Dr Dimitrina Petrova sets out the conceptual framework and thematic scope on the topic in an\u00a0Introduction to plenary session, OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Warsaw, September 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. \u0415qual\nparticipation in political and public affairs is a moral and\npolitical aspiration, but it is also a broadly recognized realizable political\nright to which OSCE participating states are committed. Progress, however, has\nbeen slow and uneven. Even\nwith groups that have been in the focus of multiple empowerment efforts, such\nas women, and even in respect to the most traditional forms of political\nparticipation, statistics reveal a persisting gap between commitments and\nreality. In September 2015, parliaments in the OSCE region had an average of\n25.7% women\u2019s representation. Thirty-four surveyed OSCE countries had, on\naverage, about 27% women in municipal councils, and only 12% of mayors were\nwomen.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Equality<\/strong>\n(and non-discrimination subsumed in it) has a triple status in international human\nrights law: it is a general principle, an autonomous right, and an accessory\nright. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,\ntaken together with Article 2, enshrines the accessory right to equality in\nrespect to participation in political and public affairs. It is worth recalling\nthe content of the right provided in Article 25:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEvery\ncitizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the\ndistinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take\npart in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen\nrepresentatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic\nelections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by\nsecret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have\naccess, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. To ensure political rights without\ndiscrimination on prohibited grounds such as race, colour, sex, language,\nreligion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,\nbirth or other status, States\nshould have in place the legal framework of equality law. Modern equality law\nhas developed within a number of OSCE participating States, but it is still\nsorely missing in others. In the meantime, while in some countries there is not\neven a legal definition of discrimination, in others, as well as at the\nregional and international levels, the legal concept of equality has evolved in\nthe last five decades, reflecting the changing views on the question: what should we wish to equalize\nthrough legal means? Accordingly, there has been an evolution of the\nunderstanding of the right to equality, from equality of treatment to equality\nof opportunity, and onwards to equality of participation. Today, the\nright to equality is broadly seen as containing as its elements (a) equal\nenjoyment of all human rights; (b) equal protection and benefit of the law; and\n(c) equal participation in all areas of life regulated by law.[2]<\/a>\nUnder this approach, positive (affirmative) action is a necessary element of\nthe right to equality.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. The global picture of the protection from discrimination and the\npromotion of equality shows a stark difference among States, including within\nthe OSCE region. With constitutional protection purely rhetorical, many States\nlack a developed, or indeed any, legislative or policy framework related to\nequality that would give effect to equality rights enshrined in international\nhuman rights law and their own constitutions. At the other end of the spectrum are Canada,\nthe USA and most EU Member States. They have strong comprehensive equality legislation\nand policies which cover extensive, closed or open-ended lists of protected\ncharacteristics (sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) and\nareas of life (administration of justice, government and public functions,\nemployment, education, health, provision of goods and services, etc.), and\nprovide legal definitions of prohibited conduct as well as effective remedies.\nIn many jurisdictions, the law goes beyond the prohibition of discrimination\nand imposes positive duties on public sector bodies and on private\norganisations to take steps toward equality.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.In view of the above, it is\nrecommended that, to strengthen the\npromotion and protection of equality in respect to participation in political\nand public affairs, all OSCE States should adopt comprehensive equality legislation.\n<\/strong>This recommendation, while not new, is central and pertinent to the topic\nof this session. Certainly, it has become customary for UN treaty bodies, when\nreviewing a State party\u2019s performance under a particular treaty, to include a\nstandard recommendation to this effect in their concluding observations. But\nmany OSCE participating States are still far from complying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6. Further, each State,\nincluding those that already have otherwise well-developed equality legislation,\nshould look seriously at the neglected issue of discrimination on the basis of<\/strong> political\nopinion<\/strong> \u2013 one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination which has\nfeatured in international human rights law ever since the listing of protected\ncharacteristics in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.