Opening Address at International Conference on Tolerance and Compassion

Check against delivery

 

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
Dear friends,

It is a great pleasure to welcome you to Oslo and to the House of Literature.

I speak to you today on behalf of the Foreign Minister, who unfortunately had to travel abroad. I bring you his warm regards. Two days ago he addressed young people from 20 different countries at Eidsvoll, also in connection with our celebration of Henrik Wergeland.

How appropriate it is that we – on a day like this – are gathered at the House of Literature. And that this house is situated at Wergelandsveien, named after the poet we are celebrating today.

Henrik Wergeland, who was born 200 years ago and only became 37 years old, holds a very special place in Norwegian hearts, and in our literature, history and society.

Wergeland’s writings – his poems, dramas, history works, and political works – are still an inspiration for many. Throughout his life he fought untiringly for tolerance between religions, freedom through knowledge and education, and equality between nations and social classes.

More than anything, he raised the flag of humanity.

This made him an untiring advocate for the repeal of the article of the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 that banned Jews from entering the country. In one poem, he compares humankind with precious stones with an inner light:

           

            Thus the worth of stones is measured
            By their power to shine, and not that
            Of the sun’s blaze backward shooting
            Coloured blueish, greenish, red. 
            And how determine the true worth
            Among the types of humankind?
            Not according to one’s faith,
            Not in language nor in domicile…

Wergeland’s active social engagement made him many enemies.            

But his active social engagement also won him many supporters, particularly among the less wealthy, among children, among the voiceless. Never was there a longer funeral cortège in the capital than when Henrik Wergeland was laid to rest in 1845.

*****

Henrik Wergeland was a wellspring of commitment, enthusiasm and life. Now, as we mark the 200-year anniversary of his birth, we see that his message is still relevant.

Henrik Wergeland knew the value of freedom of expression and the press, which he called “the most precious diamond in the people’s diadem”. Today, some voices – such as the writer Dag Solstad – are asking whether freedom of expression has gone too far. They are concerned about what might happen if freedom of expression becomes “a holy cow”.

But for Wergeland, freedom of expression and the press was sacred. The right to freedom of expression was set out in paragraph 100 of the Norwegian Constitution of 1814. This has formed the backbone of our culture and democratic traditions. We have upheld the spirit and words of Voltaire: “I disprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

*****

For some years, Wergeland was the publisher of a magazine called For the Poor Man. And he ensured that the 400th anniversary of Gutenberg and the printing press was properly celebrated. In “For Freedom of the Press” he rhetorically asks:

Can the source of the spirit, the flight of thought,

Bear to be restrained?

Throughout his life, Wergeland used his pen in the fight for social and political justice for everyone, for more openness in society.

He knew that freedom of the press is not concerned with protecting the powerful, but with defending and protecting diversity.

He knew that his poetry – and art in general – had real power to build bridges and change attitudes, and thus bring about change in society at large.

He understood that respect for the capabilities of every human cannot be envisaged without freedom of expression.

And he knew that a world free of discrimination, corruption, persecution and suppression can only be envisaged where there is freedom of expression.

*****

In all democratic countries, access to information is a basic, institutionalised right. Where there is free and open communication, and peaceful exchange of differing views, there will be tolerance of diversity.

If you are unable to express a different opinion it is also difficult to develop your own opinions. The consequences can be desperation and violence.

Article 19 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression.”

A democratic society depends on freedom of expression. Through the free exercise of freedom of expression, other rights – such as the right to food and the right to freedom from discrimination – are protected.

But Article 19 also emphasises that the exercise of this right “carries with it special duties and responsibilities”. And Article 20 sets out that: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

*****

Hatred. Racism. Discrimination. These are some of the factors that restrict freedom of expression. But they are also sentiments expressed through the use of freedom of expression. We should not shy away from this simple fact.

And sometimes the line between the two becomes blurred. We discover that – even here – the world is not always black and white.

Today, living in a globalised world, we frequently find that what some people consider harmless and amusing, others find deeply offensive.

During what has come to be known as the “cartoon crises”, we all learned that expressions made in one context could be interpreted quite differently in another.

