i] BBC Website. Trevor Timpson. Women bishops: Anglicans still unsure over new wording. 17 September 2012.


It certainly doesn’t prove the point, it does however highlight one. As a result of religious teaching the majority of people have, at different points in history, been certain that;  The Earth was flat,  The Earth, or even a particular point on the earth, was the centre of the universe,  The Earth is less than six thousand years old,  Certain races were not human [i]  Women were created inferior to men  If ever evidence were needed that the majority are frequently and alarmingly wrong, then religion provides it in abundance.  [i] For example the Christian concept of Polygenism – the notion that the white races were descended from Adam and others not – has had several outings during history. Among other things it has been used to justify slavery, apartheid and imperialism.


Who is to judge when an expression has a ‘point’? In the cases cited by Opposition, the ‘point’, however inexpertly made, seems to have been to demonstrate the many flaws and contradictions within the Koran. To suggest that demonstrating that one of the world’s major religions – with one and a half billion followers and several states framing their legal system on the basis of its dictates – is riddled with contradictions and that its modern manifestation bears little resemblance to the original protestations of the prophet hardly seems pointless. Indeed much of the offence that was taken seems to have been caused by the very fact that the film did have a point.


Realpolitik  Freedom of expression should be exercised with care. Everyone who exercises this right has to remember that there are consequences of their actions. The Innocence of Muslims is a good example of this. Dropping explosive comments or artworks into situations [i] that are already fraught with historical tension – sectarian divisions in Europe, religious tensions in the Middle East, the interwoven politico-religious stresses of the United States – should not be done without very good cause. Those who chose to exercise their freedom of expression in this case are at least partially responsible for the protests, and any injuries, that resulted.  It should be recognised that there need to be curbs on the offensive use of freedom of expression in order to prevent the consequences that may result from such expression. National interests dictate that states should take into account religious sensitivities in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.  [i] The Guardian Film Blog. Peter Bradshaw. Innocence of Muslims: a dark demonstration of the power of film. 17 September 2012.


The interests of the majority  Although it may not prove the issue, it is certainly worth being aware of the fact that when referring to “theists”, proposition is talking about the overwhelming majority of the world’s population and then attempting to portray a small, fundamentalist minority as typical. Even talking mostly secular China into account – where determining religious affiliation is fantastically complicated – fewer than one seventh of the population of the planet profess no religious faith. A probable, although unproven, majority take their religion for granted but see it as no obstacle to free speech.  There is no need to indulge in majoritarian assumptions to accept the basic principal that the opinions of the overwhelming majority are at least worth treating with some respect. After all, with odds of 7:1 against, even the most hardened, fire-breathing of secularists would have to concede that they might have a point. For the rest of humanity, simple experience suggests that avoiding religious groups offending each other is a sensible way of avoiding wars [i] . So whether it’s an odds game for secularists or just altruistic self-interest for others not causing offence would seem to be the more sensible option.  [i] Wikpedia. Religious wars.


Why cause offence to no purpose?  The important issue here is the outcome. In most imaginable instances the person or group causing the offence has nothing to gain. If people of faith find things offensive in a way that a comparable devotee of Marx or Adam Smith does not, why cause that offence? We don’t wander around pointing out that people are ugly or fat – not because it isn’t true but because there is no reason to cause offence except in extreme circumstances [i] .  The Innocence of Muslims film is a perfect example; what was its point? As a conversion tool it seems utterly useless. It is hardly setting out detailed theological arguments, it doesn’t seem to be trying to make a point. It’s only apparent function seems to be to cause hurt and offence [ii] .  The idea that causing offence to some purpose may be an unavoidable bi-product of life would be one thing but in many cases there appears to be an intention to offend and if this is the case then it should be stopped.  Even where there is another purpose in mind, why not avoid causing offence wherever possible. In no other area of life would we comment of act in a way that may cause offence unless there was great need. If the creators of Innocence of Muslims wanted to point out failings in Islam then they could have had a reasoned documentary considering and weighing up evidence like Thomas Holland’s book ‘In the Shadow of the Sword’. [iii] Freedom of expression is not there to allow anyone to offend whoever they please.  Religious sensibilities should have a block on free expression in the same way other sensibilities do – in the usual course of events, they’re taken into account. Without great cause nobody would criticize troops at a veteran’s event or deliver a broadside against young people at a gathering of students. In the same way, should religious sensibilities, in and of themselves, be a block to freedom of speech? Yes. All other things being equal, should religious sensibilities be respected? Yes, of course.  [i] BBC material hosted on Youtube. Conversation between Jonathan Miller and Daniel Dennett. The Atheist Tapes.  [ii] Omid Safi. Religion News. What would Mohammed do? 12 September 2012.  [iii] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012,


Realpolitik is not a reason to compromise our ideals. Comments and artworks about “explosive situations” are a fundamental part of free expression. Opposition seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that free-expression is okay, so long as nobody minds. If nobody objects to it, there’s no need to have a right to do it. In short we wither accept freedom of expression or not; if there is freedom of expression then we must be consistent and defend the freedom for everyone.


The Opposition is perfectly happy to be attacked for making life easier for people with disabilities by taking down barriers that separate them from the wider population. There a parts of any community that prefer to do things in a certain way, however governments rarely commit to guaranteeing all preferences, instead they guarantee a basic level of service provision and then offer choice where possible and affordable. This is true in education and welfare right through to national defense – militaries, except the US, tend to specialise and rely on allies for other operations.


Braille should be offered the same protection as minority languages.  The issue of the protection of minority languages is a difficult one for most governments as it is usually argued that most speakers of such languages also make use of the dominant language and, where they don’t, they should learn for their own good. For example French speakers in Canada must also learn English. [i] However, there are senses and experiences that are uniquely held within a community and expressed within those languages. In many ways Braille functions in similar ways, a shared experience between those who read it, a bond between users and, for the most part, denied to outsiders. By its nature, it is tactile and speaks in a way that is not true of audiobooks prepared for a wider market. In purely practical terms there is relatively little difference between reading speeds in Braille and listening to audiobooks (about 130 against 150 wpm). [ii] Learning Braille also has immense practical benefits, not least of which is being employable, 90% of those who are braille literate are employed compared to 33% of blind people who are braille illiterate. [iii]  It seems simply strange to insist that those who have already lost one form of access to the wider world – indeed the method most widely used in that world – should be denied another simply because it is deemed to be cheaper, easier or ‘better for them’. Indeed such an action is deeply redolent of the debate over minority languages. Although not all of the blind community prefers to use Braille, many of them do and that would seem sufficient reason to respect it as an important way in which they interact with the world, and receive and impart ideas – the twin pillars of free speech [iv] .  [i] Burnaby, Barbara J., ‘Language Policy’, The Canadian Encyclopedia, 1996,   [ii] Reading Braille. RIDB Crenwick Centre.  [iii] Ouellette, Matthew David, ‘Low Cost, Compact Braille Printing Head For Use in Handheld Braille Transcribing Device’, Mechanical Engineering Master's Theses. Paper 41. p.2   [iv] Guidelines on the use of minority languages in the broadcast media. Minority Rights Group International.


