Welcome address at Primetime for diversity: Journalism in a troubled world

Check against delivery

 

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

We meet again. More than one year after the cartoon controversy, almost one year after the first Global Inter-Media Dialogue in Bali, we are gathering for another dialogue on journalism, ethics, freedom of expression, and the media’s role in a globalised world.

On behalf of the Norwegian Government, heartily welcome to Oslo. On behalf of the Indonesian and Norwegian authorities, welcome to the second Global Inter-Media Dialogue.

Let me thank the representatives of the media for their contribution to shaping the agenda and selecting the speakers of this meeting. This is your meeting – our meeting, together.

What has happened since Bali last September? What are the challenges we are facing now? What have we learned?

We have learned new lessons about interdependency.

And I believe it has been re-confirmed that when we face problems or disagreements, our political impulses must be to seek solutions through dialogue.

One-sided victory is rarely relevant and seldom sustainable. We cannot build a good future through a vision of destroying our neighbours. We cannot ignore their interests. Doing so would ultimately bring suffering to ourselves.

Dialogue is important because we depend on others, even those we do not like. Even those we do not trust or do not understand.

For some years, a dominant mantra in international politics has been “us against them”. “Either you are with us – or you are against us.”

Perhaps we are now witnessing a change. Perhaps we are seeing a return to the method of engagement and the fundamental value-based dialogue – where I do not renounce my interests, but where I see them best served by pursuing common ground, interdependence and mutual opportunity.

This is why we need to meet and talk, not necessarily to agree, but to understand. Not to compromise on fundamental values and principles, but to seek bridges.

When faced with the differences that divide us, we have learned that it is harder to condemn someone we know.

It is more difficult to maintain one-dimensional, unnuanced images of people we have met. The complexity of the other’s situation, as well as our own, becomes clearer to us when we meet face to face. It is no longer so easy to simplify the facts or the other’s reasoning.

One of the new challenges is how we define our neighbour. It might have been easier before, when our neighbours were the people living next door.

Now we are learning that our neighbours could be anyone. A person living continents away can infringe upon our lives. This means that the search for truth and objectivity becomes more challenging, less obvious, less easy to recognise.

And even the neighbour who does live next door might be more of a stranger to us than just a few decades ago. Living here in Oslo, we may find out that he was born in Poland or that she grew up in Afghanistan.

As our neighbourhood changes, we need to rediscover who we are. We are quick to use words like “we” and “us”, assuming that we speak for everyone.

Yet we are learning that sometimes these words can exclude rather than include. Diversity is a key word. It is primetime for diversity.

In Norway, as in many other countries, we need to shape a new “us” or a new “we”.

A “we” that includes all of our countrymen and -women. A “we” that can be adjusted as we change and develop. A “we” that is flexible, yet still has real content. A “we” that knows what is fundamental – or sacred - and is not to be compromised, while allowing itself to be challenged by new ideas.

And so we are learning about ourselves, we need to acknowledge diversity – but we are also reminded of what our fundamental values are: solidarity, equality, democracy, justice and human rights.

In recent months we have had to ask ourselves new questions.

Have we given enough attention to all the various forms of human rights violations? Have we been persistent enough in defending the freedom of religion of minorities?

Have we failed to fully protect the freedom of speech of believers with the result that we do not understand mind-sets different from our own?

We need to take a clear stand and protect believers under threat in whatever context, as these vary. In some places, they are Ahmadiyyas or non-believers, in other places they are Christians. Shots were fired at the Jewish synagogue in Oslo last year.

And we hear, time and again, that some of the Muslims in our society feel left out, estranged, judged. This is why we need a new extended, inclusive “we”. It is primetime for diversity. 

We know very well that those who belong to the majority in one setting could easily be in a minority in another, and vice versa. Lutheran Christians for instance. We are not a majority in many parts of the world, but we are a solid majority in Norway.

There are about 130 000 Muslims, 46 000 Roman Catholics and 1 300 Jews in Norway, and yet we are fully aware that in most other places on this planet, any of these groups will easily outnumber the Lutherans.

We need credible protection of all human rights, for religious as well as cultural and other minorities. For the sake of the individual, but also for the sake of our societies as a whole.

The minorities in our city are part of large international communities. These communities can watch us closely, to see whether we are treating their sisters and brothers with respect or not. They are powerful friends.

And as regards individuals who do not have powerful friends, communities that are not in the majority anywhere, we need to reach out and let them feel included. We must be all the more credible defenders of their rights. 

*****

Friends,

In the aftermath of the cartoon controversy, we have had to realise that the world community interprets freedom of religion in significantly different ways.

Some claim that freedom of religion implies protection of religions. Others, like the Norwegian authorities, claim that freedom of religion protects believers.

We believe that we must protect individuals and their right to practice their religion, to live and learn according to their convictions. At this point in time, however, we realise that others do not fully agree with us in this matter.

