Moral Relativism & US Public Diplomacy (revised)

This update of an older post was written for the Public Diplomat and can be found here.

As the science of morality progresses, US public diplomacy should educate others despite any cultural differences.

Since the Age of Exploration, the dominant views of Europeans toward people who populated the other continents were paternalistic and ethnocentric — to not be Europeans and Christian instantly diminished the worth of a person or a belief. Relatively recently, the prevailing view in Europe and the West has shifted to become more tolerant — perhaps in reaction to the brutality of past injustices. In the extreme this has led to moral relativism, a judgment-free approach toward the values of other cultures. At present this view is ubiquitous in anthropological and sociological literature. As a modern, accepting people, so the argument goes, we shall not narrow-mindedly impose our morals on others.

But this argument assumes that morality is a subjective notion, or that there is no objective measure by which one can judge others actions or values. The only reason these assumptions have not been effectively challenged, argues Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape, is because we have an underdeveloped science of morality. Harris makes a key point: unknown is not the same as unknowable. Just because we have yet to coalesce on a singular measure of objective moral judgment does not mean that we will not be able to do so in the future. In light of the history of scientific and rational progress, we cannot say that the fields of neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and anthropology will never advance and be able to determine that certain actions, beliefs and principles are objectively counter to human well-being.

Can one say that rights of self-governance are objectively morally good?  Can one say that deploring despotic rule is merely a subjective preference, based on little more than culturally arbitrary preferences? One’s answer to these questions is vital to one’s view of public diplomacy. If the answer is that there is no objective truth on such moral questions, then why should the American people try to influence other cultures with portraying our values of democracy and human rights? If it’s for mere economic gain, why not sell the beaches of Hawai’i instead of

democracy and human rights? Surely vacation destinations are far easier to sell in places like China. If public diplomacy only functions to serve our subjective national trade or diplomacy interests, should it be valued as a legitimate field, or simply method of propaganda?

I view public diplomacy more expansively. The message of public diplomacy, like any other communication, must come from our ‘mission statement’ — the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration tells a candid world with what rights all people[1] were born — not just Americans. It discusses why all governments are instituted—not just the U.S. government. These are statements claiming objective truth! As such, I argue that any U.S. public diplomacy which flows from our organizational mission statement cannot be morally relative. And while the science of morality is underdeveloped, that does not mean that nothing is known. Harris compares morality to health: just as we know that eating only marshmallows is less likely to lead to a healthy body than eating a diet which includes leafy green vegetables and protein, we also know that enslaving or subjugating women or whole ethnic groups are less likely to result in human flourishing than equal rights and opportunities for all. For these reasons, U.S. public diplomacy should not shy away from strongly holding any cultural or political practice as superior to those which we know are wrong — especially as science progresses to advance our knowledge and understanding on these points[2].

In a sense, U.S. public diplomacy should not narrowly seek to advance our economic interests, but instead promote values which are objectively aligned with the promotion of human well-being. And as our understanding of human happiness and well-being advances, the more we will know about the science of morality, and the better we can conduct our public diplomacy toward educating others. “What right does the West have to tell a conservative Islamic country that women should not wear the veil?” one might ask. Someday, perhaps as much right as one has to assert that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and revolves around the Sun, and anyone arguing the contrary is simply wrong.

---

[1] I generally take “all men” to mean “all humans,” but even if Jefferson explicitly meant the male gender, the point still stands that it was meant universally to all men, not just American men.

[2] I don’t assume that the U.S. has any monopoly on objective morality. No study has shown that corporal punishment bestows any long-term benefit on any person, yet the U.S. stands as a country which frequently practices it. Science also requires flexibility and recalibration in the face of evidence.

Former President Morsi’s Legal Liability for Incitement to Violence

This post was written for the Tahrir Institute and appears here.


In early September, former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and others in the Muslim Brotherhood were charged under Egyptian domestic law withincitement to the murder of protesters in December 2012. Egyptian authorities have provided no details of the evidence against him. However, Morsi and the Brotherhood were responsible for several other instances of incitement during their year in power, and a legal case can be made specifically regarding the incitement of violence against Shiites. 

Morsi neglected to enforce domestic criminal law by failing to denounce inciting speech by Muslim Brotherhood members and those in his presence during the Egypt-Syria Solidarity Conference on June 15, 2013. In the process, he violated international law and international obligations to which Egypt is bound. The result of Morsi’s abdication of duty was the killing of four Shiites in Egypt. 

The most widely accepted international standards of free speech are found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Egypt is one of 167 states parties to have signed and ratified the 1966 ICCPR. Article 20 in the ICCPR states, “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Article 20 goes on to name group hatred as to be prohibited by law. The language here is strong: an international treaty is directing domestic legal prohibitions of expression. This is not suggestive or aspirational language most commonly found in international documents; this language is mandatory.