It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing which focuses on paperbacks, [i] will only produce e-books as it cuts out the actual cost of printing and, therefore, the opportunity cost of remaindered copies.  [i] Trachtenberg, Jeffrey A., Mass Paperback Publisher Goes All Digital’, The Wall Street Journal, 6 August 2010,


Free speech is as much about being able to receive the ideas of others as it is about expressing one’s own.  We know from the work of educational psychologists that different people acquire knowledge in different ways. For example, some sighted language learners learn more effectively visually, other aurally. The evidence mentioned in the introduction suggests that this is no less true for blind students with those without access to Braille scoring less well in exams than those with it.  This becomes an issue of free speech when by compelling people to acquire information in a certain way means that they either have less access to that information or less chance of effectively digesting it. For those for whom are proficient Braille is their preferred medium, [i] despite there being alternatives for communication [ii] , it is their only medium for text, and is useful for using computers which may use a braille display. [iii]  However, even if this were just a matter of preference, it would be odd not to treat this as a free speech issue; allowing people access to information in a way that is not only possible but comfortable and convenient is at the heart of most forms of information distribution. A majority of people receive their news online but newspapers still exist because some people prefer them. It would be possible for readers to access information via microfiche but would be so inconvenient that it is rarely used.  It surely makes sense to see new delivery systems for information as an opportunity to expand, not reduce, the methods available for both imparting and receiving information.  [i] ‘Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking and Technology Did You Know?’, University of Washington, 2000,   [ii] Deafblinduk.org.uk. Types of Communication.  [iii] Singh, Reeta, ‘Blind Handicapped Vs. Technology: How do Blind People use Computers?’, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 3, Issue 4, April 2012,


Free speech may well be about the ability to receive ideas as well as express them but in neither case is it about how those ideas are expressed or received. To suggest that a state that refuses to provide a movie studio to any of its citizens who requests one is somehow suppressing their right of free expression would clearly be ridiculous. The state has a duty to guarantee the right, not the methodology.


The attacks on Braille are part of a wider move against the physical book.  The death of the book has been predicted with virtually every technological innovation and yet, it remains one of the most widespread and recognised means of communication in the world, with physical book sales representing about 80% of total book sales [i] . There are many reasons for this, its communicability, its physicality, it history and associations. Whatever the reasons for its enduring success, it remains one of the great design achievements of humanity as a species, comfortably alongside the wheel, the screw and cash.  Whatever the reason for this enduring success, it has it and the latest set of doomsayers may well go the way of the rest. Perhaps the greatest reason for its enduring success is that the book is silent. The reader gives voice to characters and charts their own way through fiction or selects their own phrases for emphasis in non-fiction.  There is nobody – actor or director – between the reader and the author.  If that applies to the printed word it applies equally or more to Braille. It is notable that the decline in braille literacy has led to a decline in poetry and literature output by the blind community. [ii] In turn, it is surely part of the author’s right to speak freely that they speak directly to their reader.  [i] Ebooks Popularity is Rewriting Sales History. Carol Memmet. 5 September 2011. USA Today.  [ii] Ouellette, Matthew David, ‘Low Cost, Compact Braille Printing Head For Use in Handheld Braille Transcribing Device’, Mechanical Engineering Master's Theses. Paper 41. p.2


All of that may well be true, however it does not make the two approaches mutually exclusive. Demonstrating that digital is good does not make analogue bad. Attacks on libraries have been driven more by austerity cuts, that are forcing 20% of the staff at Library and Archives Canada to go, [i] and the situation is similar in other countries such as the UK, [ii] than by the diminishing popularity of the book in particular or libraries in general. Indeed, the book has never been more popular as the ranks of those who like digital formats have been swelled by the digital natives of the Internet age.  [i] CBC News, ‘Federal libraries, archives shutting down’, CBC, 2 May 2012,   [ii] Hall, James, ‘Scale of library cut-backs revealed’, The Telegraph, 16 March 2012,


The suggestion that seven million dollars is an excessive expenditure on a resource for 836,000 is extortionate is simply nonsense. That’s a little over eight dollars a head, hardly likely to break the bank. To say that a government is not discouraging the use of something by making it harder to access is simply untrue. Of course if a resource is harder or more expensive to access, people will be discouraged from using it.


If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech.  To argue that this is a matter of the infringement of the right to free speech is not only wrong but offensive to those who have had that right genuinely curtailed. A stifling of free speech is about cutting off people’s access to ideas, denying them the right to take those ideas and present them to others. The slow, natural death of Braille does not do that. Fewer than one in ten blind children now learn Braille [i] . Those who wish to continue to use Braille can do so just as those who prefer to write a letter rather than send an email can do so. Both groups however, accept that it is likely to become more expensive and exclude them from the rest of society as others adapt and new technologies become the norm.  The information and ideas are there, they are available in a format that is available, even if it is not the format of absolute preference. The technology is available, many prefer it, those who don’t are free not to use it.  [i] “The Death of Braille” – Appropriate or Ominous? Neatorama.com. 26 February 2010.


Readers of all kinds are adapting to books being produced in new formats, publishers need to respond to this decline.  The current shift in publishing is unlike any other that has gone before, e-books are not like the TV, the Record player or the radio as all of these could only reproduce books in heavily edited form. The change is shown by ebook sales having outperformed printed book sales on amazon in the UK for the first time. [i] Against braille it is audio formats that are the biggest threat, the tape machine, the Walkman, the CD, Mp3, Mp4 and so on. All of these can reproduce books, unedited, in a format that allows the listener to proceed at their own pace, jump back and forwards and so on – just as a book does.  Earlier technologies had problems with quality, and each in turn was initially expensive. As they became more commonplace, quality improved and the price fell. Both of these have now coincided to create technologies that allow the listener the ultimate convenience.  Returning to the example given in the introduction, the CNIB library. Canada is a big country and Braille books are cumbersome. How much easier to email someone an MPEG, which they can have within seconds.  The digital age offers huge benefits to all but none more so than to those with sensory impairments. Its possibilities really are only bounded by our imagination.  [i] Malik, Shiv, ‘Kindle ebooksales have overtaken Amazon print sales, says book seller’, The Guardian, 6 August 2012,


It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing  The introduction makes reference to the seventy-two volume ‘pocket’ dictionary. It’s an excellent example. [i] With printed text, many previously cumbersome physical books – the Complete OED, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others – are now only available in digital format. [ii]  Nobody is suggesting banning Braille or even discouraging it, simply following the possibilities offered by technology for easier, cheaper and more portable formats. [iii]  If there were a huge market for Braille it would survive but clearly enough people are happy with other formats for it to require subsidy and support. This means, inevitably, that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill despite there being cheaper alternatives that are increasingly popular.  As with any technological change – or any major societal change for that matter – there are those who will find that change easy and others who will find it more difficult. For those who find it impossible – such as deaf and blind students – clearly other alternatives need to be provided but it seems sensible to look to the technologies of the future to fulfil those needs rather than those of the past.  [i] Engelhart, Katie, ‘The importance of Braille literacy’, Free Speech Debate, 6 July 2012,   [ii] Britannica Editors, ‘Britannica’s Digital Milestones’, Encyclopaedia Britannica Blog, 13 March 2012,   [iii] Listening To Braille. Rachel Aviv. New York Times. 30 December 2009


This is a little reminiscent of Anatole France’s comment that “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” [i] Those who feel uncomfortable with a method of delivery are less likely to use it and are therefore excluded, in part at least, from information delivered in that format. To further exclude a group who are already denied some graphical representations of information another form of delivery does exclude them and limit their ability to speak freely as they are denied the information that is its root.  Additionally, oppositions argument only works were there is real action to take up new technologies rather than letting Braille die off without investing in replacement technologies, which has been seen in several jurisdictions including India [ii] .  [i] McBride, Nicholas J., ‘The Importance of Law’, in Letters to a Law Student, 2010,   [ii] Government turns blind eye to Braille Press. Rohit, P.S. The Times of India. 4 May 2012.


It all boils down to personal action. People who act embarrassingly in parties should not be surprised that they can be filmed. Likewise, the ‘Star Wars kid’ left the copy of a video in his high school’s film studio where it was found by other teenagers. Even people who become victims of revenge porn at the very beginning were not acting according with good judgement because they themselves organised sexual acts to be filmed or photographed and then given to other people, whom they could have not even known well. Expressing bad judgement does not incur responsibilities on other people and companies to provide you with rights, when other people are doing nothing illegal by re-posting your public material or your public actions.  Moreover, in cases of potential violation of laws, legislation can still be enacted without any kind of Right to be forgotten - California has passed a law combatting revenge porn [9]. It might not be perfect but that is because the issue is pretty novel and in time we’ll learn to deal with it better.


