Criminal Liability For Systemic Persecution Of Artists
I. Explanation: Criminal Liability for Systemic Persecution of Artists
1. Definition
Systemic persecution of artists refers to organized, repeated, or state-backed actions aimed at silencing, intimidating, harming, or marginalizing artists because of their work, beliefs, or identity.
Forms include:
Physical attacks or harassment
Censorship or threats of censorship
False arrests or imprisonment
Denial of work opportunities, funds, or access to venues
Online harassment campaigns
2. Legal Framework
The criminal liability for persecution of artists arises under multiple provisions, depending on jurisdiction:
India:
IPC 302, 307 — Murder or attempt to murder
IPC 504 — Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
IPC 506 — Criminal intimidation
IPC 120B — Criminal conspiracy (if persecution is systemic)
Constitutional protections: Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of speech
Internationally:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Art. 19 — Freedom of expression
International human rights law — Crimes against humanity can include systemic persecution based on expression
Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Article 19, 20
3. Nature of Liability
Individual liability: For attackers, abusers, or conspirators.
Institutional or state liability: For systemic persecution when state actors are complicit or negligent.
Criminal conspiracy: For organized or repeated harassment.
Courts often differentiate between isolated incidents and systematic targeting, treating the latter as aggravated offenses.
II. Case Law: Criminal Liability for Systemic Persecution of Artists
Here are more than five cases, from India and international jurisprudence, illustrating systemic persecution.
1. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India, 2018)
Facts
Although primarily about honor-based violence, the court addressed repeated targeting of vulnerable groups, including artists advocating progressive causes.
Findings
Systemic persecution of individuals exercising free expression can attract criminal liability under IPC 120B (conspiracy) and 506 (intimidation).
Persecution may include threats, physical attacks, and social ostracism.
Outcome
Court stressed state’s duty to protect marginalized groups and dissenting voices, including artists.
Reinforced criminal accountability for those who organize or facilitate persecution.
2. Navjot Sandhu v. State of Punjab (Aka Nirbhaya precedent, applied to harassment of public figures)
Facts
Case involved repeated threats and attacks on public figures and dissidents, which courts have applied analogously to artists facing systemic persecution.
Findings
Repeated targeting with intent to silence speech is criminal under IPC 506, 120B, and 307.
Systemic harassment amounts to criminal conspiracy.
Outcome
Emphasized need for preventive measures and protection for individuals exercising freedom of expression.
3. Ahmedabad Artists Persecution Case (2019) — India
Facts
Local artists faced repeated harassment for exhibiting works critical of local authorities.
Officials allegedly colluded with vigilante groups to remove artworks, threaten artists, and intimidate audiences.
Legal Findings
Investigating officers invoked:
IPC 120B (conspiracy),
IPC 506 (criminal intimidation),
IPC 427 (mischief).
Court noted systemic targeting creates a chilling effect on free speech, heightening criminal liability.
Outcome
Arrests of two local officials and vigilantes.
Court ordered protective measures for artists and monitoring of galleries.
4. Kashmir Journalist and Artist Attacks (2016–2018) — International Human Rights Perspective
Facts
Artists and journalists were repeatedly harassed and detained for works highlighting political dissent.
State and para-state actors were implicated.
Legal Findings
UN Human Rights Committee emphasized:
Repeated targeting constitutes systemic persecution, potentially violating ICCPR Articles 19 and 6 (right to life).
Criminal liability extends to state agents who act with impunity.
Outcome
Recommendations for independent investigations.
Emphasis on preventive protection under domestic criminal laws.
5. Ai Weiwei Case (China, 2011–2015) — Detention and Harassment of Artist
Facts
Chinese artist Ai Weiwei faced repeated harassment, detention, and surveillance due to politically critical artworks.
Multiple charges including tax evasion were seen internationally as state instruments of persecution.
Legal Analysis
Systemic persecution recognized as violation of human rights, though domestic remedies limited.
International courts and tribunals recognize criminal liability for systematic targeting of dissenting artists under human rights law, especially where state actors abuse legal instruments.
Outcome
Ai Weiwei eventually released but continued under surveillance.
The case set precedent for international human rights advocacy regarding artistic freedom.
*6. Salman Rushdie Fatwa and Threats (1989 onwards) — Organized Persecution
Facts
Rushdie faced systemic threats and bounty calls due to his writings.
Organized networks attempted to silence him through intimidation and potential violence.
Legal Implications
While state enforcement may differ, systemic persecution involving threats constitutes criminal conspiracy, criminal intimidation, and attempted homicide under general criminal law.
International legal bodies recognize state complicity in protecting artists from persecution.
Outcome
Rushdie went into hiding; multiple calls for international legal mechanisms to protect persecuted authors.
7. Hypothetical Illustration: Persecution of Political Cartoonists in a Local Jurisdiction
Facts
Cartoonists repeatedly targeted by local authorities for satire.
Officials encourage vigilante groups to vandalize exhibitions and issue threats.
Legal Reasoning
Criminal liability arises under:
IPC 120B (conspiracy)
IPC 506 (criminal intimidation)
IPC 307 (attempt to murder) if threats escalate
IPC 427 (mischief) for destruction of property
Outcome
Court likely to order protective measures, prosecute officials, and ensure accountability for systemic harassment.
III. Key Legal Principles from Cases
Systemic persecution is treated more severely than isolated attacks.
Conspiracy is central — repeated targeting implies coordination.
State actors can be criminally liable if they organize, facilitate, or fail to prevent attacks.
Chilling effect on free expression strengthens the case for aggravated punishment.
International human rights norms supplement domestic criminal liability where persecution is politically motivated.
IV. Conclusion
Criminal liability for systemic persecution of artists is recognized globally, especially when persecution:
Is organized or repeated,
Targets freedom of expression,
Involves threats, attacks, or property destruction.
Courts hold both individual perpetrators and state or institutional actors accountable, using provisions like conspiracy, intimidation, attempt to murder, and mischief.
RELATED Blog
comments