human rights of speech

Give your feedback to help us improve our website This is the new Equality and Human Rights Commission website

• Article 10: Freedom of expression

Published: 3 June 2021

Last updated: 3 June 2021

On this page

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions, restrictions to the right to freedom of expression, using this right – example, what the law says, pages in this guide.

• The Human Rights Act
• Article 2: Right to life
• Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
• Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour
• Article 5: Right to liberty and security
• Article 6: Right to a fair trial
• Article 7: No punishment without law
• Article 8: Respect for your private and family life
• Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion
• Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association
• Article 12: Right to marry
• Article 14: Protection from discrimination
• Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property
• Article 1 of Protocol 13: Abolition of the death penalty
• Article 2 of the First Protocol: Right to education
• Article 3 of the First Protocol: Right to free elections

What countries does this apply to?

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

• published articles, books or leaflets
• television or radio broadcasting
• works of art
• the internet and social media

The law also protects your freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine.

Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.

Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

• protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
• prevent disorder or crime
• protect health or morals
• protect the rights and reputations of other people
• prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
• maintain the authority and impartiality of judges

An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred.

However, the relevant public authority must show that the restriction is ‘proportionate’, in other words that it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned.  

This right is particularly important for journalists and other people working in the media.

They must be free to criticise the government and our public institutions without fear of prosecution – this is a vital feature of a democratic society.

But that doesn't prevent the state from imposing restrictions on the media in order to protect other human rights, such as a person's right to respect for their private life .

Example case - Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom [1991]

The Guardian and The Observer newspapers published excerpts from Peter Wright’s book Spycatcher, which included allegations that MI5 had acted unlawfully.

The government obtained a court order preventing the newspapers from printing further material until proceedings relating to a breach of confidence had finished.

But when the book was published, The Guardian complained that the continuation of the court order infringed the right to freedom of expression.

The European Court of Human Rights said that the court order was lawful because it was in the interests of national security.

However, it also said that that wasn't enough reason to continue the newspaper publication ban once the book had been published, because the information was no longer confidential anyway. 

This text is taken directly from the Human Rights Act .

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Page updates

3 June 2021

Last updated:

Was this page useful? Yes No

Thank you for your feedback

Help us to improve this website

Why isn't this page helpful.

Please tell us more about why this page is not helpful. We can't reply, so, if you need help with a problem, find out where to go for advice.

Do not include personal information such as e-mail, telephone number or address.

What kind of problem are you experiencing on this page?

Stay informed.

Sign up to receive our email newsletter for the latest news, legal action and guidance.

Accessibility

All popular browsers allow zooming in and out by pressing the Ctrl (Cmd in OS X) and + or - keys. Or alternatively hold down the Ctrl key and scroll up or down with the mouse.

Line height

• Amnesty International UK / Issues

What is freedom of speech?

'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'

Is freedom of speech a human right?

In the UK, Article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act protects our right to freedom of expression:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Are freedom of speech and freedom of expression the same thing? In the UK, freedom of speech is legally one part of the wider concept of freedom of expression.

Does freedom of speech have limits?

...and when it can't.

ANTI-PROTEST LAWS IN THE UK

Protest is not only a human right. It is a powerful way to change the world ✊🏽 People in power, afraid of change & afraid to be held accountable, want us to think that coming together to protect our rights doesn’t work. 🧵 5 protests that show #PeoplePower can win human rights — Amnesty UK (@AmnestyUK) August 23, 2023

Checks and balances

National security and public order.

RIGHT TO PROTEST IN THE UK

Rights and reputations of others

Media and journalists, whistleblowers, rights and responsibilities.

FREE COURSE

• Use your voice to stand up for human rights
• Learn more about protest rights in the UK
• Join our FREE course on freedom of expression
• Help us protect our right to protest in the UK

While you’re here…

Like you, we are horrified by the violence and the civilian death toll in Gaza, Israel and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We’re calling for an immediate ceasefire by all parties in the occupied Gaza Strip and Israel to prevent further loss of civilian lives. Amnesty International is investigating mass summary killings, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, hostage-taking, and siege tactics.

As ever, our mission to protect human rights remains. Please donate today to help expose war crimes and protect human rights. Thank you.

• Skip to global NPS navigation
• Skip to this park navigation
• Skip to the main content
• Skip to this park information section
• Skip to the footer section

Exiting nps.gov

Alerts in effect, eleanor roosevelt and the universal declaration of human rights.

Last updated: June 25, 2020

Park footer

Contact info, mailing address:.

4097 Albany Post Road Hyde Park, NY 12538

845-229-9422 For Information about the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites.

Stay Connected

• Infographics
• Inspired Source
• Visions of Human Rights
• Our Spotlights
• British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) Guest Blog
• Our funders
• How to pitch to us
• Contact EachOther
• Support Everyone, Support EachOther

What we write about

• Discrimination
• Environment
• Immigration
• Institutions
• Young People
• Black Lives Matter
• Fighting Hate with Rights
• Hostile Environment
• Reforming the Gender Recognition Act
• School Exclusions
• Sex Workers Rights
• The History Of Rights – HIV And AIDs In The UK
• Uncovering Period Poverty
• Why the Human Rights Act is crucial for the UK
• Young People and Mental Health

More than news

• EachOther's Comics
• EachOther's Videos

Explore EachOther

• About EachOther
• Commission EachOther
• Pitch to EachOther
• Our social media house rules

• Corrections & Complaints
• Privacy Policy
• Using Our Content

6 Human Rights Speeches That Changed The World

Words are powerful things. Put in the hands of skilful orators they have the ability to inspire, heal and rally vast swathes of people. And what could be more worth rallying for than the inherent dignity and equal rights of ‘ all members of the human family’ (AKA, our human rights) ? 

These six speakers advocate for equality, freedom, and dignity. But above all, what connects them is their belief in the power of free speech, and that their own voice can make a difference – and they did.

• Hundreds of inspirational human rights quotes

1. Eleanor Roosevelt, The Struggle for Human Rights, 1948

Let’s start off with the first lady of human rights – Eleanor Roosevelt with her famous 1948 speech ‘The Struggle for Human Rights’

We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.

Check her out in action here:

2. Martin Luther King, I Have A Dream, 1963

Moving on to one of the most recognisable speeches of the 20 th Century – Martin Luther King Jnr in 1963 ‘I Have A Dream.’

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

His delivery brings his words off the page:

3. Emmeline Pankhurst, Freedom or Death, 1913

Great speeches have a habit of connecting to times of strife. The struggle for women’s suffrage is littered with powerful speeches denouncing inequality – here is one of the most famous from Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913, ‘Freedom or Death,’

Human life for us is sacred, but we say if any life is to be sacrificed it shall be ours; we won’t do it ourselves, but we will put the enemy in the position where they will have to choose between giving us freedom or giving us death.

If you want to listen to it, check out this reading of it:

4. Harold Macmillan, The Wind of Change, 1960

Sometimes the location of a speech underlines its impact. Here Harold Macmillan is addressing the South African Parliament about racial discrimination and slavery in his 1960 ‘The Wind of Change’ speech.

The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.

Check out Harold in full flow here:

5. Nelson Mandela, I Am Prepared To Die, 1964

Four years later in 1964 in the same country, Nelson Mandela was on trial on charges of sabotage and made the following speech from the dock:

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Here is Mr Mandela using the court room as his megaphone:

6. Elie Wiesel, The Perils of Indifference

We’ll end with a personal favourite. Here is Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor addressing President Clinton in 1999 talking about ‘The Perils of Indifference.’

Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.

Watch the full 20 minutes here:

These are just a small selection of powerful speeches, which speeches would you put in your top ten?

• Check out our guest post on ‘Free Speech and Why it Matters’ 
• For more on freedom of expression and why it matters, read our Explainer here. 
• To read about why we should continue to fight for our freedoms, read RightsInfo’s director’s opinion post, ‘ Evil Progresses Cunningly ‘. 

Harold Macmillan image ©  Chetham’s Library , and Wikimedia used under Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic Licence.

About the author.

Anna Dannreuther is a barrister at Field Court Chambers practising in public, employment, and commercial law. She is a trans ally and has worked extensively on human rights issues, including at the European Court of Human Rights and with NGO partners.

Latest News

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Speech on Human Rights

Human Rights Speech

Human Rights are the most basic rights which are bestowed on each and every individual. These human rights take up their action rights from the birth of these individuals till their death do them apart with their own rights. Every other human on this planet, irrespective of their caste, religion, creed, gender, nationality, social status or color are entitled to these rights. While their rights are being protected by respective country laws.

To demonstrate the rights and the freedoms of these human beings, a historical document known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), was set up in the year of 1948. This was indeed the first international agreement on the basic principles of human rights.

Long Speech on Human Rights

Greetings and salutations to all the students and the respected teachers and staff members present,

Today the speech I am about to deliver is about the basic human rights that we deserve. At times, our rights are defined as mere privileges, but I would agree with this notion that our rights are described as to be something more than basic privileges. In simpler words, the entitlement of the fundamental rights which are conferred on every individual is called human rights.

We are born with these rights that are present until our death. All the humans surviving on this planet are entitled to these rights. These rights prove to be effective for each and all, irrespective of the fact of who they are or where they come from or how they choose to live. The reason why these rights are formed is to protect anyone who wants to harm or to violate someone. These human rights give people the freedom to live and to express themselves as to how they want to. Everyone deserves to be themselves and this is supported by human rights.

After the enormous loss of life, caused during World War II, the United Nations signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in the year 1948 on the 10th of December, this was initiated to propose a common understanding for everyone’s rights. Even in the present times, the world is always being sculpted based on freedom, justice and peace which are the rights themselves.

Hence, the 10th of December is celebrated as International Human Rights Day which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human Rights Include – 

Right to life and liberty

Protection from torture

Fair trials 

Freedom of expression, religion, peaceful assembly

Human Rights are inclusive of many other rights, as we deepen our thoughts the circle will get bigger. Economic, social and cultural rights cover rights which are namely the right to education, housing and health facilities. All these available resources are required to be utilized by the government to achieve them. Treaties are formed to protect the rights of women, children, refugees, the LGBTQ+ society, minorities, the disabled and domestic workers.

All the various principles, declarations and guidelines have been adopted by the United Nations with these treaties to enhance the meaning of these few rights. The UN Human Rights Committee and the UN special rapporteurs are the international institutions that are responsible for interpreting these human rights treaties and monitoring the compliance.

This is the duty of the government who themselves implement international human rights. This is the duty of the government to protect and promote human rights by barring these violations by the officials or stand, also punishing offenders. Also, while creating ways for the citizen to seek help to breach their rights. This is itself a human right violation if a country fails to initiate any step against the private individuals who abuse domestic violence.