\nDiscrimination on the basis of political opinion is frequently experienced by\npersons with oppositional and dissenting political views or affiliations, and\ncan take a huge variety of forms, from politically motivated torture and\nill-treatment in custody to pressure on employers to dismiss them or on\nuniversities to expel them. It might be argued that this type of discrimination\nis better dealt with under other human rights related laws, but I believe that equality\nlaw covering political opinion can be a potent legal instrument with which to\napproach the specific area of political participation. It is recommended,\ntherefore, that participating States\nreview their national legislation to assess its effectiveness in combating\ndiscrimination based on political opinion, and take steps to strengthen it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7. The modern\nunderstanding of human rights places all human rights on an equal footing, thereby\nemphasizing the interdependence and indivisibility of civil, cultural,\neconomic, political and social rights. Applied to the right to equal\nparticipation in the political and public sphere, this approach means that its\nenjoyment is intrinsically linked to other rights including freedom of\nassociation, peaceful assembly, opinion and expression, and access to information,\namong others. Furthermore, the OSCE participating States have made a solemn commitment\nto political democracy as the only form of government in which human rights are\nmeaningful and realizable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 8. Recent reports by human rights groups\npaint a gloomy picture of the entire OSCE region and spell out a disturbing regressive\ntrend in fundamental rights on which equal political participation crucially\ndepends. Where has the spirit of the 1989 Vienna and 1990 Copenhagen Documents\ndisappeared? Where is the glorious determination of that generation of\nstatesmen\/women who, in the 1990 Charter of Paris, committed \u201cto build,\nconsolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our\nnations\u201d, and to the values of pluralistic debates fostering inclusive and\neffective participation in political and public affairs? Twenty-seven years\nlater we see, in the OSCE region, anything but a culture of free and equal\nparticipation: excessive and disproportionate use of force against peaceful\nprotesters, assaults on journalists, unjustified criminal charges against political\nopponents, crackdowns on dissenting voices, further surges of restrictive laws suppressing\nNGO work, outright denials of freedom of association to government opponents, overt\npolitical discrimination against minorities,\ntightened control over the media, and continued growth of government\nsurveillance in the name of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 9. Equal participation\nin political and public affairs is closely related to the way in which States regulate the\nrelationship between freedom of expression and equality. States within the OSCE\nregion have a history of difference over whether\/when hate speech should be outlawed,\nincluding online speech. As there is no firm bright line in international human\nrights law on the complex balancing of free speech and equality rights, State policies\nare drifting across a line in the sand, particularly as regards online\nexpression. It has been argued that online speech differs from offline speech\nas it can be more disinhibited than speech in the real world; it persists and\ncan be accessed for a long time unless deliberately removed; and it is\ninherently trans-border, both in the way it travels and is accessed. These\nattributes can make online speech more powerful and complicate the task of\nregulation.[6]<\/a>\nParticipating States should consider\ncreating new opportunities for debate on regulating online speech to ensure the\nenjoyment of Internet freedoms and balancing these with equality. <\/strong>The aim\nshould be agreeing a set of principles that \u2013 while leaving plenty of room to\nwork out solutions on a case by case basis \u2013 spell out criteria for expression\nthat should be protected in the name of equality and non-discrimination. In\nthis regard, I would draw attention to the Camden Declaration on Freedom of\nExpression and Equality elaborated by Article XIX in 2009.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 10. An increased political participation\nof under-represented groups (minorities, women, youth, persons with\ndisabilities and non-citizens) is a pathway to a more inclusive and equal society.\nWe should add to this the role of socio-economic status \u2013 and not as an\nafterthought, as it has been the most persistent factor in shaping political\nequality in many if not most countries.[8]<\/a> To the extent that\npolitical parties are still the main gatekeepers to positions of political\npower, it is important to encourage internal party diversity through a variety\nof targeted measures, such as the adoption of (voluntary or mandatory) quotas\nand capacity building programmes. Different quota systems can indeed be\neffective, although they do raise concerns with many equality advocates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 11.\nEffective equality policies are predicated on high quality social information. The\nissue of equality statistics should be addressed by States wishing to encourage\nequal participation. To give full effect to the right to equality of\nparticipation, States must collect and\npublicise information, including relevant statistical data, in order to\nidentify inequalities, discriminatory practices and patterns of disadvantage,\nand to analyse the effectiveness of measures to promote equality<\/strong>. Of\ncourse, such information must be collected in compliance with human rights.