So together with Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, Norway initiated the Global Inter-Media Dialogue. We invited editors and journalists from across the globe to discuss the issues that the printing of the cartoons had raised.

And we found a diversity of opinion among Muslim editors – as among editors in Norway.

*****

It is clear that freedom of expression cannot be exercised in isolation without taking other human rights into account. It has to be balanced with respect for the diversity of our multicultural world. This will continue to be a challenge for all of us.

It is my sincere opinion that we can all learn more and become more sensitive towards each other, without becoming passive or weak, and without imposing self-censorship.

Because this is not about imposing self-censorship. It is about respecting the person you disagree with – while retaining your own self-respect.

*****

Dialogue does not mean giving up your opinions or principles. Dialogue means listening to what the other person is saying and trying to learn something new. Even about yourself.

We need to make the case that freedom of expression is an essential value that bridges different cultures and languages, and geographical, political and religious divides.

The challenge is finding a way to deal with fundamental disagreements or differences.

So our debate also needs to look at how we can distinguish between expressions that seek only to degrade, humiliate and dehumanise, and those that seek to provide information and viewpoints, even though these may be painful, troubling or controversial. Finding the right balance is a daily responsibility of editors, journalists and writers.

*****

Power is an important factor. Expressions of hatred are targeted at vulnerable groups in society – the minorities, the voiceless and powerless. While legitimate dissent is aimed at the wielders of power.

Wergeland, who always spoke on behalf of the powerless, the voiceless, knew this.

This, in my view, is one of the reasons why the recent increase in the number and severity of defamation laws is a worrying trend. Defamation laws tend to protect those in power. Moreover, much of what is viewed as defamation through the lens of these laws is in fact legitimate dissent.

Also on this, I believe Wergeland would have agreed.

*****

During armed conflicts, when journalists are more important than ever, freedom of information and of expression is usually the first casualty. Control of information easily becomes a weapon in itself. And self-censorship is triggered by threats and a climate of impunity.

Jamming radio transmitters, confiscating newspapers or books, introducing new laws that force the media to reveal their sources, bombing the offices of the independent press or threatening advertisers – there seems to be no limits of the creativity displayed in the attempt to silence free critics of some regimes.

In many situations and countries today, picking up your pen or shooting a film can entail as great a risk as firing an actual weapon. Speaking the truth in the face of power is dangerous. It is dangerous for those in power; it is dangerous for journalists; and it can be dangerous for the people interviewed.

Last year, 86 journalists and 20 other media workers were killed. This is a dramatic increase compared with five years ago, and the highest figure since 1994.

But reporters do not have to be working in a war zone to be at risk. Mexican investigative journalist Lydia Cacho, this year’s UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize laureate, has been the target of death threats, sabotage and police harassment because of her work uncovering prostitution and child pornography rings.

Threats to journalists undermine our society as a whole – at local level, at national level and ultimately at international level. Because silencing journalists strangles the flow of information. Lack of information breeds ignorance. Ignorance creates misunderstanding and mistrust. And mistrust, as we know, breeds conflict.

Thus, ladies and gentlemen, I hope this conference will continue to challenge the ideas we have of “us” and “them”, and seek to ensure that they are never become set in stone.

*****

By far the most important test case for freedom of speech this year will be the Olympics in Beijing. The international community has a responsibility to react when human rights and press freedoms are violated, wherever the violations take place.

In the beginning of May this year, many of you present here today started a countdown-campaign a hundred days before the Olympics with the slogan “One dream: Free Expression in China”. I share your dream.

*****

And so the question we should ask is simple, yet challenging: What can be done to strengthen freedom of expression?

In April this year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs pledged that Norway will intensify its efforts – and seek to be more strategic – in promoting freedom of expression.

We will use all possible channels to ensure that impunity does not prevail when journalists and writers are threatened and harassed.

When the UN General Assembly meets this autumn, we will be celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

In the spirit of Wergeland and of brave journalists and writers of today, Norway will work to ensure that freedom of expression is given the focus it deserves.