Human Rights are Classified as 

Natural rights

Legal rights

Social welfare rights

Ethnic rights

Positive and negative rights

Individual rights

Claim and liberty rights

2 Minutes Speech on Human Rights

Good morning to everyone,

The term human rights are defined as the right to live, liberty, equality and deliver respect for any human being. Our Constitution has a section that follows the Rights and the Fundamental Rights, that provides the people of the nation with their own fundamental rights.

The fundamental rights are the basic human rights of every single citizen of the country, irrespective of their caste, background, their religion, colour, status or their sex. Between the years 1957 to 1949, the sections were very vital elements that were added to the Constitution.

In India, there are six fundamental or human rights that are Right to Freedom, Right to equality, Right against exploitation, Right to Freedom of Religion, Culture and educational rights and Right to seek Constitutional Remedies.

Internationally on the violation of the international human rights or violation of the humanitarian laws or crimes against us, the humanity, the government of a country prosecute the individual, or this can be done by another country as well under the “universal jurisdiction”.

10 Lines on Human Rights Speech in English

There are almost 40 million children who suffer from abuse who should be covered with human rights.

Worldwide, more than 3,00,000 children under the age of 18 are also being exploited, this calls for human rights.

There are around 246 million child laborers worldwide, which is a violation of human rights.

Throughout our history, women have been restricted from exercising their own rights.

Access to the internet was declared one of the basic human rights by the UN in 2011.

Twenty-one million people all over the world were the victims of forced labor.

Leisure and holiday guaranteed with pay is a right for everyone.

In four countries death penalties have been abolished by the year 2015.

In the country of South Africa, a celebration of Human Rights Day takes place on 21st March to pay respect to the Sharpeville massacre.

Domestic violence in many countries is still not considered a crime.

Human Rights are such rights that we deserve to get right from our birth. Many people are not quite aware of their basic rights, in that situation awareness of the same is required so that the people can live an unbiased life.

FAQs on Speech on Human Rights

1. Explain the following rights in brief 

(i)  Right to practice our religion

(ii) Right to speak our language

(i) Right to practice our religion means every human being has the independence to live their religion without any restrictions. This is considered as a fundamental right. The article 25-28 of the Indian constitution guarantees this right. Acc. to this right, all religions are treated equally and the citizens of the country are given equal rights to practice their religion. One of the popular Act related to practicing a particular religion is the 'freedom of religion Act' passed in 1968 in the state of madhya pradesh. This act was passed under the governance of congress. This act also promotem converting yourself from one religion to another. This act had terms and conditions which made sure about the security of the individual. One of the important terms related to this act says that 'no individual must be forced to convert from one religion to another' and must have the freedom to live his culture in our society. 

(ii) The right to speak our language is one of the most important rights in the constitution. Linguistic rights are considered as human and civil rights. This right provides the freedom to choose the language the citizen wants to speak. When linguistic rights are combined with human rights, it makes up linguistic human rights. These linguistic human rights include the right to learn different languages including foreign languages. All of the linguistic human rights are language rights but the vice versa is not true. There are some articles that provide linguistic rights are 

Article 10 

2. What are the advantages of giving human rights to the citizens?

  Providing citizens with Human rights helps in the following ways :

Human rights oppose discrimination and helps in spreading equality among the citizen of the country.

Human rights contribute to making the constitution fair.

It helps in proper classification of the group of people on the basis of different languages, places, sex etc. But, human rights provide independence to practice language, religion etc. 

It also helps to enhance the diversity of the country.

The main aim of providing human rights is to empower the citizens to do their desired work. 

It helps in the overall development of the country. Human rights encourage modernisation and growth.

3. Explain the 'right to education' and its merits.

The right to education is a human right that empowers the citizen to gain education without being stopped by anyone. The right to education act was passed by the parliament on 4 August 2009. It encourages educating children on a mass level. It provides the right to free and compulsory education for all. This right is responsible for increasing the literacy rate of India. Also, it makes the citizens aware about their rights. As it promotes literacy, it also contributes in modernisation and growth of the country.

4. Which part of the system cares about human rights?

In India, human rights were established by NHRC National Human Rights Commission). Since then, the government has the responsibility to ensure the proper implementation of various human rights. Government divided this function into different branches of the constitution. The judiciary holds the constitutional responsibility to protect human rights in India. It protects and studies the situations related to human rights. Along with this, it decides the distribution of human rights. For example - every citizen gets equal human rights. But, distribution of human rights on the basis of needs is done by the judiciary. The parliament has the power to approve or pass the bills related to human rights. Further, the Supreme Court and High Courts hold the power to take action and look after the proper distribution and implementation of human rights. Therefore, the department of human rights is managed by the government and not any private organization.

5. What are the drawbacks of human rights?

 Following are points the drawbacks related of human rights :

In underdeveloped countries or remote areas, many people are still unaware about their rights. This proves that distribution of human rights is not 100% possible in the present scenario.

Human rights acts and organizations need a huge amount of monetary funds.

Corruption leads to lack of human rights. This also disturbes the proper working of the system.

Human rights are still not able to uplift the position of females in society. As a result of this, most of the higher posts are occupied by men and this gives rise to inequality. 

Sometimes, human rights do not prove to be helpful for all the citizens at the same time. 

Human rights acts take a long time to get passed and approved by the parliament. This makes implementation of new human rights difficult.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How Eleanor Roosevelt Pushed for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights

By: Becky Little

Updated: July 13, 2023 | Original: December 8, 2020

“The future must see the broadening of human rights throughout the world,” Eleanor Roosevelt told a crowd in September 1948 at the Sorbonne in Paris. “People who have glimpsed freedom will never be content until they have secured it for themselves… People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial.”

Roosevelt was there to speak about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , a document whose drafting she’d overseen at the newly-formed United Nations . The U.N. adopted the document that year on December 10, a date now commemorated as Human Rights Day.

The rights enumerated in the declaration were controversial among the U.N.’s member nations, and remain so today. It proclaimed, among other rights, that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” The former First Lady fought hard to make the declaration comprehensive and later wrote that she considered it “my most important task” during her years at the U.N.

Preventing War by Supporting Human Rights

The 51 countries that founded the U.N. did so in October 1945, just a couple of months after the end of World War II . In the wake of two world wars and the first nuclear bomb attacks , and in the midst of a global refugee crisis, many feared that a more destructive World War III was right around the corner. The U.N. was founded at a time when people like Eleanor Roosevelt wanted to avoid such a disaster and address human rights as a way of preventing war.

President Harry Truman appointed Roosevelt to the U.S. delegation to the U.N. at the end of 1945. By then, she was well-known in the U.S. and abroad. As First Lady during Franklin D. Roosevelt ’s administration from 1933 to 1945, she championed poverty alleviation, access to education and civil rights, and traveled to the European and Pacific front lines of World War II. In April 1946, she became chair of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and took on the task of drafting a human rights declaration for the world.

Why FDR Didn’t Support Eleanor Roosevelt’s Anti‑Lynching Campaign

President Franklin D. Roosevelt feared losing Southern support for his New Deal legislation.

FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt’s Children: Who Were They?

Franklin Roosevelt’s children offered physical, emotional and political support throughout his presidency.

Eleanor Roosevelt’s Work to Oppose Japanese Internment 

The first lady did what she could to support Japanese Americans during WWII—without appearing to defy FDR's Executive Order 9066.

Roosevelt’s ideas about human rights and the need to work toward global peace were heavily influenced by her experiences during the two world wars. On the home front, she served food to World War I soldiers and “took the lead in making the federal government address shell-shocked sailors who were trapped in straight jackets in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in D.C.,” says Allida Black, a scholar at UVA’s Miller Center for Public Affairs and editor emeritus of GWU’s Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project .

She saw firsthand the death and devastation in Europe caused by the First and Second World Wars and continued to witness it during her U.N. appointment. In a column published in February 1946, she wrote about her visit to the Zeilsheim displaced persons camp in Germany. After meeting Jewish people who had survived the Holocaust , she reflected : “When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?”

Crafting a Declaration for All People

Creating the Universal Declaration for Human Rights was no easy task, given that nations like the U.S. and the Soviet Union couldn’t agree on what human rights were. Working on it required winning over people who disliked and disagreed with her like Republican John Foster Dulles, a U.S. delegate to the U.N. General Assembly who had protested the Democratic First Lady’s appointment. Roosevelt appealed to his Catholicism to get his support for including economic and social rights—which many U.S. conservatives disparaged as “communist”—in the declaration. And it worked.

“So the most hawkish Republican teams up with Eleanor Roosevelt to go to Harry Truman and the secretary of State to say, ‘We must have economic and social rights in this document; people must have access to food, they must have access to shelter, they must have access to education,’” Black says. “Imagine that.”

Hansa Mehta, a U.N. delegate from the newly-independent country of India and the only other woman on the Commission on Human Rights, also played a significant role in shaping the declaration. She is the one who suggested changing the declaration’s original language in the first article from “All men are born free and equal” to “All human beings are born free and equal,” says Blanche Wiesen Cook , a professor of history and women’s studies at CUNY and author of a three - volume biography of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Even though the declaration wasn’t a binding, enforceable treaty, it served as a model for legislation in many countries. After its adoption, Roosevelt continued to promote and speak about the declaration and the importance of human rights.

“She was very proud of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and she thought that it would be quickly followed by binding covenants,” Cook says. “But she died in 1962 and the covenants weren’t even ready then, and the U.S. didn’t sign the civil and political rights covenant until George Herbert Walker Bush ratified it when the Soviet Union collapsed .”

The United States has not yet ratified the treaty’s economic and social rights covenant .

HISTORY Vault: World War II

Stream World War II series and specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Search the United Nations

27 february 2023, un secretary-general's remarks to the 52nd session of the human rights council, antónio guterres.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 75 years ago. The Declaration described, for the first time, entitlements that apply to everyone, everywhere, always. The most translated document in the world, its English version is just 1300 words long. But all human life is there. […] As we celebrate the impact of the [Declaration], our worst enemy is complacency. We must continue to make human rights real in the lives of people everywhere.

[Bilingual, as delivered; scroll further down for all-French and all-English]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 75 years ago.  

The Declaration described, for the first time, entitlements that apply to everyone, everywhere, always.

The most translated document in the world, its English version is just 1300 words long.

But all human life is there.  

The Universal Declaration sets out the rights to life, liberty and security; to equality before the law; to freedom of expression; to seek asylum; to work, to healthcare and education, and more.   

But as we mark its 75th anniversary, the Universal Declaration is under assault from all sides.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered the most massive violations of human rights we are living today.

It has unleashed widespread death, destruction and displacement.

Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure have caused many casualties and terrible suffering.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented dozens of cases of conflict-related sexual violence against men, women and girls.

And serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law against prisoners of war – and hundreds of cases of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions of civilians – were also documented.

Unfortunately, the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which should be our common blueprint, is too often misused and abused.

It is exploited for political gain; and it is ignored – often by the very same people.