Next, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), also a 1966 document, has 175 states parties, one of which is Egypt. The CERD says that all states parties shall declare punishable by law “all dissemination of ideas based on incitement to racial discrimination, acts of violence or incitement to violence against any group of persons of another color.” The document goes on to proscribe any organizations or governmental institutions themselves which may create such utterances. The CERD is applicable here because in 2008 the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution that reaffirmed that the CERD was equally applicable to incitement of religious hatred.

In 2011 the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (of which Egypt is a member) introduced a resolution, which was adopted by the UNHCR, on discrimination and free speech. Point 3 of the resolution condemns “any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence…” Point 5(g) of the resolution demonstrates “…the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred…”

The preceding sources all point to an international legal consensus on the issue of incitement—they all condemn the advocacy of group hatred. It is important to note that an imminent physical manifestation of such hate is not required—the intent to cause hatred toward a group itself is proscribed. Hate speech can be restricted for reasons such as respect for the rights of others and public order. Incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence are also prohibited.

However, international standards are not the only relevant measures of incitement in Egypt. A part of Egypt’s complex legal system is the Penal Code, which dates from 1937. The Code is periodically updated andremains in force to this day. The Code criminalizes the use of religion in public incitement or the mocking or ridicule of religion in public. Specifically, article 98(f) proscribes the use of religion in propagating by speech extremist thoughts aimed at instigation division or disdain, and article 176 criminalizes the incitement to hate or deride a sect of people. 

The 2012 Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom pointed out several incidents in 2011, one of which Morsi was in the presence of incendiary speech, but failed to denounce it. The report notes an October 19 statement against Jews, and several statements against Copts, such as on November 4 and 22. The 2013 Report found no improvement, and wrote that in the early months of 2012, an increase in government-funded mosques contributed to sectarian tensions. 

Ikhwanonline reported that high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood members including Dr. Mohamed Wahdan stated at an event in April 2013 that, “that the Egyptian people and government would not allow the spread of Shiism in Egypt.” Similar comments were made at the Egypt-Syria Solidarity Conference on June 15, 2013. Morsi was in attendance, and the conference was initiated by prominent Egyptian Sunni clerics. Several clerics “labeled Shiites as ‘impure’ or ‘filthy’ and protesters as infidels.” Specifically, Ali Ahmed Salus referred to the Shia Assad regime in Syria as “atheists.” Mohammed Hasaan asked Morsi to not open the gates of Egypt to “deserters,” a derogatory term for Shiites. Hasaan further noted that jihad is the obligation of able Muslims. Mohammed Abdel Maqsud spoke of June 30 as a fight against infidels. Former President Morsi spoke last and did not denounce any such remarks. While Morsi avoided direct incitement, his Muslim Brotherhood encouraged listeners to engage in jihad against theShiite government in Syria.

The language used by Muslim Brotherhood-associated clerics and those who spoken in front of former President Morsi falls on the president’s responsibility to denounce such incitement. A head of state is expected to hold such speakers responsible under the domestic Penal Code, and such an omission subjects the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi to international legal liability.

The language heard at the conference clearly constitutes the use of religion in speech for extremist thoughts aimed at instigation division or disdain, which is specifically proscribed by Egypt’s Penal Code Art. 98(f) and 176. As the CERD clearly proscribes groups (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) which may create utterances that disseminate ideas based on incitement to group-based violence, the Muslim Brotherhood is in violation of that document, and should be subject to legal punishment. It is important to repeat that Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Further, the language also violates Points 3 and 5(g) of the Resolution Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief. They proscribe advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and requires the government to combat religious denigration and incitement to religious hatred. Lastly, the ICCPR, a legal treaty signed and ratified by Egypt, requires that state parties prohibit advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. 

Morsi’s lack of enforcement of both domestic and international law was not harmless. Eight days after the speeches at the stadium four Shiites were lynched in a Giza village. Human Rights Watch (HRW) wrote that Morsi, “failed to make it a priority to create a strategy to protect religious minorities and has failed to speak out against months of hate speech against Shia.” A local village official told the Arab Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) the Shiites were targeted because, “The sheikhs from the mosques went out last Friday and said that Shiites are apostates and we have to kick them out of the village.” HRW noted the actions of the police to protect the Shiites in the wake of the incitement was insufficient, as were the responses from both the government and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for religious-based incitement to violence in the past, as well as immediately before the bloody killings of June 2013. Former President Morsi knew, should have known, or had a substantial certainty that violent actions would follow from the words of his supporters spoken in his presence—yet he did nothing. 

As such, by not denouncing the inciting speech of those from his own party or those who spoke directly before him at a major conference, former President Morsi failed to enforce domestic law and failed to uphold his international legal obligation as a head of state under the ICCPR and other international obligations to which Egypt is a party. 