[9]<\/a>\nIn 2009, the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference recommended that\nStates should develop a system of data collection, including equal-opportunity\nand non-discrimination indicators, that, upholding the right to privacy and the\nprinciple of self-identification, makes it possible to assess and guide the\nformulation of policies and actions to eradicate racism, racial discrimination,\nxenophobia and related intolerance. States should recognise that they have a similar\npositive duty, mutatis mutandis<\/em>, in\nrespect to sex, disability, age, religion, language and other protected\ncharacteristics.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 12. A mature discussion of equal participation in the 21st<\/sup> century must be concerned with the participation rights of children and young people. The KidsRights Index shows that the implementation of child participation rights is impeded by traditional practices and cultural attitudes in the family, schools and certain social and judicial settings. Children at risk, such as, for example, children in alternative care, are rarely included in deciding matters concerning them, let alone matters of more general interest. OSCE participating States should ensure that the views of children and young people are given due consideration in public affairs through the adoption of child participation legislation, training of professionals, introducing curriculum reforms and awareness raising.<\/strong> The purpose is to create meaningful venues through which children and young people can influence public policy. Young persons should be respected not so much as apprentice citizens but as autonomous persons who, despite their limited experience, deserve to speak for themselves on agendas of their own making.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 13. Young people of voting age in many countries have often been accused\nof being apolitical, consumerist, disengaged, self-centred, cynical, etc., and their\nlow participation in formal elections has been cited as symptomatic for such\nattitudes. But young people themselves have strongly challenged this view: they\nhave emphasised that they are not indifferent, but are different, and that they\ncare and express themselves in a different way. At present, millennials (and indeed\nthe children of millennials) are creating exciting forms of political\nparticipation that differ from traditional forms. But before discussing how these\nnew forms are shaping the future, let us recall that there are things States could and should do to enhance youth\nparticipation in classical formal elections, such as making it possible to vote\nonline<\/strong>. Electronic\nvoting in Estonia<\/a>, for example, illustrates\nthe challenges but also the successes of ensuring both secrecy of the ballot\nand identification of the voter, two key concerns expressed by the sceptics. Further,\nthere should be\nsame-day voter registration, and the physical voting could be spread over two\nconsecutive days, including one working day and one weekend day. While compulsory\nvoting employed in some States remains controversial, there may be a strong\nargument in favour of a \u201cnudging\u201d approach \u2013 making opting out of the vote more\ndifficult, so that people choose to vote by default. Further measures that can\nbe taken by States include various forms of voter education and the\nincreasingly popular Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) – online tools helping one\ndecide whom to vote for, through answering a multiple-choice questionnaire on relevant\nissues.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 14. The notion of participation in political and public life is changing\nin the 21st century, with strong implications for democratic societies. First,\nthe notion is becoming broader and richer: we are no longer satisfied with\ncalculating percentages of women or ethnic minorities in parliaments,\nministerial councils or judiciaries, even though parity in these areas is still\na remote destination. Genuine participation should relate to all stages and\naspects of the democratic process, from access\nto information, to expression of policy positions, organising, advocacy, direct\npolitical action, consultation on policies and laws, deliberation, and \u2013 most\nimportantly \u2013decision-making. For example, access to information allows real-time\nfact-checking on the Internet during political contests that enables informed voting\nchoices in elections. In response to the deeper needs to participate, political parties in many States conduct surveys, opinion\npolls, nominations and leadership elections online, shortening the distance\nbetween leaders, members and supporters. E-governance is also developing at an\nimpressive pace, transforming the local and central public administration as\nregular electronic consultations involving civil servants and citizens\u2019 groups\nare becoming standard practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 15. The notion of participation is also changing in respect to the level\nof government, encompassing the local<\/a>,<\/a>\nsub-national, national and global level. It is particularly interesting to\nobserve how governance is moving closer to the people through decentralization\nand subsidiarity. In Kosovo, for example,\nthe OSCE Mission\nfunded and developed a Digital\nPlatform for Public Participation website in the municipalities of Prishtin\u00eb and Gjakov\u00eb, through which citizens can\nfile requests, view municipal projects, comment and vote, including on\nsuggestions made by fellow residents.[13]<\/a>\nA good practice sometimes described as rights-based budgeting is also\nspreading, allowing people to participate more or less directly in defining the\nbudgeting priorities of their town or municipality, and promoting transparency\nand accountability of governance. There is also\nthe question of what counts today as relevant issues in democratic\nparticipation: whether civic participation is relevant only to elevated notions\nof political power and systemic reform, or also to everyday life issues, in emerging\nforms of what Bakardjieva described as \u201csubactivism\u201d.