Some governments chip away at it. Others use a wrecking ball.

And today’s public disregard and private disdain for human rights are a wake-up call.

This is a moment to stand on the right side of history.

A moment to stand up for the human rights of everyone, everywhere.

We must revitalize the Universal Declaration and ensure its full implementation to face the new challenges of today and tomorrow.

My Call to Action for Human Rights, launched three years ago in this chamber, is the blueprint.

Human rights are not a luxury that can be left until we find a solution to the world’s other problems.

They are the solution to many of the world’s other problems.

From the climate emergency to the misuse of technology, the answers to today’s crises are found in human rights.

Human rights are innate to being human.

The Hindu Vedas, the Ancient Chinese Analects of Confucius, the Bible and the Koran all set out very similar duties and rights.

The Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a cornerstone of the French Revolution in 1789, set out rights to liberty, property, to freedom of speech, the press and religion.

But these rights extended exclusively to men who were citizens – not to women, slaves, or minorities. When a French women’s rights activist published a parody of the men-only revolution, she was tried and executed for treason.

Less than ninety years [later], in 1875, my maternal grandfather was born.

He was an important role model and an inspiration throughout my life --a man who told me so much about his experiences that they became part of my own memories.

When he was born, the colonial project, based on massive human rights violations, was flourishing across Africa, Asia and the Americas. 

Slavery – the utter denial of human rights – had recently been abolished in the United States – but would continue elsewhere and in other forms for many years.

Women everywhere were subjugated by men.

Although my grandfather’s life began in an era of human rights horrors, we saw incredible progress.

Slavery was formally abolished; most colonies won independence; women secured the right to vote. There was widespread recognition of civil and political rights, including to free speech and association.

At the start of the twentieth century, the harmful impact of industrialization brought attention to social and economic rights.  

Civil society and the Trade Union movement led the fight for the rights to education, healthcare, social security and decent working conditions for everybody.

Half a century later, from the carnage of two world wars and the appalling crimes of the Holocaust, a transformative moment saw the birth of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration sets out the rights inherent to all people for all time – an unparalleled achievement.

And thanks to the efforts of the Indian women’s rights activist, Hansa Mehta, the equal rights of women and men were explicit from the start: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

My grandfather’s generation benefited from a century of progress on human rights that went hand-in-hand with remarkable leaps in human development.

In 1900, some 80 percent of people around the world lived in poverty. That figure had fallen to less than 10 percent by 2015.

The average person lived 32 years. Today, it’s more than 70.

Seven out of every ten people were illiterate. Now it’s less than two.

Instead of continuing this progress, we have now gone into reverse.

Extreme poverty and hunger are rising for the first time in decades.

Nearly half of the world’s population, 3.5 billion people, live in climate hotspots. These vast areas are fast becoming human rights disaster zones where floods, droughts and storms mean people are 15 times more likely to die of climate impacts. 

A record one hundred million people have been forced to flee by violence, conflict and human rights violations.

Just yesterday, yet another horrific shipwreck in the Mediterranean claimed the lives of scores of people seeking a better future for themselves and their children.

Refugee and migrant rights are human rights.

They must be respected without discrimination.

While criminal gangs control migration routes, people will continue to perish. We need safe, orderly, legal routes for migrants and refugees.

And we must do everything possible to prevent the loss of life by providing search and rescue and medical care – as a humanitarian imperative, and as a moral and legal obligation.

Every day brings new evidence of human rights violations, from summary executions and torture to enforced disappearance and sexual violence.    

Around the world, antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, the persecution of Christians, racism and white supremacist ideology are on the march. 

Religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+, and other minority communities are targeted for harassment and hatred.

Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are denied; and gender-based discrimination and violence are rampant.

Freedom of expression is in freefall and the number of media workers killed around the world last year rose by a horrific 50 percent.

Inequalities of all kinds are dividing societies ever more deeply.

Social cohesion and trust are draining away through the yawning gap between the haves and have-nots.

The pandemic left us with a pandemic of abuses of civil and political rights.

And it laid bare routine violations of economic and social rights, including the exploitation of women’s unpaid care work. 

Looking forward gives rise to even greater alarm. 

Unless humanity kicks its addiction to fossil fuels now, critical climate tipping points will crush the human rights of generations to come. 

The misuse of new technologies could threaten human rights on a scale we can’t even imagine. 

Future generations could inherit a world with no protection from misinformation, disinformation and lies. 

A divided world of winner takes all.

We must heed the lessons of history.

As flashpoints multiply and deadly new risks loom, we must fight for our rights. 

We must protect and promote the global consensus around the Universal Declaration and move forward into a new era of human rights for all.  

This requires both a laser focus on the rights we have already recognized – and a quantum leap towards a new generation of rights.

The report on Our Common Agenda sets out a vision for the future with people and their rights at the centre.

A new social contract to rebuild trust and social cohesion.

A New Global Deal to heal divisions and give developing countries a greater voice in decision-making. 

And a New Agenda for Peace, based on a holistic vision of the peace continuum from prevention to mediation, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.

The Call to Action for Human Rights sets out seven areas for urgent attention: rights at the core of sustainable development; rights in times of crisis; gender equality; civic space; future generations; collective action; and new frontiers.

We at the United Nations are changing the way we work, recognizing that human rights are central to everything we do.

We are prioritizing the connections between human rights and the prevention of conflicts and crises of all kinds.

In July this year, the High Commissioner and I will launch a new Agenda for Protection.

This important initiative will seek to strengthen support from across the United Nations system to Member States to protect people and their rights, both in times of peace and in times of crisis and conflict.

J’ai eu le privilège de travailler avec trois Hauts-Commissaires : Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein de Jordanie, Michelle Bachelet du Chili, et à présent Volker Türk d’Autriche.

Tous sont des leaders et défenseurs des droits humains remarquables.

Ils ont accompli les missions confiées par ce Conseil, et ont également publié de leur propre chef plus de 170 rapports nationaux et thématiques importants au cours de ces dix dernières années.

Ces rapports portent notamment sur les changements climatiques au Sahel, les migrations en Europe et dans les Amériques, et les préoccupations en matière de droits humains dans différents contextes, notamment en Afghanistan, au Chili, en Éthiopie, au Guatemala, en Libye, au Sahel, en Ukraine et au Xinjiang… pour n’en citer que quelques-uns.

Ce Conseil, vos différents mécanismes, y compris l’Examen périodique universel, les Procédures spéciales et les Organes de suivi des traités, ainsi que le Haut-Commissariat, sont essentiels pour créer une dynamique de progrès.

Cette institution soutient les efforts des défenseurs et défenseuses des droits humains qui, avec courage, risquent la persécution, la détention et même la mort dans l’accomplissement de leur travail vital.

Vos missions d’établissement des faits, vos commissions d’enquête et vos experts indépendants sont essentiels aux principes de justice et de responsabilité.

La Cour Internationale de Justice occupe un rôle unique en matière de justice et de responsabilité internationales.

La Cour Pénale Internationale est l’institution centrale du système de justice pénale internationale; elle incarne la vocation de placer les auteurs des crimes les plus graves face à leurs responsabilités.

Je me réjouis des progrès accomplis afin que les violations des droits humains soient poursuivies aux niveaux national et régional – y compris les violations commises par le secteur privé.

Les actions en justice à l’encontre des entreprises qui détruisent le climat constituent une avancée importante.

Les producteurs de combustibles fossiles et leurs financiers doivent comprendre une vérité élémentaire : la poursuite de méga-profits, alors que tant de personnes perdent leur vie et leurs droits, aujourd’hui et à l’avenir, est totalement inacceptable.

Alors que nous célébrons l’impact de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, notre pire ennemi est la complaisance.

Car en matière de droits humains, l’histoire reste à écrire.

Nous devons continuer à faire des droits humains une réalité dans la vie des populations du monde entier.

Nous devons nous inspirer des mouvements de libération et de protestation qui ont accompli d’énormes avancées au cours du siècle dernier – l’abolition de l’esclavage, la décolonisation, le suffrage universel, le mouvement féministe et la fin de l’apartheid.

La société civile, les défenseurs des droits humains, les personnes en situation de handicap, les femmes, les filles et les jeunes du monde entier sont déjà dans la rue, et exigent la protection de tous les droits humains, pour toutes et pour tous.

Je suis à leurs côtés. Nous devons tous être à leurs côtés.

Et je vous remercie.

************************************

[All-French version]

La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme a été adoptée il y a 75 ans.

Dans ce texte ont été énoncés, pour la première fois, des droits qui s’appliquent à tous les êtres humains, partout et en tout temps.

Sa version anglaise, qui est le document le plus traduit au monde, ne compte que 1 300 mots – et pourtant, tout est dit de l’expérience humaine.

La Déclaration universelle énonce le droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sûreté ; le droit à l’égalité devant la loi ; le droit à la liberté d’expression ; le droit de chercher asile ; le droit au travail, à la santé, à l’éducation, et bien d’autres droits encore.

Or, alors que nous célébrons son soixante-quinzième anniversaire, la Déclaration est attaquée de toutes parts.

L'invasion russe de l'Ukraine a déclenché les violations les plus massives des droits de l'homme que nous vivons aujourd'hui.

Elle a provoqué la mort, la destruction et des déplacements à grande échelle.

Les attaques contre les populations et les infrastructures civiles ont fait de nombreuses victimes et causé d’indicibles souffrances.

Le Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l’homme a recensé des dizaines de cas de violences sexuelles liées au conflit commises contre des hommes, des femmes et des filles.

De graves violations du droit international humanitaire et du droit international des droits humains à l’égard de prisonniers de guerre, et des centaines de cas de disparitions forcées et de détentions arbitraires de civils, ont également été documentés.

Malheureusement, la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, qui devrait être notre modèle commun, est trop souvent utilisée à mauvais escient et de manière abusive.

Elle est dédaignée, souvent par ceux-là mêmes qui l’exploitent à des fins politiques.

Certains gouvernements en rognent les fondations, d’autres les torpillent.

Les droits humains font aujourd’hui l’objet d’un mépris en public et d’un dédain en privé qui doivent nous faire réagir.

Nous devons nous placer du bon côté de l’histoire.

Nous devons défendre les droits humains de tous et de toutes, partout.

Il nous faut donner un nouveau souffle à la Déclaration universelle et veiller à ce qu’elle soit pleinement appliquée pour qu’elle nous permette de faire face aux défis d’aujourd’hui et de demain.

Il y a trois ans, j’ai lancé ici même mon appel à l’action en faveur des droits humains, qui est notre fil directeur.

Les droits humains n’ont rien d’un luxe dont nous puissions nous passer, le temps de trouver une solution aux autres problèmes du monde.

Ils sont la solution à de nombreux problèmes du monde.

Aux crises actuelles, de l’urgence climatique à l’utilisation néfaste des nouvelles technologies, les droits humains apportent la réponse.