People need protection against harmful information posted by others  People cannot control information that others post about them, for instance embarrassing photos from parties. Even if the original source came from people themselves, they cannot delete this information if it has been shared by other people on their social media channels. For example, Ghyslain Raza’s video of himself goofing around with a golf stick pretending to be in Star Wars, was uploaded by his classmates without his consent [6]. While the video went viral without Ghyslain being able to delete all of its appearances at different sites, he himself suffered merciless bullying online and in real life [7].  There even are people who exploit people’s inability to delete embarrassing content relating to them online. ‘Revenge porn’, which is uploading private material of sexual nature of ex-partners online in an effort to humiliate them, is especially hard to delete and prosecute [8]. Since embarrassing information can end up online without a person’s consent and is very difficult to delete using current policy measures, the right to be forgotten is the only way to help these people.


It is not true that people cannot manage consequences from their action online. It might only seem so but that is because the issues around personal data have emerged relatively recently, so we are still learning to deal with them. Individuals are learning how to manage their personal data online responsibly to make sure such humiliating situations do not occur. There are resources and programmes on how to talk to children about using the internet and other digital devices, including sexting, responsibly [11]. The same way, there are and should be calls for the society to be considerate towards victims of personal data abuse and be less abusive online.


It is unfair for people to suffer for silly past mistakes  People make silly mistakes, especially when they are young. The age from which you can join Facebook is 13 and pretty much anyone can post videos to Youtube, run a blog or post comments. It is then no surprise that people can leave unflattering information about themselves that at that moment they considered to be worth posting. However, this is just a one-sided representation of a person, because many good things cannot be well represented online, e.g. nobody posts a video of oneself working hard.  Nevertheless, this one-sided representation can have very damaging consequences to a person. For instance, a well-known case is of Stacy Snyder who was refused a teaching certificate by her university because of a picture of her as a drunken pirate on myspace.com, and not because she was a bad student [4]. More importantly, current measures to delete information might not be enough, as digital information stays in internet archives, social media archives (such as profileengine.com), or can just be reposted by people on other sites and their own social media pages. Given this and the fact that these are not who people truly are, it is unfair to deny them the right to erase things that damage their reputation.


People put up all those unflattering things about themselves online without being forced to. Those are true, even if not full, representations of them. But that one-sided representation is exactly how the person wanted to be seen. They always have an option of showcasing a better image of themselves (through photos, videos, blogs, etc.) online, but nobody owes them the right to undo something they themselves freely shared. It might be a mistake they realise later on, but mistakes do not create a right to erase everything about that mistake. Nothing in real worlds works like that – you might have made a mistake by getting to drunk at a company Christmas party, but you can't insist on co-workers pretending that never happened and not telling anyone.  Moreover, there is plenty of information about how to act on the internet [5]. So we should not grant such a right to someone who did not learn how to act on the internet - they'll have to learn the hard way.


People suffer disproportional consequences on the internet  The internet magnifies the problem of embarrassing personal data and makes it very hard for people to manage the consequences. In real life, though we suffer consequences for our embarrassing behaviour (or behaviour others think is embarrassing), we can manage it easier, e.g. by talking to the people involved or as a final resort moving. The internet means the humiliating material is rapidly exposed to millions of people around the world, meaning that people can face humiliation anywhere without an ability to manage it.  There are even cases of young people taking their lives after bullying and cyber-bullying that followed information about them being posted online. The most famous case is that of teenager Amanda Todd, who committed suicide after half-nude photos were posted online – she could not escape ridicule even after she moved schools, because photos remained online [10]. Because real life actions are not enough to manage consequences of humiliating personal data, new ways suitable for the digital sphere have to be created, and that way is the right to be forgotten.


People’s digital footprint, though it might be indicative of who a person is, is not a perfect representation of them or of their entire character. People act differently on the internet behind a screen, and sometimes some anonymity, than in real life because they feel free of social norms. But in real life social norms exist and people adhere to them, meaning that their internet activity cannot be directly linked to their real life actions. Finally, we cannot expect people to constantly leave personal data on the internet, which means we cannot get a consistent view of a person’s character or their personal development. E.g. someone’s leaving a racist comment 10 years ago does not mean they are still racist now. All this is not just useless for the judicial process; it can actually harm justice by giving false representations of people, which will lead to unfair convictions (or unfair acquittals). For instance, the defence in the famous Trayvon Martin case used digital photos of Trayvon smoking weed or posing as a gangster to present him as a thug and a threat, even though these photos were typical of how young people present themselves, and had no connection to the actual crime [12].


The internet is different from reality since the magnitude of consequences you might suffer is much greater. While there might be a school laughing at you over something in real life, on the internet it might be the whole world. We accept ridicule and embarrassment in real life not just because it happens, but also because the effect is not so overwhelming in the majority of cases. People get bored of the news and stop talking, while in the digital era new people can always find you and laugh at you – memories fade, photos and videos online do not. So internet is different from the real life and requires new rules.  Moreover, the right to be forgotten is not applicable to the real life not because of a principle, but because we cannot enforce it. We can’t delete people’s memories. But we can delete information online.


This right relieves people of the need to act responsibility online  Having a right to be forgotten means that people can be less responsible about what they share and how they act on the internet. Knowing that they can always remove all trace of what they did relieves people of the necessity to consider the consequences of what they are doing online. This is especially true for young adults: they often post unflattering information, such as pictures of them drunk or half-nude, or write offensive comments for the pay-out of immediate popularity in their peer group. However, what also prevents them from doing this is thinking about how that might affect them in the future. When they know that after some time they can delete their digital trace completely there is nothing preventing them from acting irresponsibly in hope of popularity. Such irresponsible behaviour then puts a burden on the state to fix the mess by applying and overseeing the right to be forgotten.


What seems like irrelevant information now might serve justice in the future  People’s digital footprint, though of no public interest at the moment, might be useful in the future. It is a common practice in courts to investigate a person’s character or motives to check for their probability of committing a crime. Photos, videos, comments and blogs can shed light on these issues should the person be investigated under law. For instance, racist or sexist youtube comments might be of use in a trial where a defendant denies his/her actions were a result of racial or gender hatred; blogs, photos and videos a person posts and shares, and their internet searches can serve to assess what the person is like. Digital footprints can be used not only to sentence people, but also to prove their innocence. Given that discerning people’s motives and a character is a vital part of the legal process that is also very elusive, having access to their online behaviour is very useful. Digital information thus can be a useful tool to bring about justice and the right to be forgotten would forgo this opportunity as people could just delete everything about themselves.


The internet does not need additional rights to those in the real world  The right to be forgotten is premised on the idea that internet requires additional rights beyond those in the real world. Offline there is no right to demand that people do not to talk about or show photos of your embarrassing moments. Provided that there is no privacy breach, once something is out in public, you cannot take it back. There is no rule enabling you to be forgotten in real life, even if things you have done harm you. Why then do rules have to be different for the internet?  In 21st century the internet has become an integral part of our lives and of human communication that it is in fact just another reality for us. We do the same things there as we do in real life – socialise, engage in our hobbies etc. The only difference is that the internet provides us with greater opportunities, such as reaching more people, but that does not change the principle that human interaction online is pretty much the same as offline. If there is no right to be forgotten in real life, there should not be one in the digital one.


We expect people to want to use the right to be forgotten mostly when the information on the web is actually hurting them. That means that, in the most common scenario, people would face negative consequences before they can use the right, otherwise why bother one-self with engaging the legal system? However a lack of responsibility is not a charge that can be levied at everyone, often they just could not foresee the consequences. Being responsible is premised on the idea that you know the results of your actions. When you do not and cannot know them – because maybe that photo will be a problem in 10 years – no amount of thinking about an issue is going to make it better.