We have also come to see more clearly that freedom of expression needs to be constantly restated. We know that a democratic society depends on a free press and on freedom of expression.

In fact, the very test of democracy is the freedom of criticism. Unpleasant though it may be to be criticised, criticism does testify to a functioning democracy and true freedom of expression.

We want freedom of expression and freedom of the press. We want people who are able to think for themselves and who express their contempt and criticism freely.

This does not imply indifference or relativism.

And yet freedom of expression cannot be absolute. No freedom can be - since we have responsibilities as individuals and as states.

Freedom of expression is subject to restrictions with reference to human rights [i.e. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights].

States have an international obligation to take action against incitement to racial and religious hatred. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall not be allowed by law.

Freedom of expression protects. It is not a licence to incite violence. It is a licence to write, to report, to record, to tell, using words and pictures. 

***** 

Freedom of expression faces many challenges today: new anti-terrorist legislation and state secrecy laws, increasing use of defamation laws, media censorship, self-censorship and media biases.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has noted that since 9/11, several states have adopted laws that undermine the freedom of expression. Restrictions on freedom of expression have multiplied all over the world, very often on the grounds of national security. This trend is based on and upheld by fear and threats of violence. This we need to question.

Minority groups who have been labelled “terrorists” are under pressure – in the Caucasus, in Western Eurasia, in Central and Southern Europe, and in Latin America and Asia. Some countries have passed laws with very broad definitions of “terrorist organisations”. Other countries define criticism of public officials as “extremism”. This too, we need to question.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism has noted that the legitimate struggle against terrorism has led to new forms of racial discrimination. We are looking forward to listening to Mr Doudou Diène later on today. 

We have also seen examples of how hate speech legislation and blasphemy laws may be abused to limit freedom of expression.

In many cases, such laws do not protect people against racism, abuses or extremism, but rather silence the opposition, the minorities and the dissenting voices. In my view, this is also a concern with regard to the recent UN Human Rights’ Council resolution against defamation of religion.

We know that nowhere is “far away” anymore – and that the media have deadlines all the time.

We have learned that our words are immediately heard and interpreted, and give rise to new words, actions and emotions, often in quite different contexts.

We are learning about responsibility and truth in a new way.

And we are slowly realising that newspapers may become less important, as the internet, blogs, YouTube, FaceBook, Myspace and other arenas evolve.

But journalism will prevail. Answers to the whats, the wheres, the whos and the whens are available to more and more people. They are not exclusively being found by trained journalists.

But journalists still have to take a lead role in searching for sound and informed answers; and they have to go further, looking for the hows and the whys on the basis of these key values: truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. Nothing less.

We do not need new procedures. We just need to sustain and continuously reinterpret the old ideals of journalism as the new and the unexpected arise.  

*****

As information flows over borders, we can no longer think of our press as an independent entity. The quality of the information we acquire here depends on the quality of the international media.

This is why we need to work for global standards. Media quality is – by definition – a global issue and a big issue.

When market forces dictate what can be published, when there is no time for analysis, when there is no real information, only sensation and random facts, we become impoverished. Our decisions and analyses become fragile.

To take one example: the fact that Gazprom owns a large share of the Russian press has an effect on us; one stakeholder can claim to present the truth. Can democracy contend with that?

Friends,

Albert Camus once said: “A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom – a press will never be anything but bad.” 

This is why we are gathered today. To do our utmost to ensure that the press is free. And, in this troubled world, I salute your efforts.

Freedom of the media is probably one of the most celebrated freedoms. Why? Because it is not about protecting the voice of the powerful or the voice of consensus. Freedom of the media is concerned with defending and protecting diversity.

When the media report abuses and violations committed by governments or parties in a conflict, when the media raise questions and give voices to minorities, to the “other side”, then the media are performing their most vital and long-standing function.

It happens that journalists become human rights defenders through their work – when writing about the causes of minority groups, when covering demonstrations arranged by the opposition, when asking critical questions, when discovering the use of torture in prisons. When they take great personal risks in their search for information, for the truth.

And when they are reporting injustice in certain places, journalists may have to “cross the line” – and then they prefer to be as visible as possible.

This is a major concern. But we should stand with them, provide a platform, a microphone, a network and safeguard their visibility.

*****

So – dear human rights defenders, reporters, friends,

Let me conclude by quoting Harry Belafonte’s famous line – “You can cage the singer but not the song.” Some of you here today have first hand knowledge of the cage, and yet you keep singing.

The voice and words of Anna Politkovskaya were silenced. We would have expected a proper investigation and prosecution. Yet there was neither, and we are left guessing. This is a worrying and deeply troubling sign.

Journalism is indeed struggling in a troubled world. However, to all of you: good luck with this conference, and with the singing.