Les droits humains sont inhérents à l’existence humaine.

Le Véda hindou, Confucius dans ses Analectes, la Bible, le Coran — tous postulent des droits et des devoirs très similaires.

La Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, pierre angulaire de la Révolution française de 1789, énonçait les droits à la liberté et à la propriété ainsi que la liberté d’expression, la liberté de presse et la liberté de religion.

Mais ces droits bénéficiaient exclusivement aux hommes qui étaient citoyens – pas aux femmes, ni aux esclaves, ni aux minorités. La défenseuse française des droits des femmes qui avait osé publier un pastiche de cette déclaration réservée aux hommes a été jugée pour trahison et exécutée.

Moins de quatre-vingt-dix ans plus tard, en 1875, naissait mon grand-père maternel.

Il a été un modèle important et une source d’inspiration tout au long de ma vie – un homme qui m’a tant conté ses expériences qu’elles font désormais partie intégrante de mes propres souvenirs.

A sa naissance, le projet colonial, édifié sur des violations massives des droits humains, était alors en plein essor en Afrique, en Asie et dans les Amériques.

L’esclavage, qui est le déni pur et simple des droits humains, avait récemment été aboli aux États-Unis mais il subsistait, ailleurs et sous d’autres formes, et a perduré pendant de nombreuses années.

Partout, les femmes étaient sous le joug des hommes.

Si mon grand-père a grandi dans une époque marquée par des horreurs du point de vue des droits humains, il a, de son vivant, été le témoin d’extraordinaires progrès :

L’abolition officielle de l’esclavage, l’accession à l’indépendance de la plupart des colonies, l’obtention du droit de vote par les femmes, et la reconnaissance générale des droits civils et politiques, notamment de la liberté d’expression et d’association.

Au début du vingtième siècle, les conséquences néfastes de l’industrialisation ont mis en relief l’importance des droits sociaux et économiques. Les organisations de la société civile et les mouvements syndicaux ont été les fers de lance de la lutte pour le droit à l’éducation, à la santé, à la sécurité sociale et à des conditions de travail décentes pour tous.

Un demi-siècle plus tard, des cendres d’un monde ravagé par les hécatombes de deux guerres mondiales et les effroyables crimes de la Shoah naissaient les signes d’un renouveau : l’Organisation des Nations Unies et la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme.

La Déclaration universelle énonce les droits qui sont inhérents à tous les êtres humains, en tout temps : c’est une réalisation sans précédent.

Et grâce aux efforts de la défenseuse indienne des droits des femmes Hansa Mehta, l’égalité en droits des femmes et des hommes a été explicitement établie, dès le départ : « Tous les êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droits ».

La génération de mon grand-père a connu un siècle de progrès en matière de droits humains, qui sont allés de pair avec des avancées remarquables dans le domaine du développement humain.

En 1900, plus de 80 % des personnes dans le monde vivaient dans la pauvreté. Elles étaient moins de 10 % en 2015.

En moyenne, l’espérance de vie était de 32 ans. Elle dépasse aujourd’hui les 70 ans.

Sept personnes sur dix étaient analphabètes. A présent, c'est moins de deux.

Mesdames et Messieurs, chers amis,

Au lieu de poursuivre cette progression, nous avons fait marche arrière.

L’extrême pauvreté et la faim augmentent, pour la première fois depuis des décennies.

Près de la moitié de la population mondiale, soit 3,5 milliards de personnes, vit dans des zones en danger climatique. Ces vastes zones sont en passe de devenir des zones sinistrées du point de vue des droits humains, où les inondations, les sécheresses et les tempêtes font que le risque de mourir des effets des changements climatiques est 15 fois plus élevé qu’ailleurs.

Cent millions de personnes – un chiffre record – ont été contraintes de fuir les violences, les conflits et les violations de leurs droits humains.

Hier encore, un énième terrible naufrage en Méditerranée a coûté la vie à de nombreuses personnes qui étaient en quête d'un avenir meilleur pour elles-mêmes et pour leurs enfants.

Les droits des réfugiés et des migrants sont des droits humains. Ils doivent être respectés sans discrimination.

Tant que des bandes criminelles contrôleront les routes migratoires, des personnes continueront à périr. Nous avons besoin de routes sûres, ordonnées et légales pour les migrants et les réfugiés.

Et nous devons faire tout notre possible pour prévenir les pertes de vies humaines en fournissant des services de recherche et de sauvetage et des soins médicaux – c'est un impératif humanitaire, et une obligation morale et juridique.

En Ukraine et ailleurs, chaque jour apporte de nouvelles preuves que des violations des droits humains – exécutions sommaires, tortures, disparitions forcées ou violences sexuelles – sont commises.

Partout dans le monde, l’antisémitisme, le sectarisme antimusulman, la persécution des chrétiens, le racisme et l’idéologie suprémaciste blanche sont en marche.

Les minorités religieuses, linguistiques et ethniques, la communauté LGBTQI+ et les autres communautés minoritaires sont la cible d’actes de harcèlement et de haine.

Les droits sexuels et procréatifs des femmes sont bafoués ; la discrimination et la violence fondées sur le genre sont monnaie courante.

La liberté d’expression est en faillite et le nombre de professionnels des médias tués dans le monde l’année dernière a augmenté de 50 % – un chiffre épouvantable.

Les inégalités de toutes sortes créent des clivages de plus en plus profonds dans les sociétés.

La cohésion sociale et la confiance s’abîment dans le fossé béant entre nantis et démunis.

La pandémie s’est soldée par une pandémie d’atteintes aux droits civils et politiques, et a mis à nu les violations systématiques des droits économiques et sociaux, notamment l’exploitation du travail accompli par les femmes dans les soins non rémunérés.

L’avenir suscite des inquiétudes encore plus grandes.

Si l’humanité ne se libère pas, dès à présent, de sa dépendance aux combustibles fossiles, les points de basculement climatiques critiques écraseront les droits humains des générations futures.

L’utilisation abusive des nouvelles technologies pourrait menacer les droits humains dans des proportions inimaginables.

Les générations futures pourraient hériter d’un monde dénué de protection contre la mésinformation, la désinformation et les mensonges.

D’un monde divisé où le gagnant rafle toute la mise.

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Nous devons tirer les leçons que nous enseigne l’histoire.

Alors que les points chauds se multiplient sur Terre et que de nouveaux dangers mortels se profilent à l’horizon, nous devons nous battre pour nos droits.

Nous devons protéger et promouvoir le consensus mondial autour de la Déclaration universelle, et avancer vers une nouvelle ère : celle des droits humains pour toutes et tous.

Pour ce faire, nous devons concentrer notre action sur les droits que nous avons déjà reconnus mais aussi – dans un prodigieux bond en avant – promouvoir une nouvelle génération de droits.

Le rapport intitulé « Notre Programme commun » présente une vision de l’avenir centrée sur les personnes et leurs droits. Un nouveau contrat social permettant de rebâtir la confiance et la cohésion sociale.

Un nouveau Pacte mondial permettant de surmonter les divisions et de mieux faire entendre la voix des pays en développement dans la prise de décisions.

Et un Nouvel Agenda pour la paix, fondé sur une vision intégrée du continuum de la paix – de la prévention à la médiation, en passant par le maintien et la consolidation de la paix.

L’appel à l’action en faveur des droits humains énonce sept domaines où nous devons travailler d’urgence : les droits au cœur du développement durable, les droits en période de crise, l’égalité des genres, l’espace civique, les générations futures, l’action collective, et de nouveaux possibles.

À l’Organisation des Nations Unies, nous modifions notre manière de travailler, conscients que les droits humains sont au cœur de tout ce que nous entreprenons.

Nous accordons la priorité à la corrélation entre droits humains et prévention des conflits et des crises de toutes sortes.

En juillet de cette année, le Haut-Commissaire et moi-même lancerons un nouvel Agenda pour la protection.

Cette initiative importante visera à renforcer le soutien apporté par le système des Nations Unies aux États Membres pour protéger les personnes et leurs droits, en temps de paix autant qu’en période de crise et de conflit.

Excellences, Mesdames et Messieurs,

J’ai eu le privilège de travailler avec trois Hauts-Commissaires : Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein de Jordanie, Michelle Bachelet du Chili, et à présent Volker Türk d’Autriche. Tous sont des leaders et défenseurs des droits humains remarquables.

Ils ont accompli les missions confiées par ce Conseil, et ont également publié de leur propre chef plus de 170 rapports nationaux et thématiques importants au cours de ces six dernières années.

La Cour Pénale Internationale est l’institution centrale du système de justice pénale internationale ; elle incarne la vocation de placer les auteurs des crimes les plus graves face à leurs responsabilités.

Excellences, Mesdames et Messieurs, chers amis,

Car en matière des droits humains, l’histoire reste à écrire.

Je vous remercie.

*********************************************************************

[All-English version]

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,     The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted 75 years ago.      The Declaration described, for the first time, entitlements that apply to everyone, everywhere, always.     The most translated document in the world, its English version is just 1300 words long.     But all human life is there.      The Universal Declaration sets out the rights to life, liberty and security; to equality before the law; to freedom of expression; to seek asylum; to work, to healthcare and education, and more.       But as we mark its 75th anniversary, the Universal Declaration is under assault from all sides.     The Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered the most massive violations of human rights we are living today.     It has unleashed widespread death, destruction and displacement.    Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure have caused many casualties and terrible suffering.    The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented dozens of cases of conflict-related sexual violence against men, women and girls. 

And serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law against prisoners of war – and hundreds of cases of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions of civilians – were also documented.    Excellencies,     Unfortunately, the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which should be our common blueprint, is too often misused and abused.     It is exploited for political gain; and it is ignored – often by the very same people.     Some governments chip away at it. Others use a wrecking ball.     And today’s public disregard and private disdain for human rights are a wake-up call.     This is a moment to stand on the right side of history.     A moment to stand up for the human rights of everyone, everywhere.    We must revitalize the Universal Declaration and ensure its full implementation to face the new challenges of today and tomorrow.     My Call to Action for Human Rights, launched three years ago in this chamber, is the blueprint.     Human rights are not a luxury that can be left until we find a solution to the world’s other problems.     They are the solution to many of the world’s other problems.    From the climate emergency to the misuse of technology, the answers to today’s crises are found in human rights.     Human rights are innate to being human.     The Hindu Vedas, the Ancient Chinese Analects of Confucius, the Bible and the Koran all set out very similar duties and rights.     The Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a cornerstone of the French Revolution in 1789, set out rights to liberty, property, to freedom of speech, the press and religion.     But these rights extended exclusively to men who were citizens – not to women, slaves, or minorities. When a French women’s rights activist published a parody of the men-only revolution, she was tried and executed for treason.     Less than ninety years [later], in 1875, my maternal grandfather was born.     He was an important role model and an inspiration throughout my life --a man who told me so much about his experiences that they became part of my own memories.     When he was born, the colonial project, based on massive human rights violations, was flourishing across Africa, Asia and the Americas.      Slavery – the utter denial of human rights – had recently been abolished in the United States – but would continue elsewhere and in other forms for many years.     Women everywhere were subjugated by men.     Although my grandfather’s life began in an era of human rights horrors, we saw incredible progress.     Slavery was formally abolished; most colonies won independence; women secured the right to vote. There was widespread recognition of civil and political rights, including to free speech and association.     At the start of the twentieth century, the harmful impact of industrialization brought attention to social and economic rights.      Civil society and the Trade Union movement led the fight for the rights to education, healthcare, social security and decent working conditions for everybody.     Half a century later, from the carnage of two world wars and the appalling crimes of the Holocaust, a transformative moment saw the birth of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.    The Universal Declaration sets out the rights inherent to all people for all time – an unparalleled achievement.     And thanks to the efforts of the Indian women’s rights activist, Hansa Mehta, the equal rights of women and men were explicit from the start: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”    My grandfather’s generation benefited from a century of progress on human rights that went hand-in-hand with remarkable leaps in human development.     In 1900, some 80 percent of people around the world lived in poverty. That figure had fallen to less than 10 percent by 2015.     The average person lived 32 years. Today, it’s more than 70.     Seven out of every ten people were illiterate. Now it’s less than two.    Instead of continuing this progress, we have now gone into reverse.     Extreme poverty and hunger are rising for the first time in decades.     Nearly half of the world’s population, 3.5 billion people, live in climate hotspots. These vast areas are fast becoming human rights disaster zones where floods, droughts and storms mean people are 15 times more likely to die of climate impacts.      A record one hundred million people have been forced to flee by violence, conflict and human rights violations.     Just yesterday, yet another horrific shipwreck in the Mediterranean claimed the lives of scores of people seeking a better future for themselves and their children.     Refugee and migrant rights are human rights.     They must be respected without discrimination.     While criminal gangs control migration routes, people will continue to perish. We need safe, orderly, legal routes for migrants and refugees.     And we must do everything possible to prevent the loss of life by providing search and rescue and medical care – as a humanitarian imperative, and as a moral and legal obligation.     Every day brings new evidence of human rights violations, from summary executions and torture to enforced disappearance and sexual violence.        Around the world, antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, the persecution of Christians, racism and white supremacist ideology are on the march.      Religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+, and other minority communities are targeted for harassment and hatred.     Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are denied; and gender-based discrimination and violence are rampant.     Freedom of expression is in freefall and the number of media workers killed around the world last year rose by a horrific 50 percent.     Inequalities of all kinds are dividing societies ever more deeply.     Social cohesion and trust are draining away through the yawning gap between the haves and have-nots.     The pandemic left us with a pandemic of abuses of civil and political rights.     And it laid bare routine violations of economic and social rights, including the exploitation of women’s unpaid care work.      Looking forward gives rise to even greater alarm.      Unless humanity kicks its addiction to fossil fuels now, critical climate tipping points will crush the human rights of generations to come.      The misuse of new technologies could threaten human rights on a scale we can’t even imagine.      Future generations could inherit a world with no protection from misinformation, disinformation and lies.      A divided world of winner takes all.     We must heed the lessons of history.     As flashpoints multiply and deadly new risks loom, we must fight for our rights.      We must protect and promote the global consensus around the Universal Declaration and move forward into a new era of human rights for all.      This requires both a laser focus on the rights we have already recognized – and a quantum leap towards a new generation of rights.     The report on Our Common Agenda sets out a vision for the future with people and their rights at the centre.     A new social contract to rebuild trust and social cohesion.     A New Global Deal to heal divisions and give developing countries a greater voice in decision-making.      And a New Agenda for Peace, based on a holistic vision of the peace continuum from prevention to mediation, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.     The Call to Action for Human Rights sets out seven areas for urgent attention: rights at the core of sustainable development; rights in times of crisis; gender equality; civic space; future generations; collective action; and new frontiers.     We at the United Nations are changing the way we work, recognizing that human rights are central to everything we do.     We are prioritizing the connections between human rights and the prevention of conflicts and crises of all kinds.     In July this year, the High Commissioner and I will launch a new Agenda for Protection.     This important initiative will seek to strengthen support from across the United Nations system to Member States to protect people and their rights, both in times of peace and in times of crisis and conflict.  

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

I have had the privilege of working with three High Commissioners – Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein of Jordan, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and now Volker Türk of Austria. All are outstanding leaders and advocates.

They delivered on the requests from this Council, and they also published more than 170 important country and thematic reports in their own right over the past six years.

These reports cover climate change in the Sahel, migration in Europe and the Americas, and human rights concerns in different contexts, including Afghanistan, Chile, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Libya, the Sahel, Ukraine, and Xinjiang, to name just a few.

This Council, your various mechanisms including the Universal Periodic Review, the Special Procedures and the Treaty Monitoring Bodies, and the Office of the High Commissioner, are central to creating momentum for progress.

This institution stands for the efforts of brave human rights defenders who risk persecution, detention and even death as they carry out their vital work.  

Your fact-finding missions, Commissions of Inquiry and independent experts are essential to justice and accountability.

The International Court of Justice occupies a unique role in international justice and accountability.

The International Criminal Court is the central institution of the international criminal justice system; embodying an aspiration for accountability for the most serious crimes.

I welcome moves towards accountability for human rights abuses at the national and regional levels, including those committed by the private sector. 

Legal challenges against climate-wrecking corporations are an important step forward.

Fossil fuel producers and their financiers must understand one simple truth: pursuing mega-profits when so many people are losing their lives and rights, now and in the future, is totally unacceptable. 

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

As we celebrate the impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our worst enemy is complacency. 

Because the story of human rights is only half-told.

We must continue to make human rights real in the lives of people everywhere.

We must take inspiration from the liberation and protest movements that achieved enormous progress over the past century – the abolition of slavery, decolonization, universal suffrage, the women’s movement and the end of apartheid.

Civil society, human rights defenders, people with disabilities, women and girls and young people around the world are already on the streets, demanding protection for all human rights, for everyone.

I stand with them. We must all stand with them.

• Switzerland
• Human Rights, democracy
• Daily Schedule
• Appointment Process
• Role of the Secretary-General
• Former Secretaries-General
• Official Travels
• Deputy Secretary-General
• Senior Management Group
• Global Leadership
• Messengers of Peace
• Annual Report on the Work of the Organization
• Coordinator for Multilingualism
• Public Disclosure
• Opinion pieces/Op-eds
• Secretariat
• Department of Global Communications
• Spokesperson's Office
• Scientific Advisory Board

Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Document Type Abbreviations
• Repository and Source Abbreviations
• Fellowships & Internships
• News & Events
• Support ERPP
• Walking Tour: Eleanor Roosevelt's Washington
• Works by Eleanor Roosevelt
• Reading Eleanor Roosevelt's Handwriting
• Glossary: The People in Eleanor Roosevelt's World
• A Short Biography of Eleanor Roosevelt
• Historical Introduction
• Aids to Reading the Documents
• Browse the JFK Documents
• Editorial Method
• Browse If You Ask Me Columns
• Search If You Ask Me Columns
• Browse My Day Columns
• Search My Day Columns
• My Day Index
• The Pond's Dance Program
• The Simmons Program
• Americans of Tomorrow
• It's a Woman's World
• Talks by Mrs. Roosevelt
• Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt's Own Program
• Over Our Coffee Cups
• The Eleanor & Anna Roosevelt Program
• Today With Mrs. Roosevelt
• Mrs. Roosevelt Meets the Public
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Program
• Prospects of Mankind
• Touring the British Homefront (1942)
• In the South Pacific War Zone (1943)
• Postwar Europe: A Haunting Horror (1946)
• Europe Again: A Magna Carta for All Mankind (1948)
• Travelling Around the World (1952)
• Promoting Democracy in Japan (1953)
• The Long Way Home (1953)
• On Soviet Soil (1957)
• Audio Materials
• Miscellaneous Documents
• Universal Search
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, Volume 1
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, Volume 2
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, Volume 3
• Resources for Teachers

The Struggle for Human Rights (1948)

[Sorbonne, Paris, Sept. 28, 1948. This speech is also know as “The Struggles for the Rights of Man.”]

Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt

​     I have come this evening to talk with you on one of the greatest issues of our time—that is the preservation of human freedom. I have chosen to discuss it here in France, at the Sorbonne, because here in this soil the roots of human freedom have long ago struck deep and here they have been richly nourished. It was here the Declaration of the Rights of Man was proclaimed, and the great slogans of the French Revolution--liberty, equality, fraternity--fired the imagination of men. I have chosen to discuss this issue in Europe because this has been the scene of the greatest historic battles between freedom and tyranny. I have chosen to discuss it in the early days of the General Assembly because the issue of human liberty is decisive for the settlement of outstanding political differences and for the future of the United Nations.

​     The decisive importance of this issue was fully recognized by the founders of the United Nations at San Francisco. Concern for the preservation and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms stands at the heart of the United Nations. Its Charter is distinguished by its preoccupation with the rights and welfare of individual men and women. The United Nations has made it clear that it intends to uphold human rights and to protect the dignity of the human personality. In the preamble to the Charter the keynote is set when it declares: “We the people of the United Nations determined...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and ... to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” This reflects the basic premise of the Charter that the peace and security of mankind are dependent on mutual respect for the rights and freedoms of all.

​     One of the purposes of the United Nations is declared in article 1 to be: “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

​     This thought is repeated at several points and notably in articles 55 and 56 the Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the United Nations for the promotion of “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

​     The Human Rights Commission was given as its first and most important task the preparation of an International Bill of Rights. The General Assembly which opened its third session here in Paris a few days ago will have before it the first fruit of the Commission’s labors in this task, that is the International Declaration of Human Rights.

​     This Declaration was finally completed after much work during the last session of the Human Rights Commission in New York in the spring of 1948. The Economic and Social Council has sent it without recommendation to the General Assembly, together with other documents transmitted by the Human Rights Commission.

​     It was decided in our Commission that a Bill of Rights should contain two parts:

​     1. A Declaration which could be approved through action of the Member States of the United Nations in the General Assembly. This Declaration would have great moral force, and would say to the peoples of the world “this is what we hope human rights may mean to all people in the years to come.” We have put down here the rights that we consider basic for individual human beings the world over to have. Without them, we feel that the full development of individual personality is impossible.

​     2. The second part of the bill, which the Human Rights Commission has not yet completed because of the lack of time, is a covenant which would be in the form of a treaty to be presented to the nations of the world. Each nation, as it is prepared to do so, would ratify this covenant and the covenant would then become binding on the nations which adhere to it. Each nation ratifying would then be obligated to change its laws wherever they did not conform to the points contained in the covenant.