A Constitution Day Plea against NSA Surveillance

This was posted on the Tully Center for Free Speech's blog Free Speech Zone, and can be found here.

Today is Constitution Day, which marks the 226th anniversary of the ratification of the document which forms the legal outline of our society. This document includes values such as limited government powers, inter-branch checks and balances, and the personal right to be secure in one’s effects. Today is the day to reflect on how poorly we have done to maintain these values.

While government surveillance and opacity are not wholly new, the recent revelations of NSA metadata collection and activity exceeds the scope of all previously known examples of government overstepping. The National Security Administration (NSA)  routinely engages in the compilation of information on both domestic and foreign communications, acting inconsistently with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). More importantly, in October 2011, U.S. District Judge Bates wrote that the NSA acquires information with “substantial intrusions on Fourth Amendment protected interests.” To do this, the NSA has not only created an array of data collection technologies, but has also co-opted private data collected by complicit corporation. The NSA has hacked into the United Nations and has given your private information to the Israeli government. How can any American feel secure in his or her personal effect?

One might respond that we are in a time of war, exempting us from Constitutional limits on the grounds of necessity. However, the horrors of war were just as real to those who fought the Revolutionary War and created our founding documents as it is now for those who witnessed the horrors of 9/11 and face endless threats to domestic tranquility. We must remind ourselves that those documents originate from the cauldron of war by people who surely faced death if their revolution proved unsuccessful. Their values remain as true today as they did over two hundred years ago.

Any law is only as good as its enforcement, and the Constitution is no exception. We must  stand and assert our fundamental rights if we fear their erosion. Earlier this month the Associated Press reported that nearly 60% of Americans oppose the NSA’s metadata program. But without constituents in the streets and anger in their inboxes, our representatives have no incentive to challenge the current national security structure. As such, action is required to show Congress our disagreement of these programs. I call on all Americans to join the Stop Watching Us Coalition and Restore the Fourth in Washington, D.C. during  the weekend of October 26th for a day of action against the NSA’s mass surveillance. This day marks the anniversary  of the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation passed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks aimed at shaking our great nation’s strong foundation.

America is indeed an exceptional nation, full of amazing people and unthinkable potential. But if we the people don’t hold our government to its Constitutional limits of power, our liberty will be irreparably eroded by the fear of a possible enemy at the gates. As such, we must realize now that the true enemy of liberty comes from within–our own complacency.

Seven Mistakes of English that make me instantly stop listening or reading

Insensitive? Possibly. Arbitrary? Maybe. Steeped in privilege and arcane notions of propriety? Sure. But regardless, for some elitist reason I cannot get past these commonly made mistakes in English. Whether others have the same rules and pet peeves as I, everyone will judge you in some way for how you speak. And believe it or not, you judge them, too.

1.       Pronouns are for back-up. Only use ‘it’, ‘they’, ‘them’, etc. when that which is being referred to is explicitly clear.

2.       Proper verb conjugation. There’s two? No, there are two. This one is so simple, I really don't understand the issue here.

3.       Adjectives v. adverbs. He didn’t run slow. Don’t grab your coat quick. He ran slowly. Grab your coat quickly. File ‘well v. good’ under this, too.

4.       Their and They. These words always refer to more than one person. They are NOT gender neutral singular pronouns.

5.       Correct plurals. Criteria are many, criterion is one. Media are plural. Data are too. Alumni are as well. (Bonus: ‘alum’, unless you’re discussing chemistry, is not a word. Never use it. Ever.)

6.       Sentence subjects. ‘Checked the door’. ‘Wasn’t there’. Uh, what checked the door? What wasn’t there? Even if you think the subjects of these incomplete sentences are made clear by previous reference, they are not. You need a subject here.

7.       I and Me, Who and Whom. I and Who are subjects, Me and Whom are objects. Use them as such.

Now of course I have made all of these mistakes at some point in my adult life, but once I notice I feel dirty and embarrassed. How can one notice mistakes and thereby improve one’s English? There are two ways to notice mistakes: having an ‘ear’ for correct English, and knowing the formal rules of English. The former simply means having your Colbert-gut attuned to recognize mistakes, while the latter is the nerd version which will note that a coordinating conjunction should only be used to join two independent clauses. If you didn’t grow up with parents who used near-perfect English (I love my parents but they know nothing of grammar), the best way to develop and ‘ear’ for it is to read it and listen to it. If you didn’t have grammar education in high school (I must admit I did), buy this. 

Regardless of what technological advances come (except perhaps direct thought propagation) language will continue to be important. And until human nature changes, people will continue to judge others on how they speak. The criteria, though, will change, of course. Like education in general, language is a lifetime process that requires constant attention, but for me it has been well worth the effort.