What exactly is the public interest? It is difficult to define in law as Britain is finding in its enquiry into phone hacking, [1] and individuals disagree. [2] Journalists in particular are likely to be much happier about the idea than the rest of the public because it defends their interest to have a broad interpretation. It should not have been up to either Kamm or Haaretz to define what the public interest is. There are some things that have to be left to the state.  [1] Sabbagh, Dan, ‘Clarification of the ‘public interest’ defence is badly needed’, guardian.co.uk, 8 April 2012.  [2] Elliott, Chris, ‘What do you think ‘public interest’ means?’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2012.


The public have a right to know what is committed in their name  “There were aspects of IDF operations which I thought should be brought to the attention of the public.” [1] Kamm is correct; in any state, but especially in a democracy like Israel, the military is there to protect the state and its people. It is paid for by the people through their taxes. The military is composed of the people through conscription. And as a result what it does is in the name of the people. The accountability of the instruments of the state, including the military, is at the core of what it means to be a democracy. It is therefore essential that the people know what it is doing in their name. Many democracies have laws giving a “right to know” for example the United State’s Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment right of access. [2]  It is therefore in the public interest to expose activities that may be detrimental to the state. In this case the military was exposed doing something it has been specifically ordered not to do by the courts so exposing a military that was disobeying civilian authority.  [1] Collins, Liat, ‘My Word: Questions and secrets’, Jerusalem Post, 5 November 2011.  [2] Papandrea, Mary-Rose, ‘Under Attack: The Public’s Right to Know and the War on Terror’, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Vol.25, Issue 1, pp.35-80.


Yes the military has to be accountable but this does not mean that it is directly accountable to the people. Instead the military is accountable to the civilian leadership of the country who is then in turn accountable to the people. The people designate their politicians; their head of state and government as well as minister of defence to control the most senior members of the military. [1] This means that while the military must be transparent it is only necessary for it to be transparent to the civilian government which is at the top of the chain of command not to the people as a whole.  [1] Feaver, Peter D., Armed Servants Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, Harvard University Press, 2005, p.5.


It is right that illegal acts by the state be exposed  Anat Kamm was correct when she said “I kept thinking that history tends to forgive people who expose war crimes.” [1]  Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh was documented as saying “This is an arrest operation… But in case [the soldiers] identify one of the senior leaders of the Islamic Jihad, Walid Obeid, Ziad Malaisha, Adham Yunis, they have permission to open fire in accordance with their appraisal of the situation during the operation.” [2] As attorney Michael Sfard states "In other words, the use of words referring to arrest when in fact there is no real intention of carrying out an arrest, but the reference is to assassination." [3] This was despite a supreme court ruling in 2006 that militants must be detained. [4] Kamm may be incorrect when considering this action a war crime as Israel was not at war at the time however assassination is clearly illegal under international law. [5]  The press has four roles in a democracy; holding power to account, highlighting issues that need attention, educating citizens, and connecting people to create civil society. [6] In this particular case all of the first three roles were clearly being performed.  [1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.  [2] Izenberg, Dan, ‘Stamp of approval from attorney-general’, Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2010.  [3] Blau, Uri, ‘License to kill’, Haaretz, 27 November 2008.  [4] Guarnieri, Mya, ‘The killing of Zuhair al-Qaissi exposes Israel’s attitude to its supreme court’, guardian.co.uk, 14 March 2012.  [5] Wachtel, Howard A., ‘Targeting Osama Bin Ladin: Examining the Legality of Assassination as a tool of U.S. Foreign Policy’, Duke Law Journal, Vol.55, No.677, 2005, p.677.  [6] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005.


While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion." [1]  [1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.


The military can only be held to account if there is transparency  States have militaries to protect themselves creating a paradox that “The very institution created to protect the polity is given sufficient power to become a threat to the polity.” [1] The Military is a powerful institution even in a stable democracy like Israel, it needs to be held to account because it is the institution within a state that has most capability to use force if it wishes. An unaccountable military is a military that is much more likely to engage in coups and other anti-democratic actions. Israel is an unusual case in the west in that it has allowed the boundaries separating government, military and society to become blurred leading to worries of military influence on policy. [2] None the less most of the time we can trust the government to hold the military to account however the only sure guarantee is for everyone to have access to all information that have a very low risk of resulting in lives lost; designs of weapon systems, current deployments or planning for current and future missions.  This transparency should of course be from the top down with the military giving out this information freely as the military is in a position to know what information is still current and may result in lives being lost. However if the military refuses to be transparent on crimes committed then there is a need for individuals to provide that transparency themselves. Cases like Anat Kamm’s which punish attempts by soldiers to call their superiors to account are therefore damaging as it shows that the officers will not be brought to justice but the leaker will be punished. [3] This actively encourages the military to believe it is above the law and is not accountable to the people.  [1] Peter Feaver quoted in Norton, Augustus Richard, and Alfoneh, Ali, ‘The Study of Civil-Military Relations and Civil-Society in the Middle East and North Africa’, in Carsten Jensen (ed.), Developments in Civil-Military relations in the Middle East, pp.7-28, p.7  [2] Weinraub, Alan, ‘The evolution of istaeli civil-military relations: domestic enablers and the quest for security’, Naval Postgraduate College, December 2009.  [3] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.


If individuals are never allowed to take action themselves then we are leaving everything up to the state and the military; two institutions that in cases like this have every reason to attempt to suppress the truth. When the state will not take responsibility for its actions then it is right that others should force it to account for its actions and the only way this can be done is through revealing the wrongs the state has done.


This might be a valid argument if the leaked military secrets really were putting lives in danger, but this is not the case in this particular instance. In Israel there is a military censor which newspapers submit articles that might affect national security to and that censor takes out anything it believes to be harmful to state security. [1] All the materials that were published by Haaretz went first through Haaretz’s editors and then this military censor [2] so if there really were any military secrets published that could have put lives in danger the censors were negligent in their job.  [1] Sobelman, Batsheva, ‘Q&A Censorship in Israel: ‘A unique model’’, Los Angeles Times, 3 May 2010.  [2] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.


National security should come before freedom of information  The Security of the Nation comes before other considerations such as the freedom of information. This is especially true in a nation such as Israel which is surrounded by enemies who will take advantage of any information that they can use to damage Israel. Israel’s security situation is aptly described by Yitzhak Rabin as one of “dormant war” that every few years becomes an active conflict. [1] When the state’s survival is potentially at stake as is the case in Israel then individual rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of information have to be subordinated to the greater collective rights of the nation.  [1] Dahan, Michael, ‘National Security and Democracy on the Internet in Israel’, C. Ess and F. Sudweeks (eds). Proceedings Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology ’98. University of Sydney Australia, 189-192.


Individuals do not have the right to decide what information should be publicly available.  No individual is empowered to decide for themselves what information should be publicly available and certainly not a 23 year old student. A conscript like Kamm will have little idea of the context, whether operations have taken place, or even often what the information they are leaking means. Without all the facts of each case they are in no position to judge if a particular document is in the public interest. They therefore won’t know the consequences of the information they are leaking which in a military situation could mean lives being lost. This is why militaries have systems for declassifying information; so that when it is done it does not cause any harm.  As Sarah Honig writing in the Jerusalem Post argues “We could kiss our entire national defense good-bye if each and every soldier would do likewise with no guideline but his/her own youthful hubris.” [1]  [1] Honig, Sarah, ‘Another Tack: Loose lips sink ships’, JPost.com, 23 April 2010.