​     This covenant, of course, would have to be a simpler document. It could not state aspirations, which we feel to be permissible in the Declaration. It could only state rights which could be assured by law and it must contain methods of implementation, and no state ratifying the covenant could be allowed to disregard it. The methods of implementation have not yet been agreed upon, nor have they been given adequate consideration by the Commission at any of its meetings. There certainly should be discussion on the entire question of this world Bill of Human Rights and there may be acceptance by this Assembly of the Declaration if they come to agreement on it. The acceptance of the Declaration, I think, should encourage every nation in the coming months to discuss its meaning with its people so that they will be better prepared to accept the covenant with a deeper understanding of the problems involved when that is presented, we hope, a year from now and, we hope, accepted.

​     The Declaration has come from the Human Rights Commission with unanimous acceptance except for four abstentions—the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia. The reason for this is a fundamental difference in the conception of human rights as they exist in these states and in certain other Member States in the United Nations.

​     In the discussion before the Assembly, I think it should be made crystal clear what these differences are and tonight I want to spend a little time making them clear to you. It seems to me there is a valid reason for taking the time today to think carefully and clearly on the subject if human rights, because in the acceptance and observance of these rights lies the root, I believe, of our chance for peace in the future, and for the strengthening of the United Nations organization to the point where it can maintain peace in the future.

​     We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.

​     We must not be deluded by the efforts of the forces of reaction to prostitute the great words of our free tradition and thereby to confuse the struggle. Democracy, freedom, human rights have come to have a definite meaning to the people of the world which we must not allow any nation to so change that they are made synonymous with suppression and dictatorship.

​     There are basic differences that show up even in the use of words between a democratic and a totalitarian country. For instance “democracy” means one thing to the U.S.S.R. and another to the U.S.A. and, I know, in France. I have served since the first meeting of the nuclear commission on the Human Rights Commission, and I think this point stands out clearly.

​     The U.S.S.R. Representatives assert that they already have achieved many things which we, in what they call the “bourgeois democracies” cannot achieve because their government controls the accomplishment of these things. Our government seems powerless to them because, in the last analysis, it is controlled by the people. They would not put it that way - they would say that the people in the U.S.S.R. control their government by allowing their government to have certain absolute rights. We, on the other hand, feel that certain rights can never be granted to the government, but must be kept in the hands of the people.

​     For instance, the U.S.S.R. will assert that their press is free because the state makes it free by providing the machinery, the paper, and even the money for the salaries for the people who work on the paper. They state that there is no control over what is printed in the various papers that they subsidize in this manner, such, for instance, as a trade-union paper. But what would happen if a paper were to print ideas which were critical of the basic policies and beliefs of the Communist government? I am sure some good reason would be found for abolishing that paper.

​     It is true that there have been many cases where newspapers in the U.S.S.R. have criticized officials and their actions and have been responsible for the removal of those officials, but in doing so they did not criticize anything which was fundamental to Communist beliefs. They simply criticized methods of doing things, so one must differentiate between things which are permissible, such as criticism of any individual or of the manner of doing things, and the criticism of a belief which would be considered vital to the acceptance of Communism.

​     What are the differences, for instance, between trade-unions in the totalitarian states and in the democracies? In the totalitarian state a trade-union is an instrument used by the government to enforce duties, not to assert rights. Propaganda material which the government desires the workers to have is furnished to the trade-unions to be circulated to their members.

​     Our trade-unions, on the other hand, are solely the instruments of the workers themselves. They represent the workers in their relations with the government and with management and they are free to develop their own opinions without government help or interference. The concepts of our trade-unions and those in totalitarian countries are drastically different. There is little mutual understanding.

​     I think the best example one can give of this basic difference of the use of terms is “the right to work”. The Soviet Union insists that this is a basic right which it alone can guarantee because it alone provides full employment by the government. But the right to work in the Soviet Union means the assignment of workers to do whatever task is given to them by the government without an opportunity for the people to participate in the decision that the government should do this. A society in which everyone works is not necessarily a free society and may indeed be a slave society; on the other hand, a society in which there is widespread economic insecurity can turn freedom into a barren and vapid right for millions of people. We in the United States have come to realize it means freedom to choose one’s job, to work or not to work as one desires. We, in the United States, have come to realize, however, that people have a right to demand that their government will not allow them to starve because as individuals that cannot find work of the kind they are accustomed to doing and this is a decision brought about by public opinion which came as a result of the great depression in which many people were out of work, but we would not consider in the United States that we have gained any freedom if we were compelled to follow a dictatorial assignment to work where and when we were told. The right of choice would seem to us an important, fundamental freedom.

​     I have great sympathy with the Russian people. They love their country and have always defended it valiantly against invaders. They have been through a period of revolution, as a result of which they were for a time cut off from outside contact. They have not lost their resulting suspicion of other countries and the great difficulty is today that their government encourages this suspicion and seems to believe that force alone will bring them respect.

​     We, in the democracies, believe in a kind of international respect and action which is reciprocal. We do not think others should treat us differently from the way they wish to be treated. It is interference in other countries that especially stirs up antagonism against the Soviet Government. If it wishes to feel secure in developing its economic and political theories within it territory, then it should grant others that same security. We believe in the freedom of people to make their own mistakes. We do not interfere with them and they should not interfere with others.

​     The basic problem confronting the world today, as I said in the beginning, is the preservation of human freedom for the individual and consequently for the society of which he his a part. We are fighting this battle again today as it was fought at the time of the French Revolution and at the time of the American Revolution. The issue of human liberty is as decisive now as it was then. I want to give you my conception of what is meant in my country by freedom of the individual.

​     Long ago in London during a discussion with Mr. Vyshinsky, he told me there was no such thing as freedom for the individual in the world. All freedom of the individual was conditioned by the rights of other individuals. That, of course, I granted. I said: “We approach the question from a different point of view; we here in the United Nations are trying to develop ideals which will be broader in outlook, which will consider first the rights of man, which will consider what makes man more free: not governments, but man.”

​     The totalitarian state typically places the will of the people second to decrees promulgated by a few men at the top.

​     Naturally there must always be consideration of the rights of others; but in a democracy this is not a restriction. Indeed, in our democracies we make our freedoms secure because each of us is expected to respect the rights of others and we are free to make our own laws.

​     Freedom for our peoples is not only a right, but also a tool. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom of assembly—these are not just abstract ideals to us; they are tools with which we create a way of life, a way of life in which we can enjoy freedom.

​     Sometimes the processes of democracy are slow, and I have known some of our leaders to say that a benevolent dictatorship would accomplish the ends desired in a much shorter time than it takes to go through the democratic processes of discussion and the slow formation of public opinion. But there is no way of insuring that a dictatorship will remain benevolent or that power once in the hands of a few will be returned to the people without struggle or revolution. This we have learned by experience and we accept the slow processes of democracy because we know that short-cuts compromise principles on which no compromise is possible.

​     The final expression of the opinion of the people with us is through free and honest elections, with valid choices on basic issues and candidates. The secret ballot is an essential to free elections but you must have a choice before you. I have heard my husband say many times that a people need never lose their freedom if they kept their right to a secret ballot and if they used that secret ballot to the full.

​     Basic decisions of our society are made through the expressed will of the people. That is why when we see these liberties threatened, instead of falling apart, our nation becomes unified and our democracies come together as a unified group in spite of our varied backgrounds and many racial strains.

​     In the Unites States we have a capitalistic economy. That is because public opinion favors that type of economy under the conditions in which we live. But we have imposed certain restraints; for instance, we have anti-trust laws. These are the legal evidence of the determination of the American people to maintain an economy of free competition and not to allow monopolies to take away the people’s freedom.

​     Our trade-unions grows stronger because the people come to believe that this is the proper way to guarantee the rights of the workers and that the right to organize and to bargain collectively keeps the balance between the actual producer and the investor of money and the manager in industry who watches over the man who works with his hands and who produces the materials which are our tangible wealth.

​     In the United States we are old enough not to claim perfection. We recognize that we have some problems of discrimination but we find steady progress being made in the solution of these problems. Through normal democratic processes we are coming to understand our needs and how we can attain full equality for all our people. Free discussion on the subject is permitted. Our Supreme Court has recently rendered decisions to clarify a number of our laws to guarantee the rights of all.

​     The U.S.S.R. claims it has reached a point where all races within her borders are officially considered equal and have equal rights and they insist they have no discrimination where minorities are concerned.

​     This is a laudable objective but there are other aspects of the development of freedom for the individual which are essential before the mere absence of discrimination is worth much, and these are lacking in the Soviet Union. Unless they are being denied freedoms which they want and which they see other people have, people do not usually complain of discrimination. It is these other freedoms—the basic freedoms of speech, of the press, of religion and conscience, of assembly, of fair trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment, which a totalitarian government cannot safely give its people and which give meaning to freedom from discrimination.

​     It is my belief, and I am sure it is also yours, that the struggle for democracy and freedom is a critical struggle, for their preservation is essential to the great objective of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security.

​     Among free men the end cannot justify the means. We know the patterns of totalitarianism—the single political party, the control of schools, press, radio, the arts, the sciences, and the church to support autocratic authority; these are the age-old patterns against which men have struggled for three thousand years. These are the signs of reaction, retreat, and retrogression.

​     The United Nations must hold fast to the heritage of freedom won by the struggle of its peoples; it must help us to pass it on to generations to come.

​     The development of the ideal of freedom and its translation into the everyday life of the people in great areas of the earth is the product of the efforts of many peoples. It is the fruit of a long tradition of vigorous thinking and courageous action. No one race and no one people can claim to have done all the work to achieve greater dignity for human beings and greater freedom to develop human personality. In each generation and in each country there must be a continuation of the struggle and new steps forward must be taken since this is preeminently a field in which to stand still is to retreat.

​     The field of human rights in not one in which compromise on fundamental principles are possible. The work of the Commission on Human Rights is illustrative. The Declaration of Human Rights provides: “ Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.” The Soviet Representative said he would agree to this right if a single phrase was added to it—“in accordance with the procedure laid down in the laws of that country.” It is obvious that to accept this would be not only to compromise but to nullify the right stated. This case forcefully illustrates the importance of the proposition that we must ever be alert not to compromise fundamental human rights merely for the sake of reaching unanimity and thus lose them.

​     As I see it, it is not going to be easy to attain unanimity with respect to our different concepts of government and human rights. The struggle is bound to be difficult and one in which we must be firm but patient. If we adhere faithfully to our principles I think it is possible for us to maintain freedom and to do so peacefully and without recourse to force.

​     The future must see the broadening of human rights throughout the world. People who have glimpsed freedom will never be content until they have secured it for themselves. In a true sense, human rights are a fundamental object of law and government in a just society. Human rights exist to the degree that they are respected by people in relations with each other and by governments in relations with their citizens.

