Chill on free speech extends across the entire world - Gehan Gunasekara

U.S. travel vetting order sparks global concerns over free speech limits. Photo / Getty Images

THE FACTS

• Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech marked the Cold War’s start; a similar warning applies to the US today.
• A travel advisory highlighted risks of enhanced vetting in the US, including scrutiny of social media.
• The executive order’s vague terms threaten global free speech, contradicting the US’s First Amendment rights.

Nearly 80 years ago, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Winston Churchill, gave a famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, in which he made the bold statement, in relation to Europe, that “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the continent”.

That speech marked the beginning of what came to be known as the Cold War. Today, a similar call ought to be made, this time in relation to the US itself.

Something like: From the Niagara River on Lake Ontario to the Rio Grande in the Gulf of Mexico (or should it be the Gulf of America?), a chill has descended on the land of the free. This chill on free speech, however, extends across the entire world.

It’s illustrated by my hesitation to publish this article until I had returned to New Zealand following a family event in the States.

Before my trip, I received a travel advisory from my employer regarding the risks associated with travelling to the US.

The advisory warned of enhanced vetting for those travelling there, including scrutiny of social media posts and other commentary by academics. It cautioned that devices carried could be subject to examination. A link to the executive order mandating this vetting was included in the message.

Legal curiosity led me to download and closely scrutinise the order. Many aspects it contains are unobjectionable – for example, the desire to exclude from the US those who advocate for, aid or support designated foreign terrorists, or who might be a threat to national security.

However, other aspects, such as the injunction to exclude those with “hostile attitudes” towards United States’ culture and those who might otherwise harm the “political and cultural interests of the United States”, were startling.

Furthermore, the order is concerned with, amongst other matters, “recommending any actions necessary” against excluding those who might call for “the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands”.

What is United States’ culture according to Trump and his posse? Apple pie? Baseball? Such vague and undefined terms may well be subject to judicial challenge on the grounds of uncertainty.

Since views can also be communicated through the internet, the effect of the order is, effectively, to muzzle free speech globally, certainly for those who travel to or through the US.

To be sure, the executive order also refers to the “fundamental constitutional rights of the American people”, including “rights to freedom of speech” protected by the First Amendment.

Such lip service belies the actual practices of the Trump administration.

Everything from suppression of pro-Palestinian action, diversity, equity and inclusion views on university campuses, attempts to “cancel” talk-show hosts, deployment of the National Guard to silence demonstrators to the excesses of ICE – many found to be illegal – points to corruption of the rule of law domestically and internationally.

Continued material support for Israel in perpetration of, what I believe are, clearly documented war crimes, while at the same time taking punitive actions against judges of the international criminal court, arbitrary imposition of tariffs in clear breach of WTO rules, and interference in the judicial process of South America’s largest democracy are all premised on the idea that “you are subject to my rules but I am not”, the very antithesis of the principle on which America was founded.

King George VI, at the outbreak of World War II, warned of “a challenge of a principle, which if it were to prevail would be fateful to any civilised order in the world” the “primitive doctrine that might is right”.

That doctrine is re-emerging now, and all of us who value the rule of law, democracy, and universal human rights must be prepared, whatever the cost, to resist it.

Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.