Leaking military secrets puts lives in danger  The right to life is the most fundamental right of all. No one should have the right to leak information that might result in someone losing their life. As the documents that Kamm collected included details of IDF deployments and plans for military operations [1] the leaking of this information could clearly have provided terrorists such as Hezbollah or Hamas the opportunity to kill Israeli soldiers. Moreover while the information she gave to Haaretz reporter Uri Blau may not have all been published Kamm herself admitted that she had lost one of the CD’s she copied. [2]  [1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.  [2] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.


Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state. [1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies.  [1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.


It is difficult to see how discourse and free inquiry are a basic right when it comes to history. This is not an area which is going to affect people’s lives and liberty if they cannot read about every possible opinion on the subject exactly because what is in the past is in the past and does not impact on people’s day to day lives. Very few people are interested in speaking out against their own history that they grew up learning even if it does not tell the whole truth.


Prohibition of a subject damages discourse and free enquiry  History is not something that it is worth sacrificing freedom of speech and expression for. Every individual should be free to voice their own views and this includes on areas that are important to the state such as its formation and national heros. In these areas there can be no compelling reason for keeping secrets or discouraging open inquiry and scholarship, there are no national security interests at stake, for most countries the individuals involved are dead. Therefore the only thing being affected are individuals posthumous reputations and the state should not be protecting individuals reputations. Someone’s reputation should stand on all of their deeds and acts based upon fact not just a cherry picked and idealised image set forth by the state.  The foundation of Islam is potentially an example of this. Some scholars such as Tom Holland have attempted to show that the Arab Empire gave birth to Islam rather than the other way around as it is traditionally understood. [1] Possible revisions of the early history of Islam are extremely controversial but in light of the conflicts in the Middle East and what is sometimes described as a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam it is important that the period be studied. [2] Holland suggests that the Prophet may have been much more influenced by Christianity and Judaism than is recognised by Islam; [3] if there were such links might unearthing them not help to heal divides today?  [1] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012, p.40 (ftnote 53)   [2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations, The Free Press 2002, pp.209-218  [3] Holland, p.49 (ftnote74)


This is equally an argument for treating national heroes and history with the respect it deserves. Attacking these ideas is attacking the very foundation of the nation state. Of course the national identity is not going to disappear from undermining Atatürk as the national community is built on more than just Atatürk but each attack helps undermine the whole structure and must therefore be stopped.


Countries must be willing to accept the darker sides to their past  No country is whiter than white, and often the creation of a country is a bloody event that involves mistakes, tragedy’s and outright massacres. While it is wrong to cover up and not apologise when mistakes are made or horrifying acts are committed the results of this action are likely to have consequences. These events may well be a sour point with neighbouring countries or even just those who feel that the country is not being honest about its past.  Turkey is an excellent example of this. Almost everyone would agree that Atatürk was a great leader and most would not consider that his habits make any difference to this. Nor are they likely to judge Turkey on the basis of the foibles of a long dead leader. However during the period just before Atatürk became president the Armenian Genocide occurred (1915-23) which stains Turkey’s foreign relations to this day, France has supported a law criminalising its denial, [1] the US congress has several times had bills proposed highlighting the genocide [2] and so damaging Turkey’s relations with the U.S. [3] and of course helping to freeze relations with Armenia itself. [4]  [1] Montjoye, Clementine de, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free Speech Debate, 29 June 2012,   [2] United States Senate, S.Res.399 - Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution, OpenCongress for the 112th United States Congress, 19th March 2012,   [3] Kinzer, Stephen, ‘Genocide vote harms US-Turkey ties’, guardian.co.uk, 5 March 2010,   [4] SAĞIR, CELİL, ‘Hopes dim for normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations’, Today’s Zaman, 7 May 2012,


A great many states see no need to particularly acknowledge the darker side of their past and founding; the United States still lionises the manifest destiny and the conquest of the west despite the genocide of the Native Americans who still live there. And there is no reason why they should. Some other nations may disagree with the past portrayed by that state and they can present their own competing version if they wish.


The purpose of history as a subject in Schools and in Universities is very different. The role of history in School is simply to teach about where we come from, to learn about the origins of the nation and why it is organised the way it is organised. History needs to be taught as it binds the nation together by creating a shared sense of identity. [1]  [1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79,


History shapes attitudes  History is important because of the way it shapes attitudes and identities. Nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson has dubbed nations ‘imagined communities’ because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” This is the case with all large scale communities. “the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” a fraternity for which members are willing to kill and die. [1] This very willingness makes nationalism potentially dangerous and so it is much better to take a much more measured approach seeing the bad as well as the good.  Yet because the nation is an imagined community so it is possible for that imagining to be altered as is needed. Turkey will not cease being the Turkish nation simply because views of Atatürk change as a result of some believing him to be a ‘drunken debaucher’. Other countries have come to accept negative parts of their history with little consequence for their conception of the nation such as the UK’s acceptance that imperialism was in large part negative it simply creates a more nuanced view of the past.  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, London 2006, pp.6-7


Makes history more useful, more human, and more interesting  While the state may like to whitewash history to produce its own ‘national history’ that sticks to one grand narrative that is about the state this is not history as it really is. While a national history full of patriotism may be good for instilling a love of the nation it is not much use at teaching anything else. In particular it is damaging to any attempt to teach analysis and the use of sources through history. History is for the most part not useful in and of itself, [1] there are for example very few jobs directly working with history. Rather teaching of history emphasises ‘transferrable skills’ such as Critical Analysis, Reasoning and Argument [2] all of which are suppressed if focused on one officially approved narrative.  Moreover having the darker side of a nation’s past both makes history more interesting and more believable and so making it more likely that those being taught it will relate to it. Making the past look whiter than white simply makes it seem out of touch with reality. It makes for a poor teacher as history needs to ‘teach by example’ and if that example is not a complex character that can be related to it has little relation to every day experience. [3]  [1] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998,   [2] ‘What skills will a History degree from Cambridge give me?’, University of Cambridge,   [3] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998,


While a country is entitled to promote its own national story, its own interpretation of events and create its own national heroes however it is not entitled to suppress historical events and so blot things out of history by preventing any competing ideas about that history. Most people learn their history through the state education system rather than through scholar’s history books so having competing narratives is not a threat to the state’s interpretation.  Role models are not undermined by having some minor faults.


Simple ‘disrespect’ is not sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech and freedom of academic enquiry. Those who find it disrespectful need not watch or read that which is written that they find disrespectful but more importantly they should be open minded enough to be able to reconsider their previous views. No matter the subject if it has strongly held views about it then holding up a different prism to that subject is going to be considered disrespectful as it is challenging those deeply held beliefs. Yet if we can’t challenge and test those beliefs then there is no opportunity for change and progress. Ultimately then preventing inquiry due to ‘disrespect’ holds back societies development.