​     The world at large is aware of the tragic consequences for human beings ruled by totalitarian systems. If we examine Hitler’s rise to power, we see how the chains are forged which keep the individual a slave and we can see many similarities in the way things are accomplished in other countries. Politically men must be free to discuss and to arrive at as many facts as possible and there must be at least a two-party system in a country because when there is only one political party, too many things can be subordinated to the interests of that one party and it becomes a tyrant and not an instrument of democratic government.

​     The propaganda we have witnessed in the recent past, like that we perceive in these days, seeks to impugn, to undermine, and to destroy the liberty and independence of peoples. Such propaganda poses to all peoples the issue whether to doubt their heritage of rights and therefore to compromise the principles by which they live, or try to accept the challenge, redouble their vigilance, and stand steadfast in the struggle to maintain and enlarge human freedoms.

​     People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial.

​     The Charter of the United Nations is a guiding beacon along the way to the achievement of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world. The immediate test is not only the extent to which human rights and freedoms have already been achieved, but the direction in which the world is moving. Is there a faithful compliance with the objectives of the Charter if some countries continue to curtail human rights and freedoms instead of to promote the universal respect for an observance of human rights and freedoms for all as called for by the Charter?

​     The place to discuss the issue of human rights is in the forum of the United Nations. The United Nations has been set up as the common meeting ground for nations, where we can consider together our mutual problems and take advantage of our differences in experience. It is inherent in our firm attachment to democracy and freedom that we stand always ready to use the fundamental democratic procedures of honest discussion and negotiation. It is now as always our hope that despite the wide differences in approach we face in the world today, we can with mutual good faith in the principles of the United Nations Charter, arrive at a common basis of understanding. We are here to join the meetings of this great international Assembly which meets in your beautiful capital city of Paris. Freedom for the individual is an inseparable part of the cherished traditions of France. As one of the Delegates from the United States I pray Almighty God that we may win another victory here for the rights and freedoms of all men.

Rebecca Boone, Associated Press Rebecca Boone, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/experts-say-attacks-on-free-speech-are-rising-across-the-us

Experts say attacks on free speech are rising across the U.S.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — In Idaho, an art exhibit was censored and teens were told they couldn’t testify in some legislative hearings. In Washington state, a lawmaker proposed a hotline so the government could track offensively biased statements, as well as hate crimes. In Florida, bloggers are fighting a bill that would force them to register with the state if they write posts criticizing public officials.

Meanwhile, bans on books and drag performances are growing increasingly common nationwide.

“We are seeing tremendous attacks on First Amendment freedoms across the country right now, at all levels of government. Censorship is proliferating, and it’s deeply troubling,” said Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

“This year, we’re seeing a wave of bills targeting drag performances , where simply being gender nonconforming is enough to trigger the penalty. We’re also seeing a wave of bills regulating what can be in public or K-12 school libraries,” Cohn said. “On college campuses, we have been tracking data about attempts to get faculty members punished or even fired for speech or expression and the numbers are startling — it’s the highest rate that we’ve seen in our 20 years of existence.”

First Amendment rights had been stable in America for decades, said Ken Paulson, director of the  Free Speech Center  at Middle Tennessee State University, but in recent years many states have reverted to the anti-speech tactics employed by people like Sen. Joe McCarthy during the “Red Scare” of the early 1950s.

WATCH: Librarians in Louisiana at odds with conservative activists working to ban books

McCarthy and others tried to silence political opponents by accusing them of being communists or socialists, using fear and public accusations to suppress basic free speech rights. The term “McCarthyism” became synonymous with baseless attacks on free expression, and the U.S. Supreme Court has referred to the phenomena in several First Amendment-related rulings.

“We are seeing a concerted wave that we have not seen in decades,” said Paulson, highlighting states like Florida where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has pushed for legislation that would criminalize drag shows, limit what pronouns teachers can use for students, allow parents to determine what books can be in libraries and block some history classes entirely.

“It’s pretty mind-boggling that so many politicians are waving the flag of freedom while doing anything they possibly can to infringe on the free speech rights of Americans,” Paulson said.

Still, no one political group has a monopoly on censorship — aggression is increasing across the spectrum, Cohn said.

Washington state’s  bias hotline bill , which died in committee earlier this year, was sponsored by Democratic Sen. Javier Valdez and backed by several groups including the Anti-Defamation League, Urban League, Council on American-Islamic Relations and others. It aimed to help the state collect information about hate crimes and bias incidents and to provide support and compensation to victims at a time when  hate crime reports  are rising.

Opponents, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said they feared it would chill protected speech because it encompasses both criminal behavior and offensively biased statements.

Hate speech can be damaging and repugnant, but is still generally protected by the First Amendment. The Department of Homeland Security and experts who study extremism have warned that hateful rhetoric can be seen as a call to action by extremists groups.

READ MORE: Arizona’s conservative superintendent sets up critical race theory hotline

Oregon created a similar bias hotline in 2019. It received nearly 1,700 calls in 2021, with nearly 60 percent of the reported incidents falling short of criminal standards, according to an annual report  from Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum’s office.

“People in power target their political adversaries, so who is being silenced really depends on where you are on the map and its individual context,” Cohn said.

Artist Katrina Majkut experienced that first-hand last week, when artworks she had shown in more than two dozen states over the past decade were unexpectedly censored at a small state school in Lewiston, Idaho.

Majkut uses embroidery to highlight and subvert historically narrow ideas of wifedom and motherhood. She was hired to curate an exhibit at Lewis-Clark State College focusing on health care issues like chronic illness, pregnancy and gun violence.

But March 2, a day before the show’s opening, Majkut and two other artists were told some of their work would be removed over administrator fears about running afoul of Idaho’s “No Public Funds for Abortion Act.”

The 2021 law bars state-funded entities from promoting abortion or taking other measures that could be seen as training or counseling someone in favor of abortion.

Majkut’s  cross-stitch depicting misoprostol and mifepristone tablets  — which can be used together to induce abortion early in pregnancy — was removed from the exhibit along with a wall plaque detailing Idaho’s abortion laws.

Four documentary video and audio works by artist Lydia Nobles that showed women talking about their own experiences with abortion were also removed. And part of artist Michelle Harney’s series of 1920s-era letters written to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger were stricken from the show.

“To be censored like that is shocking and surreal,” said Majkut, who designs her art to be educational rather than confrontational. “If the most even-keeled, bipartisan artwork around this topic is censored, then everything is going to be censored.”

READ MORE: Florida Republicans advance bills on gender identity, defamation

Logan Fowler, the spokesman for LCSC, said the school made the decision after consulting with attorneys about whether showing the art could violate the law. Republican Rep. Bruce Skaug, the author of the law, said Tuesday that it was not intended to “prevent open discussion” of abortion — only to prevent tax dollars from being used to promote it.

The art exhibit censorship comes just two months after another controversial decision by Skaug. As chairman of the Idaho House Judiciary and Rules Committee, Skaug announced in January that people under age 18 would not be allowed to testify in his committee. Another Republican committee chair soon followed suit.

Lawmakers have the ability to limit committee testimony, and often use those limits to keep the legislature’s work focused and timely. Still, the age-based speech restriction appeared to be a first for the state.

A group of teens took action, launching phone and email campaigns staging protests.

“There is a clear lack of foresight in politicians who seek to eliminate the voices of those who will one day elect and eventually supersede them,” a group of 32 high school student leaders wrote in a joint  opinion piece sent to news outlets  across the state. “We ask Idaho’s Republican leaders, what are you so afraid of?”

The lawmakers eventually modified their rules, allowing youth to testify as long as they have signed permission slips from a parent or guardian.

Skaug said the rule was necessary to ensure parents are aware if their kids are leaving school to testify at the Statehouse. He still intends to give priority to older residents when testimony time is limited, but said he’s not aware of any youth actually being denied the chance to testify so far this year.

For Cohn, the efforts in Idaho and elsewhere reflect the danger of trying to restrict the expression of people who hold opposing views.

“We have to be ever-vigilant if we want our culture of individual freedoms to prevail,” he said. “Bad ideas are better dealt with through debate and dialogue than government censorship.”

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

College Board releases African American Studies course framework after DeSantis criticism

Nation Feb 01

Special Features

Vendor voice.

Cisco calls for United Nations to revisit cyber-crime convention

Echoes human rights groups' concerns that it could suppress free speech and more.

Networking giant Cisco has suggested the United Nations' first-ever convention against cyber-crime is dangerously flawed and should be revised before being put to a formal vote.

The document that Cisco dislikes is the United Nations convention against cyber-crime [PDF]. The convention took five years to create and was drafted by a body called the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes. *

The purpose of the convention is to "enhance international cooperation, law enforcement efforts, technical assistance, and capacity-building relating to cyber crime," in recognition that digital technology has become a big enabler of transnational mischief.

As The Register reported after the committee agreed on a draft text, Russia was a big driver of the document, and human rights groups don't like it.

Human Rights Watch, for example, criticized the convention as overly broad, while the Electronic Frontier Foundation has labelled the convention "too flawed to adopt."

Those two orgs, and others, worry that the convention doesn't offer a narrow definition of cyber-crime, and could give signatory nations legal cover to target citizens who share views they dislike. They also worry about secrecy provisions in the document that would allow nations to demand info from service providers, without the individuals targeted by such requests being informed or having recourse.

British human rights org Article 19 has also warned the convention's broad language could stymie legitimate infosec research, by creating a legal environment in which cyber-boffins don't feel safe to ply their trade for fear of being labelled crims.

In a Wednesday post , Cisco's senior director for technology policy Eric Wenger backed some of those arguments.

"Rather than specifically focusing on hacking and cyber crimes, it broadly aims at the misuse of computer networks to disseminate objectionable information," he wrote. "This represents a misalignment with the values of free speech in liberal democracies, which should be addressed via an amendment before the Convention is taken up by member states for adoption."

Note that reference to "liberal democracies." Remember that Russia was a prime mover of this convention, and that in 2022 Cisco quit Moscow .

• Tech luminaries warn United Nations its Digital Compact risks doing more harm than good
• UN unanimously adopts ambitious AI resolution, sans teeth
• Hong Kong promises its latest national security law is not a ban on social media
• ICANN reserves .internal for private use at the DNS level

Wenger wrote that Cisco isn't opposed to a UN cyber-crime convention, and argued that "we need to ensure law enforcement agencies have the necessary capabilities to prevent, investigate, and prosecute transnational cyber crimes."

But he argued Cisco's position is that such instruments "must also uphold and protect the importance of basic human rights and the rule of law.

"Unfortunately, the UN Convention, as it stands, does not sufficiently protect basic human rights and poses risks to the rule of law."

