July 20 marks 21 years since the Chinese government began its campaign of persecution against Falun Gong. On this day, the Lantos Foundation and 21 Wilberforce released the following statement:
In a recent New York Times article covering events at the U.S. Global Agency for Media (USAGM), we were shocked and dismayed by what can only be described as an open display of religious bigotry. We would never have imagined such a lapse in journalistic ethics from America’s self-proclaimed “newspaper of record”, but the printed words do not lie.
In describing tools used to circumvent the internet firewall in closed countries, the reporters made no fewer than 9 references to the personal beliefs and religious practices of two developers. Though several other technology companies, NGOs and other individuals were written about, none of their religious affiliations were mentioned. The developers who were identified by their religion happen to be followers of Falun Gong, which the article’s sub-headline terms “the secretive, anti-Beijing spiritual movement with pro-Trump elements”. This description sounds eerily like something that could have been written by the Chinese Communist Party, which has spent decades persecuting, oppressing and torturing followers of the Falun Gong movement. Furthermore, the article implies that the personal religious beliefs and practices of the developers have direct bearing on the legitimacy of the tools that they have developed and whether they deserve to be among those that receive funds from the U.S. Government.
Let us be perfectly clear: we welcome and encourage open discussion and debate about the merits or drawbacks of any given technology that aims to open the internet in closed societies. Likewise, rigorous monitoring and analysis can and should determine which tools are most effective in the fight for Internet Freedom, and therefore most deserving of U.S. Government funding. But it remains entirely unacceptable, and frankly un-American, to dismiss or disqualify or even describe an individual or product largely on the basis of religious affiliation or belief.
Imagine if the New York Times article had mentioned numerous times that the developers in question were practicing Catholics and implied, with disparaging undertones, that their technology was backed by the Vatican; or had referred to “software developed by Muslims” or “the Jewish developers”. There would have been an outcry, and rightly so. Yet the Times’ denigrating coverage of Falun Gong is no different and should be condemned in equal terms. Choosing a small, persecuted religion to single out does not make the bigotry any more palatable.
Sadly, this one article is not an isolated incident of religious bigotry against the Falun Gong. In recent interviews with several reporters regarding the future of the Open Technology Fund, the same inappropriate questions about the developers’ religious beliefs have been raised time and again – though occasionally strong pushback against such bigotry has encouraged journalists not to include this angle in their reporting. This has clearly become part of the narrative being pushed, and bought in to, across the journalistic world. But journalists are not the only ones that have fallen into this trap. Even more alarming, over the last ten years of our work advocating for greater Internet Freedom, we have personally witnessed disparaging remarks about certain developers’ religious affiliation during several different U.S. Government meetings by the very people who control funding for Internet Freedom – a sign that religious discrimination may well have had an impact in determining which tools to fund.
The Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice and 21 Wilberforce, as leaders of the Voices for Internet Freedom coalition, denounce in the strongest terms any discrimination on the basis of religion and urge especially those in positions of power – from editors in newsrooms to decision-makers in the halls of government – to take an unwavering stand against this form of intolerance. To allow such prejudice to persist against a small and persecuted spiritual movement will erode this nation’s longstanding commitment to ensuring that a person’s religious beliefs cannot be used as a justification to delegitimize them or deny them opportunities. We must not allow efforts to open the internet across the globe to be marred by religious discrimination at home.