Damages the country’s reputation  Rightly or wrongly countries are judged in part based upon the past; In Europe Germany is regularly judged on the basis of the Nazi’s [1] and in Asia Japan on the basis of its atrocities in World War II. [2] Any nation would be sensible to want to avoid such vilification on the basis of actions taken by one’s ancestors and the further back the less sense such vilification makes sense. Digging up past wrongs for the sake of digging is wrong simply because of the souring effect it can have on the present. If there are dark areas of the past that have been forgotten then it is best to leave them forgotten than rather than risk creating new enmities between nations. Although not an exact parallel rather similar would be the creation of the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. The Belgian colonial powers divided the population into several distinct groups where no divide had previously existed. The population was then divided through a census and identity card system introduced in 1933-4 which set individuals ethnicity. This was the root of one of the worst genocides of the twentieth century; [3] essentially through creating an enmity where none previously existed, something that could equally be done by digging up the past rather than inventing a past.  [1] Lowen, Mark, ‘Debt-laden Greeks give vent to anti-German feelings’, BBC News, 27 February 2012,   [2] Komine, Ayako, and Hosokawa, Naoko, ‘The Japanese New History Textbook controversy’, Free Speech Debate, 13 July 2012,   [3] Magnarella, Paul J., ‘Explaining Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide’, Human Rights & Human Welfare, Vol.2, No.1, Winter 2002,


Countries are entitled to make what they will of their past.  Past leaders are dead and if they have become heroes it has already been accepted that accounts of that figure may not be entirely accurate as with any myths and legends – and indeed many country’s heroes are myths such as King Arthur. Where they are not as in the case of Atatürk the man is mythologised in order to help show the unity of the nation and provide an example, an ideal if you will, for those who follow.  Insulting this hero by deliberately publicising their dark side is therefore damaging not just for the state but for those who believe in the in the role model that the hero provides. In a country like Turkey where the focus of history teaching is on political citizenship education based upon national history everyone in Turkey learns about Atatürk. The aim is to educate pupils “As future citizens who respect the principles and reforms of Atatürk and democracy; who care for their families, country and the nation; who are aware of their responsibilities towards the Republic of Turkey; who work for promoting their families, country and the nation.” [1] So any attack will be damaging one of the role models for Turks young and old. [2]  [1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79,   [2] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008,


Disrespectful  Few nations go so far as to deify their national heroes or the formation of the state but none the less it is disrespectful to attack these ideas and many people are likely to be offended. This is indeed the case with the film Mustafa about Atatürk one doctor referring to the poster advertising the film asks "Why is he shown like that, in front of a steppe? His head is down as if he is apologizing for something... I find it disrespectful". Professors Orhan Kural and Ahmet Ercan argue “The content of the film and its interpretation of its topics damage the republic and Atatürk. Damaging such values can lead to the breakup of Turkey and to the loss of national pride.” [1] This is because any attack on Atatürk is equally an attack on the values of the republic he created, some of which such as secularism are already under attack. It is both wrong to offend so many people and unwise, as is the case with the attack on Atatürk, to attack the foundations of the ideology that helps to prevent intolerance. [2]  [1] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008,   [2] Malashenko, Alexey, and Shlykov, Pavel, ‘”Anti-Kemalist” Revolution: Where is Turkey Going?’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 22 September 2011,


This gives all the more reason to act pre-emptively by allowing free and open scholarship and critical analysis of the past. If a nation will not take a long hard look at its own past eventually someone else will and they are just as likely to uncover any skeletons in the closet as a national historian is. If however the government is open to new ideas then they can quickly say sorry, possibly pay some form of reparation and prevent any creation of enmity that will occur through denials. Japan is an excellent example of this; China and Korea are still calling for the Japanese emperor to apologise for atrocities during imperialism. [1]  [1] Kyodo, ‘Japanese Emperor must apologize for colonial rule: S. Korean president’, The Japan Times, 15 August 2012,


It seems unlikely that there would be a rush to offer corrections where it was to the advantage of an individual or organisation, so let us not pretend this is the noble pursuit of truth at any cost. Where a major mistake is made by a news outlet, its competitors are usually only too happy to point the fact out, vastly magnifying the redress compared to the original mistake, as shown by the example cited by the proposition with the BBC attacking inaccuracies in a Daily Telegraph article [i] . Where it is a minor error, it’s questionable as to whether a right to reply actually helps or simply fuels speculation on the basis that the aggrieved party seems to be squabbling over the details. Alternatively, where a mistake is genuinely defamatory then it is a criminal matter and should be settled in the courts rather than in a grubby fix-up between the parties.  [i] The examiner.com. Ryan Witt. Fox News makes three large factual, graphical errors over the last week (Video). 15 December 2011.


There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note.  In many countries corrections or clarifications in newspapers are buried away in the depths of the middle pages and are unlikely to be spotted by anyone other than the most ardent reader. Not only does this defy natural justice but having the correction prominent hits a newspaper for making mistakes as it loses space for a story that would attract both readers and advertisers.  It’s not unreasonable to expect journalists to get the information right first time – that is, after all, their job. Building an entire case on the basis of a misunderstanding, as the Daily Telegraph did recently on the basis of misinterpreting data for fish stocks, [i] can be incredibly misleading and when the correction to it is impossible to find, that misunderstanding remains in the mind of the readers. Once that is multiplied by blog entries comments to others and so on, the retraction would need to be a sizable news story in its own right to correct the misunderstanding.  Where mistakes are made and repeated from wire services or promoted as gospel in local – often poorly resourced – newspapers, the impact on someone’s reputation can be considerable. It’s only fair that their megaphone correcting it should be just as large as that used in the first place.  [i] BBC Website (commenting on a Daily Telegraph article). Hannah Barnes and Richard Knight. North Sea Cod: Is it true there are only 100 left? 30 September 2012.


The issue of credibility is an important one. If a story that was broadly true can be picked to death by the PR and Legal departments of companies, then it places a real burden on the future of investigative and campaigning journalism. One minor mistake, plastered across the front page, will inevitably encourage readers to question the story more generally as it appears to suggest that both points of view have equal merit. A broadly true story of an industrial giant polluting the environment or a bank indulging in corruption is not negated by getting a single fact wrong. The company, of course, will use any detail to challenge the whole story, risking the reputation of the publication in the process. This may ultimately mean that journalists are simply much more cautious and so will not publish any stories that will likely bring about a response in the form of a reply from the target of the article.


It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction.  [i] The right of reply goes a long way in balancing the playing field – especially for private citizens who may not be able to afford recourse to the law. It is also simpler and quicker than protracted arguments in court. Finally it respects the readership as a group accepting that they are capable of making a decision over whose version of events is more likely to be accurate – the journalist or the respondent.  It’s a grownup approach to publishing, it acknowledges that newspapers don’t get everything right and embraces the idea that the goal is to convey accurate information – admittedly belatedly.  It’s inevitable that mistakes will be made in a world where newspapers are endlessly running up against deadlines and it is only possible to check so much as a result.  Instead of entering into protracted disputes or ignoring the rights of the injured party this allows for the readership to make the final decision [ii] . This can be true of either private individuals or public figures [iii] where, all too often, the issue is not the legal minutiae or exact phraseology of the article but the more general verdict of the court of public opinion.  [i] There is also a legally enforced right of reply in Korea, the Philippines, Finland and Brazil among others. By way of example, the full text of the Brazilian law (translated into English) is given here .  [ii] Journalism.co.uk. Matthew Gooding. Newspapers should print an obligatory right of reply says Max Mosley. 22 January 2010.  [iii] A good example of a case that became so complicated the original offence was lost in the haze would be this one . It is far from atypical.


Prop correctly identifies conveying information as a key role of the media – there are others; informed and impartial comment and, critically, a relevant news agenda. It is hard to see how chasing a story off the front page to make room for the right of reply fulfills these other requirements. Equally, where there is dispute, surely the courts are best placed to resolve it – driving the middle path between two inaccuracies is a pretty poor route to truth.


In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start.  In response to an ever faster news agenda, produced by ever more pressured journalists, sloppiness may be seen as inevitable [i] . As a result, anything that is unlikely to result in legal action may be given a bye. In most situations, that sets the bar way too high. The mere mention of a private citizen in a negative light in a local paper may not be the stuff of national press attention and is unlikely to get far in the courts but can affect that persons standing in their community and with their neighbours in a profound way.  Anything that pushes reporters and editors to go that extra step to check their facts before they go to print seems like a sensible preventative measure [ii] . This could help prevent newspapers citing ‘experts’ who are not actually expert, a Forbes columnist found that he could portray himself as expert on all sorts of things and get his comments in articles for even very reputable media organisations such as the New York Times without even the most basic of background checks. [iii] The knowledge that they may lose both space and credibility in the next edition would seem to be a rather neat way of achieving that goal.  [i] The Huffington Post. Jeff Sorensen. 24 Hour News Killed Journalism 20 August 2012.  [ii] Article 19. Right of Reply.  [iii] Forbes. David Their. How this guy lied his way into MSNBC, ABC News, the New York Times and more. 18 July 2012.