Wenger wants the convention amended. But in early August the UN enthused about its likely passage as-is later this year, and the Biden administration reportedly thinks the document strikes an appropriate balance between human rights and the need for international collaboration to crimp cyber-crime. ®

* No, we're not going to use the acronym "AHCTEACICOCTUOIACTFCP." Referring to it as "the Committee" will be easier for all concerned.

• United Nations

Narrower topics

• Kenna Security

Broader topics

Send us news

Other stories you might like

Cisco slashes thousands of staff, 7% of entire workforce, pivots into ai, brain cipher claims attack on olympic venue, promises 300 gb data leak, feds claim sinister sysadmin locked up thousands of windows workstations, demanded ransom, the ultimate dual-use tool for cybersecurity.

Iran hunts down double agents with fake recruiting sites, Mandiant reckons

Iran's pioneer kitten hits us networks via buggy check point, palo alto gear, volt typhoon suspected of exploiting versa sd-wan bug since june, seattle airport 'possible cyberattack' snarls travel yet again, amd internal data reportedly offered for sale, alleged karakut ransomware scumbag charged in us, halliburton probes 'an issue' disrupting business ops, ransomware batters critical industries, but takedowns hint at relief.

• Advertise with us

Our Websites

• The Next Platform
• Blocks and Files

Your Privacy

• Cookies Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Ts & Cs

Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024

Rights experts urge United Kingdom to curb hate speech

Facebook Twitter Print Email

The United Kingdom must take action to curb racist hate speech and xenophobic rhetoric, a UN human rights body said on Friday, following recent riots that rocked the country.  

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racism (CERD) voiced concern over persistent hate crimes, hate speech and xenophobic incidents on various platforms, including by politicians and public figures.

It was particularly concerned about recurring racist acts and violence by extremist far-right and white supremacist individuals and groups targeting ethnic and ethno-religious minorities, migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers.

Southport stabbing attack

This includes violent acts committed in late July and early August this year when riots broke out across the UK following a stabbing attack at a dance class in Southport that left three young girls dead and 10 other people injured.

The unrest was fuelled by disinformation shared on social media about the suspect.

In calling for action, the UN Committee urged the UK authorities to implement comprehensive measures to curb racist hate speech and xenophobic rhetoric, including on the part of political and public figures. 

Members emphasized the need for thorough investigations and strict penalties for racist hate crimes, and effective remedies for the victims and their families.

According to news reports, British courts have handed down hundreds of sentences to those who took part in the unrest, including to some who fueled the disorder through online posts. 

Police target ethnic minorities

The Committee also expressed concern about the disproportionate impact of police stop-and-search practices, including strip searches, on ethnic minorities, especially children. 

It also raised alarm over the use of excessive and deadly force by law enforcement, lack of accountability, and inadequate support for victims' families, all of which disproportionately affect people of African descent and other ethnic minorities.

Concerns surrounding institutional racism within policing and the criminal justice system were also highlighted.

Investigate racial profiling

The Committee urged the UK to set up an independent complaint mechanism to investigate allegations of racial profiling, stop-and-search practices, strip searches, and excessive use of force by the police. 

Furthermore, perpetrators should be prosecuted and punished, and victims and their families should have access to effective remedies. 

Additionally, decisive action to eliminate racial discrimination within policing and the criminal justice system, must be taken.

About the Committee

The Committee published its findings on the UK after concluding a four-year review of the country, alongside seven other nations including Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Venezuela.

The 18 international experts appointed to the Committee receive their mandates from the UN Human Rights Council , which is located in Geneva.

They are not UN staff and do not receive payment for their work.  

• United Kingdom
• Hate Speech

Harris weaves her life story into a vision for America as she accepts Democratic nomination

CHICAGO — Amid a cacophony of cheering Democrats and a canopy of red, white and blue balloons, Vice President Kamala Harris made history.

The first woman elected vice president of the United States officially became the first Black and South Asian woman named a major-party presidential nominee, lifting Democrats’ hopes of defeating former President Donald Trump and keeping the White House for another four years. 

After three days of buildup about her work as a prosecutor and her promise as a leader, Harris emerged onstage to deafening roars from a packed arena, which cheered over her attempts to begin her speech before she told attendees they had to “get to some business.” 

“We are charting a new way forward, forward to a future with a strong and growing middle class,” Harris said in her speech.

“Because we know a strong middle class has always been critical to America’s success, and building that middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency,” she continued, calling it a “personal” thing because “the middle class is where I come from.”

“That’s why we will create what I call an opportunity economy, an opportunity economy where everyone has the chance to compete and a chance to succeed, whether you live in a rural area, small town or big city,” Harris said.

At that, thousands of Democrats inside the arena leaped to their feet, offering a thunderous reception. 

In the lead-up to Harris’ appearance, the electricity running through the party was palpable inside the United Center, where Michael Jordan famously led the Chicago Bulls to three of their six championships. All night, the arena was transformed into a rollicking party, with a sea of bodies, many of them wearing white, bouncing, dancing and singing as celebratory music blared. 

Harris spent the beginning of her speech laying out her biography, from her family’s story to the early steps of her career. Speaking about her immigrant parents, she said she’s “no stranger to unlikely journeys,” describing her upbringing in the San Francisco Bay Area and her start as a prosecutor.

“Every day in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge and I said five words: ‘Kamala Harris for the people.’ My entire career, I only had one client: the people,” Harris said.

Harris then wove that story into the traditional applause line accepting her party’s nomination.

“And so, on behalf of the people; on behalf of every American, regardless of party, race, gender or the language your grandmother speaks; on behalf of my mother and everyone who has ever set out on their own unlikely journey; on behalf of Americans like the people I grew up with, people who work hard, chase their dreams and look out for one another; on behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth, I accept your nomination to be president of the United States of America,” Harris said.

In the month since President Joe Biden stepped aside from the campaign, Harris has transformed the race, invigorating a stagnant, lackluster campaign weighed down by questions over his age and sharpness. Now, the campaign is awash with money, having raised nearly $500 million since Harris moved to the top of the ticket and later chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate.

In her remarks, Harris spoke in broad outlines about her own agenda, saying she would restore reproductive freedoms, offer a tax cut to the middle class, end America’s housing shortage and protect Social Security and Medicare. 

“They are out of their minds,” she said of Republicans and what she called their attack on women’s reproductive rights. “We trust women,” she said. 

She repeatedly hammered away at Trump, calling him a threat to working Americans, saying he would cut taxes for only the wealthy. She also cited Project 2025, a conservative blueprint by the Heritage Foundation meant to be a road map for another Trump term. Trump rejected the document after the blowback around it. 

After a program that included The Chicks singing the national anthem and a performance by Pink, pop queen Beyoncé's song “Freedom” also played ahead of the vice president's acceptance speech, reinforcing a theme Harris has leaned on to advocate for everything from voting rights to housing affordability to reproductive rights. 

“I believe America cannot truly be prosperous unless Americans are fully able to make their own decisions about their own lives, especially on matters of heart and home. But tonight, in America, too many women are not able to make those decisions, and let’s be clear about how we got here,” Harris said, pointing to Trump’s Supreme Court appointees who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Harris also spoke about strengthening border security and national security, slamming Trump’s opposition to a bipartisan border deal that was proposed in Congress this year, as well as his past comments about American allies. She reaffirmed her commitment to NATO and Ukraine in its war against Russia.

And Harris spoke at length about Israel and its military action against Hamas in Gaza, an issue that has divided Democrats over the last year.

“Let me be clear, I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself,” Harris said, speaking about the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas. “At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost, desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety over and over again.”

Trump, who posted on social media throughout Harris' speech, wrote on his platform Truth Socia l: "She’s done nothing for three and a half years but talk, and that’s what she’s doing tonight, she’s complaining about everything but doing nothing."

Democrats react

The conclusion of the convention capped a tumultuous period for the Democratic Party, with weeks of infighting among its leaders before Biden announced he would step aside. Biden immediately endorsed Harris, and she quickly locked down support across his delegates, avoiding what some had feared could become a messy open convention. 

But the prospect of Harris’ landing in the White House had Black leaders beaming all day. 

“There is no glass ceiling in this for us. Hillary cracked it. We’re gonna break through it,” said Daniele Monroe-Moreno, the first Black woman to chair the Nevada Democratic Party. 

She said Harris’ accomplishment sends a clear message in 2024.

“Every little girl — I don’t care what race, religious belief you are — there is nothing you cannot do,” Monroe-Moreno said. “And that’s what this means. Women. We’re here. We’re the new force in this Democratic Party.”

When Harris launched her first presidential campaign in 2019, she became the third Black woman to seek a major party’s nomination, following Rep. Shirley Chisholm, D-N.Y., in 1972 and former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, D-Ill., in 2004.

Now, little more than half a century after Chisholm’s campaign, which challenged stereotypes and collected a handful of delegates, her party has nominated a Black woman for the most powerful post in the world.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights leader and MSNBC host, was youth director for Chisholm’s campaign. On Thursday, he put Harris’ nomination in the context of Chisholm and a change in American attitudes on race and gender that she helped foment.

“To see this fulfilled is a long time coming,” Sharpton said. “It shows a growth in the country and in the Democratic Party, not only for Black, but for a woman — it’s a victory over misogyny, institutional misogyny and racism.”

Feelings of pride and patriotism swelled within many of the Black women at Thursday’s session of the convention.

Cathleen Trigg, founder and CEO of iWomanTV , said she had come to Chicago from New York to do everything in her power to help Harris win.

“I can’t really describe the feeling of being at this place in life where we do have our potentially first female, first Black female, first — so many firsts — that could be leading our country, the greatest country in the world,” said Trigg, 56. “It’s a miracle. It’s a blessing. It is an opportunity for change that is much needed in our country.”

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., who was the highest-ranking Black lawmaker when he was the Democratic whip in the House, referred to the preamble of the Constitution in explaining the importance of Harris’ nomination.

“It means that we have taken another step toward a more perfect union,” Clyburn said. “It means that a significant, and I hope a majority, segment of this country wishes to continue moving forward, not interested in going backwards, not interested in reliving the past, but charting out a new way forward for our children and grandchildren.”

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said: “From President Biden, you had this [message of] ‘Oh, my gosh. Democracy is at stake! We can’t let this happen! Kamala Harris brought the joy back into this.”

Speaking from Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, before the convention began, Warner said that “every politician is passing through and people are almost giddy!”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in an interview: “Americans like an upbeat, optimistic, joy-filled personality, which is what she’s conveyed.”

Ann-Marie Herod, a Black woman who lives in Chicago and is originally from Mississippi, said it was difficult to put the significance of the night into words.  

“When Obama ran, I was a young girl. Now, I’m actually able to go out and be active within this process: canvassing, doing these different things,” said Herod, who was watching Harris’ acceptance from Soldier Field. “I have parents, I have friends, who never could have imagined a Black woman could be in the White House. It is amazing.”

Natasha Korecki is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.

Jonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News.