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 16. In\nview of these new trends in participation, what role can new information and\ncommunication technologies (ICTs) play in the 21st<\/sup> century? Are they\nhelping to ensure more equal participation in political and public life? Are\nthey empowering disadvantaged groups in making their voices matter? Arguments\nare being put forward in support of opposite views on these questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 17. Techno-optimists believe that the ICTs in the 21st<\/sup>\ncentury promote new forms of democratic participation, though based on values\nand principles articulated before the age of the Internet. They regard\ndemocracy as a work in progress, with ICTs as a game-changer. E-democracy is credited with a strong potential for\nreconciling the tension between the size of the group that participates in democratic decision making and the depth of the\nwill expression. Traditionally, large group size was achieved with simple ballot<\/a> voting<\/a> (Yes\/No),\nwhile depth of will expression was achieved by limiting the number of\nparticipants through representative\ndemocracy<\/a>. The social media<\/a> Web 2.0<\/a> revolution\ncombines large numbers of participants with depth of will expressions\/opinions,\nbut the latter are not structured and it is difficult to make sense of them. Enter\nthe new information processing techniques, including big data<\/a> analytics and the semantic web<\/a>,\nwhich have shown promise in overcoming the content cacophony.[15]<\/a> In\nlegislative and policy decision making, Internet creates the opportunity for a type\nof government that is simultaneously more democratic and more professional, by\ncreating open online collaboration between self-selecting social networks and\nclosed panels of experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 18.\nTechno-optimists also see pathways to genuine deliberative democracy and deliberative\ndecision making, the concept of which has been developed in the pre-digital\nworld and advocated, without requiring digital mediation, in areas such as\nhealthcare rationing.[16]<\/a>\nA recent example of Internet based deliberative democracy\nprocess is the California\nReport Card<\/a> created by the Data and\nDemocracy Initiative of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society<\/a> at the University of California, Berkeley<\/a>. Launched in January 2014, the California Report Card is a\nmobile-optimized web application designed to facilitate deliberative\ndecision-making.<\/a> Participants reply to a short\nopinion poll on six political issues, and are then grouped through Principal Component Analysis<\/a> into\nteams that engage in deliberation by entering textual\nsuggestions and grading other participants’ comments, eventually leading up to\ndecisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 19.\nAllegedly also made practicable by the Internet is so called \u201cliquid democracy\u201d\nsuggested as a new form of representation. This semi-direct democracy with delegable proxy<\/a> would allow people to appoint a proxy entrusted to vote on their behalf\non issues within certain specified areas, while retaining their own right to\nvote. The proxies could form proxy chains<\/a>, in which if A appoints B and B appoints C, and neither A nor B vote on\na proposed bill but C does, C’s vote will count for all three of them. Voters\ncould also rank their proxies in order of preference, so that if their first-choice\nproxy fails to vote, their vote can be cast by their second-choice proxy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 20. The Internet has also been described\nas a positive force in boosting electronic direct democracy (EDD) in\nSwitzerland (the country with some of the strongest direct democracy traditions\nfrom the deep pre-digital past), Sweden (Demoex party), UK (People\u2019s\nAdministration Direct Democracy Party), Turkey (Electronic Democracy Party), USA,\netc. Advocates of EDD are getting traction, especially among young people, and\nsome of the proposed radical models seek to make traditional political\ninstitutions obsolete. Sooner or later, according to Silicon Valley visionaries\nsuch as the Argentinian-born Santiago Siri, the demand for direct democracy\nwill lead to the invention of new tools that would make it possible to\neliminate the middleman in politics and governance, as the bitcoin eliminates\nthe middleman in financial transactions.[17]<\/a> Carl Miller dreams that\none day Internet-enabled bitcoin democracy will even eliminate the state as a\npower structure, and global citizens will be direct decision-makers on\neverything that concerns them. J. Manuel\nFeliz-Teixeira envisioned wiki-democracy in which there would be three wings of\nlegislative, executive and judiciary decision-making roles in which every\ncitizen could have a voice with free access to the wiki and a personal ID to\ncontinuously reform policies until the last day of December when all votes\nwould be counted and the new law, policy or judicial ruling ratified.