Who's to Blame For the Surveillance State? Here's the Hard Truth

This post appears on PolicyMic.com and thus can be found here.

Americans are told that the United States is a nation governed by laws, not men. We praise our peaceful transitions of power and our checks and balances. But while we are not ruled by the arbitrary whims of individuals, our laws are not actually what dictate our government’s actions. Instead, we are a nation governed by fear of terrorism. This has led us down a foggy road, opaque with tactically questionable and illegal National Security Administration (NSA) surveillance. Now, our best chance of bringing transparency back to the U.S. is to work within the political system to bring real change to law and policy.

Recent leaks, information releases, and other revelations have shown that Americans have no information about the actions of our own government. Specifically, the NSA’s "metadata’" program of compiling massive databases of information on both domestic and foreign communications is inconsistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was passed to prevent the executive branch from engaging in over-broad domestic surveillance. In order to achieve such a database, the NSA has co-opted complicittelecommunications companies, as well. All the metadata collected could not possibly be relevant to any specific investigation, allowing the executive to unlawfully engage in the collection of personal information on U.S. citizens.

FISA itself is flawed as well. The U.S. legal system is designed to be adversarial: two opposing parties attempting to point out holes in the other’s arguments. In theory, this process allows for the truth to be discovered by the judge or jury. The FISA court does not generally work this way, however. The government presents classified information to the court, with no effective oversight beyond that the government has “simply dotted its i’s and crossed its t’s.” Thus, with no opposing counsel or public scrutiny, the nation’s national security apparati are allowed to operate unchecked by any truly independent body or individual. We now know that in October 2011, U.S. District Judge Bates wrote that the NSA acquires information with “substantial intrusions on Fourth Amendment protected interests.” Internal executive branch checks are not constitutionally or democratically sufficient oversight for programs such as surveillance and drone operations.

Those who point out the dangers of this lack of transparency and public scrutiny of our surveillance programs are not simply clinging to outdated notions of rights and liberties. In the name of the American people, the NSA has also hacked into the United Nations and the European Union. Along with these supra-national organizations, our spying programs have strained our relationship with Germany, a key economic ally. Perhaps more troubling, the very structure of these surveillance programs give officials no sufficient ability to separate purely domestic communications from those which involve non-U.S. citizens. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is using NSA-like legal tactics to collect NSA-like metadata for domestic law enforcement purposes.

America is now living in a time period when citizens are being knowingly surveilled. This is Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon — an institution with a ubiquitous and controlling gaze. Michel Foucault pointed out that living in knowing surveillance leads humans to internalize the institutional rules — that is to say, we begin to act as our surveillers wish us to act. We grow numb to the invasions of personal privacy and accept our role within the state apparatus. This does not sound like a democracy where citizens exert ultimate control and authority over the functions and actions of the government.

I wish to alter Julian Assange’s statement, “privacy for the weak and transparency for the powerful,” to say instead, privacy for the people and transparency for the state. This statement reflects a truth which can be inferred by the philosophy, structure, and very texts of our Constitution. Regarding privacy for the people: the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the Ninth Amendment protection of personal freedoms. Regarding transparency for the state: the First Amendment freedom of the press, the president’s Article II duty to report on the state of the nation, and the democratic requirement that the people must make informed decisions when voting for or against government officials. Privacy for the people and transparency for the state are requirements to ensure government is subservient to the people who established it.

Whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, and others have taken extralegal steps to bring government abuses to the attention of the public. These revelations have not yet inspired mass action in the American people — save, perhaps, for the Restore the Fourth movement . Thus, the American people must be mobilized in order to create a sustained push for sufficient transparency in governance to ensure the protection of our constitutional rights. As Congress returns to work for the fall session, citizens must exponentially increase our activism toward forcing a revolution in how the government conducts its surveillance activities. Without constituents in the streets and anger in their inboxes, our representatives have no incentive to challenge the current national security structure.

But we cannot continue to only work on the outside looking in. We must work within the political system in order to effectively bring change to the U.S. The wholesale structural change needed in the federal government to roll back the privacy abuses of the past cannot come without more allies within the halls of power. Think to yourself, which movement has brought more change to the U.S. political landscape: the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street? The Tea Party did, by recognizing how to play the game of politics to get what they want. As such, formalized organizations which can either put forth or endorse political candidates for federal office must be created and supported broadly.

Walking down the opaque road of secretive governance and diminished liberty should strike each of us as inherently un-American. But you can’t challenge the government unless you challenge yourself. You can’t change the country unless you change yourself. As Cory Booker said in a speech in Washington on Saturday, democracy is not a spectator sport. We each must materially support nationwide organizations which have the structural ability to move Washington toward a more perfect America. In the words of Lt. Ehren Watada, this is an obligation, not a choice.