The notion that the print media has lost its power since the emergence of the Internet is simply untrue. Not only are they still a major source of news for many – they are particularly a source of news for other news-makers. Blogs and other exclusively online sites rarely ‘break’ stories – with the exception of those that act in the same way as regular print editions such as the Huffington Post. Identifying those news outlets that are large enough to be registered companies is really not beyond the wit on humankind equally, imposing the regulations on those already covered by libel legislation would seem fairly obvious.


The on-going agglomeration of news and opinion is a wider and deeper issue than tackling factual inaccuracies and one that needs to be resolved in other ways. Frequently, that’s the very point to be addressed by the courts – whether a statement is legitimate comment or is being masqueraded as fact [i] . The right of reply is not presented as a cure all for the media as a whole but it is a useful way of getting the basics right before addressing the higher-level concerns that often stem from these fundamental errors.  [i] The ‘fact or opinion’ distinction is crucial to cases of defamation it basics are set out here .


This undermines actual parity by creating a false sense of the right to reply.  A right to reply would be no more of a fig leaf than voluntary self-regulation that has so bedevilled the media in so many countries. Responsible journalists and publications are already involved in the process where it is useful and others would use it as an excuse to avoid real regulation.  It is comparatively rare for the damage to be done at the level of factual data but signing up to making those corrections (indeed the requirement to give equal parity would allow papers to make a great song and dance about the fact) would mask the real story that opinions and comment are what really trash reputations – along with the half-facts and insinuations mentioned in the previous argument.  Different countries tackle press regulation in different ways. In some the threat to freedom of speech comes from over-regulation, in others from an over-mighty press drowning out dissent. The right of reply seems to answer neither concern – the paper will always have the last word as it can respond to the response or simply press its case more subtly. A right of reply hides that fact and creates a false sense of parity between the two.


This solution – if it is one - is now out of date.  We are happy to concede that in the glacial world of academic journals, the right of reply mostly works. Two experts clarifying exactly what was said by whom and being appraised by an equally expert readership can make sense of this process through article, response, and counter response. That’s why it already happens.  In the world of political, economic and scientific monthlies and weeklies, the idea would make sense some of the time. This is why it already happens some of the time.  In the cut and thrust of daily newspapers with rolling news on their websites and newsblogs from most of their contributors and journalists it ceases to make any sense whatsoever. So it is not surprising they don’t do it. In the developed world, the days of people reading the same paper in the same way every day are mostly gone [i] , news comes from a variety of stories with readers often following one story through different outlets rather than digesting many stories from one. Where should a correction be posted? Just on the first site to mention it or on all the ones that subsequently pick it up. Does this cover blogs or just outlets that also have a printed edition – and if not, why not? This is an answer to a question nobody is asking.  [i] The Canadian Journalism Project. Belinda Alzner. A quick look at news mediums (sic) and international development. 24 August 2012.


What is a fact – there are few circumstances where this would be of significance.  The line between factual inaccuracy and opinion is pretty slim. What about “Far right politician” statement or comment? The difficulty is that most publications work on the basis that there is a narrative that is already understood in order to function. It’s simply impossible to give the full backstory to everything that goes into print [i] .  The only way to avoid newspapers being constantly full of replies to irrelevant data would be to give a far broader right of reply to the opinions presented or the conclusions draw – the actions where journalism really has its power. Many newspapers already do this out of professional courteousy and respect for the truth, for example the guardian has a ‘Response’ column in its Comment is free section. [ii] The scandal sheets which offer no such facility seem to have only the most tangential reliance on evidence at the best of times so it is unclear how such a law would affect them as they would be likely to resort to assertion even more than they currently do.  The idea of a right of reply is fine in theory but, in reality, it is difficult to see how it would have any real impact on the day to day working of the press. This concern comes before any consideration of how it would work in relation to the more pervasive media of broadcast and online news outlets – or is this punishment to be reserved as the last nail in the coffin of the printed press?  [i] Article III. Jun Bautista. A Right of Reply” Law Violates Press Freedom. 9 February 2009.  [ii] The Guardian, Response


Opposition seem to be arguing, ‘This is difficult, let’s do nothing’ – the rallying call of apathy down the ages. There may well be grounds for a wider right of reply – indeed as most news outlets increasingly favour their online presence many of their practical arguments of the past fall away. The disadvantage of regulation is that it empowers government in relation to the press, litigation favours the wealthy. A right of reply favours the readers as the final arbiter.


The head of no large corporation has complete control of their operations. The head of the BBC almost certainly does not know all the policies and everything that is happening in the BBC’s Persian language division. While the head of the company is ultimately responsible it is unrealistic to believe that they will have such day to day control as everyone seems to believe Murdoch had. Murdoch himself explains “the News of the  World is less than 1% of our company. I employ 53,000 people around the world” and points out that in such a big organisation he has to rely on senior managers. [1] This very lack of control is itself a good thing; it ensures that there is decentralisation with most control at the local level with the individual editors of newspapers and programmes.  [1] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.64


Lack of control  Rupert Murdoch has an immense empire and if we believe his testimony obviously did not have as much control over his publications, or take as much responsibility for them, as he should have done. Murdoch himself has claimed “someone took charge of a cover-up we were victim to and I regret that." This was a cover up within the News of the World and News International that kept Murdoch out of the loop and misinformed on phone hacking, showing that he was unable to keep control over his businesses when he was the one with ultimate responsibility for the actions of that company. [1] The commons culture committee concluded that Murdoch was essentially negligent "at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications." [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Leveson Inquiry: Murdoch admits missing hacking ‘cover-up’, 26 April 2012.  [2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.70


News organisations cannot be completely transparent if they are to do their job properly and News International is no exception. Such organisations cannot for example reveal their sources as this may sometimes put their sources at risk and would mean that others would not come forward. As part of this news companies need to keep secret how they obtained information. While an attempt by a newspaper to cover up crimes is regrettable this one newspapers actions should not tar the whole company and its other papers.


Murdoch is morally unfit to run a powerful media company.  Those running media corporations should be morally upright people who control their media companies in the public interest as these are organisations that potentially have a lot of influence through their control of information. This is however not at all how Rupert Murdoch ran News Corp or his newspapers.  Murdoch has been running his empire in pursuit of power and to advance a right wing agenda. [1] His influence was such that even naturally left wing parties such as New Labour under Tony Blair stuck to right wing or wing orthodoxies in order to keep the support of the Murdoch press. [2] Murdoch was therefore pushing narrow interests rather than the public interest. Murdoch’s News Corporation has shown their lack of moral scruples not just by engaging in industrial scale hacking but also by its determination to use its contacts to close down investigations by parliament or the police as well as being willing to destroy evidence and lie when giving evidence. Tom Watson MP has gone so far as to accuse Murdoch of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise”. [3]  The attitude of the person at the top towards how their company and its staff should conduct themselves informs how they do conduct themselves and engage in their business. It is the owners and the management that create the corporate culture which in Murdoch tabloids meant profits at all costs and doing anything to get a story. [4]  [1] Puttnam, David, ‘News Corporation has sought to undermine elected governments’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012.  [2] Holehouse, Matthew, ‘The Blairs and the Murdochs: a special relationship’, The Telegraph, 22 February 2012.  [3] The Economist, ‘Stringfellows: A British MP’s long-awaited account of investigating the Murdoch empire’, 28 April 2012.  [4] Grayson, David, ‘Phone hacking: what corporate responsibility could have done to stop it’, Guardian Professional, 25 July 2011.