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 21. New forms of\npolitical participation inevitably mean also new forms of political protest,\nsuch as Electronic Civil Disobedience. Applied in cyberspace, it is based on\nthe same principals as traditional civil disobedience, like trespass and\nblockage, and is sometimes identified with hacktivism. And with hackers without borders\ntargeting the slow, inefficient and elitist institutions of power, the plotline\nof a techno-utopia may be writing itself in real time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 22. Unfortunately, technological\nprogress doesn\u2019t necessarily mean positive pro-democratic innovation. Electronic\ndemocracy activists can recruit supporters online, but so does Islamic State. A\nwave of critique has been directed at the new ICTs of the 21st<\/sup>\ncentury, warning of their role in ruining the achievements of democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 23.Change in political participation in the age of Internet is part of the transformation\nof the \u201cpublic sphere\u201d as defined by Habermas: society engaged in critical\npublic debate, whereby the only legitimate government is that which listens to\nthe \u201cpublic sphere\u201d. The Internet is apparently reshaping legitimacy. The role\nplayed by the broadcast media is shared by alternative power structures that\nmay or may not be more democratic. In the new \u201cpublic sphere\u201d, one observes\nemerging new links between politicians and their audiences, with which they can\nnow be in direct daily contact via Twitter, Facebook, email lists, etc. Traditional\njournalism is no longer so central to the creation of the media agenda itself. Messaging,\ntoo, is changing in the digital communities of the social media. New viral forms\nof messaging are displacing the linear, controlled process of message creation\nby traditional political elites and mainstream media. It is difficult for a\ncentral power to fight the guerrilla style mobilisation spreading online, and\nviral communications engender real-world movements. All this can go in the\ndirection of stronger democratic participation, but at the same time, authoritarian\nor populist leaders can also rely on new ICTs fed by a voluntary digital army\nas their power base.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 24. According to the techno-sceptics (or\nare they better described as techno-realists?), the Internet has not changed people\u2019s\nrole as citizens in a positive way. Martin Hindman, in The Myth of Digital Democracy<\/em>, argues that, contrary to popular\nbelief, the Internet has done little to broaden political discourse and instead\nhas empowered a small set of elites.[19]<\/a> In\nthe digital world, people tend to divide into very distinct digital tribes living\nin a kind of echo chambers, re-tweeting, sharing and forwarding content that they\nagree with. No proper debate or dialogue occurs across tribe lines. Indeed, the\nargument goes, the Internet has accelerated the decline of parliamentary\ndemocracy by turning the audience into a shallow crowd and a consumer market to\nwhom politicians are trying to sell a product at election time. But fewer people\nare buying it, leading to high levels of distrust and fall in election turnouts.[20]<\/a> Further, objections to direct democracy have been voiced and the\nargument is that they apply with a vengeance to EDD, such as the potential for direct governance<\/a> to\ntend towards the polarization of opinions, populism<\/a>, and demagoguery<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 25. Critics have also pointed at the\noffensive language, the trolls, the surge of populism, the lack of privacy, the\nsuperficiality of the social media discourses, the fragmentation of knowledge,\nthe fake news in the post-truth world and the blurred levels of truthfulness, the\ndominance of symbolic politics over evidence based, expert-made policy, etc. Of\nthese and other risks, I would grade as most dangerous the potential for\ntyranny of the majority and for further marginalisation of the most\ndisadvantaged minorities, as well as the runaway surveillance by government of\neveryone\u2019s entire communications, under the pretext of combatting terrorism and\nextremism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 26.And yet, the Internet has been described as promoting a culture of sharing;\nallowing everyone’s voice to be expressed;\nproviding universal and inexpensive access for the powerless; providing the\noption of anonymity in States that persecute opponents; being ultra-pluralistic,\nwith information coming from an avalanche of different sources, etc. Can these\nviews, opposed as they are, be all simultaneously true? Can the Internet foster\nequal participation in decision-making enjoyed by well-informed citizens, as well\nas lead to the debilitation of the public sphere as, for example, in the\ndystopian fictional world of Dave Eggers in his chilling novel, The Circle<\/em>? I believe the answer is\naffirmative. Much as they have been extolled as the gateway to a democratic\nparticipatory utopia, or feared for their potential for totalitarian\nsurveillance by Big Brother, in one respect, the information and communication\ntechnologies of the 21st<\/sup> century, in their captivating complexity,\nare descendants of the humble stone age axe. They are tools. Which way they\nstrike is up to the user. The Internet\nis itself neither democratic nor anti-democratic. It will take a sustained\neffort by democracy stakeholders to utilise its democratic potential and to\nlimit its perils.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> OSCE\/ODIHR, Compendium of Good\nPractices for Advancing Women\u2019s Political Participation in the OSCE Region,\nWarsaw 2016, p. 9-10; 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> The Declaration\nof Principles on Equality, an international instrument of good practice\nrecognized by the Council of Europe in 2012, defines the right to equality as \u201cthe right of all human beings\nto be equal in dignity, to be treated with respect and consideration and to\nparticipate on an equal basis with others in any area of economic, social,\npolitical, cultural or civil life. All human beings are equal before the law\nand have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law\u201d. (Declaration of Principles on Equality<\/em>,\nThe Equal Rights Trust, London, 2008, Principle 1, p. 5.<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> \u201cTo be effective, the right to equality\nrequires positive action. Positive action, which includes a range of\nlegislative, administrative and policy measures to overcome past disadvantage\nand to accelerate progress towards equality of particular groups, is a\nnecessary element within the right to equality.\u201d(Declaration of Principles\non Equality<\/em>, Equal Rights Trust, London, 2008, Principle 3, p. 5.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> Often,\ngovernments in States where equality law is under-developed or missing are not\naware of equality law as an emerging legal field. Some States have group\nspecific or area specific laws that they would typically point at when asked\nabout their equality legislation. For example, these can be declarative\nframework laws about the advancement of women, social cohesion, disabled\npersons, etc.; however, they do not qualify as equality legislation if – as the\ncase often is – they do not contain enforceable equality rights. Accordingly,\nsuch States have little or no relevant jurisprudence resulting from\ndiscrimination claims filed in courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> On all of these claims, see details in Human\nRights Watch World Report 2017, https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/world-report\/2017\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> D. PoKempner,\n\u201cThe Internet is Not the Enemy\u201d, https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/sites\/default\/files\/world_report_download\/wr2017-web.pdf<\/a>, p.42. Still, as PoKempner\nstates, the principle is that all rights that apply offline apply online as\nwell. Limitations should be strictly necessary and proportionate to legitimate\naims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/a> See https:\/\/www.article19.org\/data\/files\/pdfs\/standards\/the-camden-principles-on-freedom-of-expression-and-equality.pdf<\/a>. See also the well-argued\nopinion of David Cole commenting, in the New\nYork Review of Books<\/em>, on the 2017 Charlottesville violence and ACLU\u2019s\ndecision to defend the white supremacist rally organiser, Jason Kessler.\nConsonant with the prevailing approaches of anti-discrimination law, Cole\nargues that hate speech should be limited in the name of equal rights only in\nsituations involving formal hierarchy and captive audiences (such as the\nworkplace or the school), but it should be protected in the public space and\nthe media, in situations where those who disagree can turn away or talk back.\n(D. Cole, \u201cWhy We Must Still Defend Free Speech\u201d, NYRB<\/em>, 28 Sept 2017.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8]<\/a> In the USA, for\nexample, socio-economic status has been shown to be more important for\nintergenerational political inequality than sex, ethnic origin, sexual\norientation, etc. (See K. Schlozman, S. Verba and H. Brady, The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice\nand the Broken Promise of American Democracy<\/em>, Princeton University Press,\n2012.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n [9]<\/a> See Declaration\nof Principles on Equality<\/em>, Equal Rights Trust, London, 2008, Principle 24,\np. 14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [10]<\/a> For a framework on collecting\nstatistical information related to human rights performance, see the work on\nhuman rights indicators developed under the auspices of the UN OHCHR, available\nat: http:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/Documents\/Publications\/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [11]<\/a> On the controversy of age-appropriate\nregulation of youth participation in the Internet age, see S. Coleman, “Doing IT for Themselves: Management versus\nAutonomy in Youth E-Citizenship”, Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital\nMedia Can Engage Youth, ed. by W. Lance Bennett, MIT Press, 2008, pp.\n189\u2013206.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [12]<\/a> None of these measures is specific to\nyoung people, but it is young people that would be among the likely\nbeneficiaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [13]<\/a>\nhttp:\/\/www.osce.org\/stories\/when-click-does-the-trick.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [14]<\/a> M. Bakardjieva (March 2009), “Subactivism: Lifeworld and Politics\nin the Age of the Internet”<\/a>, The\nInformation Society<\/em><\/a>,25 (2), pp. 91\u2013104.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [15]<\/a> M. Hilbert, “The Maturing Concept of\nE-Democracy: From E-Voting and Online Consultations to Democratic Value Out of\nJumbled Online Chatter”<\/a>, Journal of Information Technology and\nPolitics<\/em><\/a>, April\n2009.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [16]<\/a> See, for example, L. Fleck, Just\nCaring: Health Care Rationing and Democratic Deliberation, OUP, 2006.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [17]<\/a> See for example the\nwebsite democrarcy.earth<\/em> on what Siri\ndescribes as 10x disruption of government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [18]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/paginas.fe.up.pt\/~feliz\/e_poster4_wiki-law-government.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [19]<\/a> See also his article “Digital Processes and\nDemocratic Theory”<\/a>, MartinHilbert.net,<\/em> 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n