It is unfair to blame the culture in a newspaper, only one among many in Murdoch’s empire, on Rupert Murdoch. With hundreds of publications to control Murdoch would never be able to set corporate culture for every paper. Nor is it correct to accuse Murdoch of running his papers in pursuit of power rather than profit; Murdoch has been unusual in succeeding in recent years in still making profits from selling news. Murdoch is clearly willing to sometimes make losses, as at the Times which loses £42million a year, but this is not because it maximises his power but because it has international prestige as tabloids don’t. [1]  [1] Northedge, Richard, ‘Will Murdoch quit Britain?’ Prospect, 20 July 2011.


There was a lack of transparency in News Corp  The Media’s role is to increase transparency and bring others to account. Murdoch himself in his testimony to Leveson said "If we're a transparent society, a transparent democracy, let's have it out there" yet he has been exactly the opposite in terms of accountability and transparency. [1] The House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has published a report in which it concludes that the culture of the publication, News of the World, was “throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators, as they also professed they would do after the criminal convictions.” [2] The strategy was to blame individuals and when such a containment strategy failed to shut down the News of the World so as to protect top bosses. [3] News International was clearly not living up to high standards of transparency.  [1] Porter, Henry, ‘We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012.  [2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.84  [3] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.67


We should not take Rupert Murdoch’s word for it that he does not seek to influence politicians and does not influence the editorial line of his newspapers. Andrew Neil, a former editor of the Sunday times argues Murdoch "had a quiet, remorseless, sometimes threatening way of laying down the parameters within which you were expected to operate ... stray too far too often from his general outlook and you will be looking for a new job." [1] This may not be complete control of the editorial line but it is certainly influencing it.  [1] B arr, Robert, ‘Praise, scepticism for Murdoch in UK newspapers’, Associated Press, 26 April 2012.


The Sun and the News of the World sold newspapers through sensationalism and sex, not content that was in the public interest. As such Murdoch’s success at selling newspapers should not have any bearing on whether he is a fit person to be in charge of a media corporation.


Having powerful media companies shields them from interference by governments.  An independent media is vital for democracy as it is a necessary check on over powerful politicians and government. The ‘fourth estate’ has a vital oversight function over government ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oath of office and really represent those who elected them. [1] In order for the press to be able to remain independent and able to carry out this function it needs to have powerful backers itself. Murdoch is one such backer. Multinational companies with large holdings spread across numerous countries can much easier resist government pressure than national or local newspapers without such backing as they can continue attacking a government regardless of the pressure an individual government puts upon it as the owners. Murdoch by making politicians dance to his tune was doing exactly what the press is supposed to do; preventing governments from being too powerful by appearing to have some power to bring the government down if necessary. If this translated into too much influence this was the fault of politicians not Mr Murdoch. [2]  [1] Center for Democracy and Governance Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research, ‘The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach’, U.S. Agency for International Development, June 1999, p.3  [2] Wolff, Michael, ‘Rupert Murdoch before the Leveson inquiry’, guardian.co.uk, 23 April 2012.


Murdoch does not seek to influence politics.  It is a myth that Rupert Murdoch influences politics or seeks to get his way with powerful politicians. As Murdoch himself said in the Leverson Inquiry "I've never asked a prime minister for anything.” Instead it is politicians who go out of their way to impress people in the press. Even when it comes to the editorial lines of his newspapers Murdoch did not always influence them, he controlled the Sun but not the stance of the Times. [1]  [1] Holton, Kate and Prodhan, Georgina, ‘Murdoch denies playing puppet master to British elite’, Reuters, 25 April 2012,


Murdoch is effective at selling news  The first criteria for fitness to control a media company should be the ability to bring people the kind of content that they want to consume at a price they are willing to pay. Murdoch is undoubtedly good at this. When he took over the Sun in 1969 the sun was selling just over a million copies a day but by 1976 circulation was up to 3.7 million. [1] Murdoch has been very successful at selling newspapers, a declining industry, and has been supportive of both down market tabloids and quality broadsheets. That the News of the World up to its closure and The Sun have remained Britain’s most popular newspapers shows Murdoch is an effective media proprietor and fit to bring news to the people. If he was not customers would vote with their money.  [1] ‘The newspaper industry’, Monopolies and Mergers Commission, 1985, p.5


Just as with any method of control there need to be checks and balances on the media itself in order to ensure that the media remains honest. As Lord Justice Leveson put it in his opening remarks “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?” [1] Murdoch has presided over a media company and newspapers that have not remained honest and have been too close to the politicians they are meant to be holding in check.  [1] ‘Background’, The Leveson Inquiry.


It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.  If we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.  This leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?  [1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011


Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict  While there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J. Grimm and Roger Finke show that from 2000 to 2007 of 143 countries with populations over 2 million 123 countries (86%) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced because of religious persecution. With more than 10,000 affected in 25 countries. [1] This is because countries with higher levels of government favouritism of religion have a much higher level of social hostilities. [2] It is notable that the propensity for civil war is very high where there is very little religious freedom, for example Afghanistan or Mali, and similarly terrorist groups predominantly come from the same countries. [3] While conflict in other countries may not be considered a problem for other countries in practice when a country falls into civil war, as Libya did in 2011 and Syria in 2012, they become the major foreign policy issues requiring reaction even from powers that are distant from the conflict.  [1] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom.  [2] ‘Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion’, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20 September 2012,    [3] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom


Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where two democracies have fought each other. This is less difficult when considering two religiously tolerant societies. One difficulty would be working out when a society is tolerant when the UK and Argentina fought over the Falklands Argentina was certainly not a democracy but was it particularly intolerant? [1]  It is notable that Europe’s most tolerant period of history prior to the second half of the 20th century was the late 18th century when the enlightenment spread religious tolerance as far as Russia [2] but the French Revolution’s declaration “No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even in religion, provided that their manifestation does not trouble public order as established by law” certainly did not usher in an era of peace. [3]  Finally while the spread of democracy can explain the increase in interstate peace in the modern era it does not have a long history through which it can fall down. However religious tolerance has often been a norm before the idea of an exclusive god came along; Buddhism merged with Shinto and Daoism in Japan and China, the Roman empire regularly added gods from its conquests, and some of the world’s greatest conquerors such as Akbar in India have been open to all religions.  [1] ‘Religious intolerance in Argentina’, Report presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief on the occasion of his visit to Argentina, 6 April 2001  [2] Corwin, Julie, ‘Russia: Catherine The Great’s Lessons On Religious Tolerance’, Radio Free Europe, 30 August 2006  [3] Hunt, Lynn, ‘The enlightenment and the origins of religious toleration’, Burgerhart Lectures, Nummer 4, 2011, p.9


It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat  There is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order. In 1999 Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to religious freedom. Also the Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where “religious freedoms may be suppressed”. [1] All of these are countries are countries which over the next decade were to one way or another become major security concerns and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries. As William Inboden notes “Those actors with the most egregious religious-freedom violations are remarkably consonant with those that pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests... Stated simply: There is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States.” [2] Religious freedom therefore should be much higher up the priority list in terms of foreign policy.  [1] Statement, Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Freedom, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, regarding religious freedom, U.S. Department of State, 6 October 1999, (near the end)  [2] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012


These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition was treated in the same way with beatings and arrests, it was the act of opposition the regime was opposed to not its religious affiliation. In China today it is the organisation that matters – the state is concerned with large organisations like the Catholic Church or Fulan Gong but is happy for its citizens to be Christian, atheist, or Confucian so long as they are not part of a large organisation. [1] With dictatorial regimes the primary concern is the survival of the regime, organised religion is a threat to this, so religion is suppressed and instead a personality cult manufactured. This is only not the case when the existing dominant religion can be coopted to buttress the state which often leads to repression of religious minorities because they become the ones that are a threat.  [1] Gardam, Tim, ‘Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?’, BBC News, 12 September 2011