Defamation of Religions at the UN
“That man is bad!” declared Margaret More as she perceived the avarice of Richard Rich, the man who’s later perjury would be responsible, as far as Robert Bolt’s retelling of the story is concerned, for the beheading of her father Sir Thomas More.
“There is no law against that,” Sir Thomas noted. Butting in unceremoniously to the conversation was the young Roper, Margaret’s suitor. Roper, as rash as he was young, bellowed after Thomas,
“There is! God’s law!”
“Then God can arrest him,” replied Sir Thomas.
That exchange exhibits clearly the current struggle at the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. I had the privilege to spend last week in Europe’s city of peace on behalf of the International Religious Liberty Association and the Seventh-day Adventist Church advocating for religious freedom.
The UN Geneva is an exciting place. The HRC convocation of national delegates is something to behold. They discuss issues of depth. Human rights broached in a chamber of peace while back at the homes of many delegates, there is no peace. At first one is caught up in the euphoria of the moment - as an NGO (non-government organization) we have an observer seat right on the floor. During breaks we are free to go up to country delegates and speak on matters of mutual concern. Towards the end of each agenda item NGO’s are given the opportunity (two minutes) to speak to the issue before the measures are adopted. You know the NGO is successful when a country on whom it just commented formally replies to the NGO’s assertions. It is obvious countries are listening.
I must admit my previous views were naïve on what others thought of religious freedom. My Western bias was in tow - freedom of the individual to chose for themselves what faith they would belong to is a positive good. Would not everyone agree to such a concept? The struggles of centuries past have given us a freedom like no other generation previous - surely the world agrees?
Not so. The world is far from agreement. It became exceedingly evident that the movers and shakers at the UN have no grandiose concept of freedom of the individual to express views on matters of religion. Instead the countries leading the rush - Pakistan and Egypt, as members of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) are not at all at ease with the concept of religious freedom for the individual. The HRC is again considering a Pakistan led effort to pass the defamation of religion resolution.
Pakistan’s delegate chaired the “informal meeting” (a meeting outside the HRC in a side room open to the public) argued that his country’s proposed resolution was necessary do to the backlash against Islamic followers since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That is problematic when you consider that the first resolution was introduced in 1999 (some two years before 2001 attack in the US). Nevertheless he maintained that it was not his country’s intention to cut back freedom of expression - which he said was “fundamental” - that they are in favour of cultural diversity and dialogue.
The Danish delegation challenged the chair stating that each year this resolution comes forward but it is criticized for the same reasons - it mixes a range of elements such as race and religious hatred, seeks to protect religion and symbols rather than individuals, it limits freedom of expression and it is specific to the one religion - Islam.
To which the chair responded by noting that it is not protecting ideologies but protecting sacredly held beliefs that should not be insulted. There would be no apologies for calling speech to be restricted - that is normal. There is no unfettered freedom of speech - the debate is over where the limit should be.
As I listened I could not but conclude that the debate was simply passing over each person. The one was not getting the point of the other. Their respective conceptual frameworks did not allow for harmony - instead there was dissonance.
On the one side of the debate we have the OIC countries led aggressively by Pakistan, and Egypt and supported by Russia, China, and South Africa - each with their own spheres of influence. On the other is the European Union, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland amongst the other Western countries.
So what is “defamation of religion”? It is simply a version of the old blasphemy laws that were once common throughout the world - even amongst Christendom. The charge of blasphemy was made against those who spoke ill of the established religion or god. It is to speak “ill” of the divine or the sacred teachings of the religion.
Most countries have laws that address the civil wrong of citizens defaming another. At such a trial the plaintiff will have to show proof of defamation. A statement was made, or a malicious public campaign against them by the defendant was made which was false and tended to put the plaintiff into disrepute.
However with the blasphemy laws, or the “defamation of religion” concept a speaker can be faulted for expressing views that are at odds with the accepted norm - or common belief. That means the state determines which religious viewpoints are acceptable. It is giving the state an enormous amount of control - and burden - to decide matters religious. The dangers of this is enormous - imprisonment and other mistreatment simply for expressing a view deemed defamatory of a religion seems so out of synch with the progress of man. Yet here we are.
It has been since 1999 that one version or another of these non-binding resolutions have passed in the UN. So why all of the fuss now you may be wondering? The answer is this: over time ideas, if repeated long enough, begin to gel. There are numerous examples. As these ideas gel - we will soon be moving from “non-binding” toward “binding” resolutions. The fact remains that there is significant opposition against this resolution that a binding resolution would be almost impossible at this stage. However, things do change. It is only by constantly reasserting the concerns of such problematic resolutions can you have any chance of stemming the tide. Over the last several years people have become acutely aware of the problems associated with offending religious beliefs - the Danish cartoon incident is but one example. It seems that there is a growing opposition on the Defamation of Religions resolution:
In 2006 the General Assembly, 58% (111) of the member states of the United Nations (192 states) voted for the resolution; 28% opposed it; 14% abstained. Russia and China, permanent members of the UN Security Council, voted for the resolution.
In 2007, the General Assembly voted 108 states voted in favor; 51 voted against it; and 25 abstained.
In 2008, the General Assembly voted 85 states in favor of the resolution; 50 states voted against the resolution; 42 states abstained. For the first time we had it passed only by a plurality not by an absolute majority.
Just today the UN Human Rights Council adopted the 2009 “defamations of religions” resolution by a vote of 23 yes, 11 no, 13 abstentions. However, there is a silver lining - again we see that there were more “no” votes and “abstention” votes than the “yes” votes. It is further evidence that the world is waking up to the problem that this resolution is causing.
In April in Geneva the UN is holding its “Durban II” conference on racism - “defamation of religions” is on the agenda. It is an issue that keeps coming up even in different formats in this case mixing religion with race.
International law is highly affected by customs - things that people do simply because they do them. Over time these customs gradually come to be an accepted norm until finally they are codified or written down into law which is then enforced. That process makes this yearly push for defamation laws so problematic - over time it gels. After ten years there is the realization that this simply cannot be allowed to continue.
Pakistan, the primary sponsor of the UN resolutions, imposes capital punishment for blasphemy, including defamation of Islam. Their law requires only one witness to testify against the accused and if believed the accused is convicted. From 1988 until 2005 some 650 people have suffered capital punishment for expressing unorthodox religious views in that country.
When the UN passes resolutions - though not binding - or countries like Pakistan have laws on defamation of religion the net effect is that it stifles speech. There is a cloud of suspicion that comes over anyone who dares to speak their mind on the matter. With such resolutions and laws people are apt to take the law into their own hands - mob violence is not uncommon as the offended take it upon themselves to administer their religions rage on the offender.
We need to maintain vigilance reminding the world the importance of religious freedom to all people. It is an individual right - not of the religion. If it is the right of the religion who can define the offence but those with state power? Having such power only provides opportunity for abuse - capricious acts on one’s enemy can be justified by reference to defamation of religion.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights has long held to the view of religious freedom of the individual. Why then this move toward religious group rights?
If the issue is to deal with the incitement of hatred on the basis of religion then this defamation of religions is not the way to do it. None of us can expect to go through life without being offended but we sure should be able to expect that acts of hatred (i.e. violence) should not be perpetrated against us for any reason including our faith. If we are defamed then we all - indeed most countries - have the civil means to take someone to court to get justice for being unfairly maligned in our communities.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the European Union is sponsoring its own resolution this week on the issue of the discrimination of religion. That resolution appears on its face to be benign - however we are watching its developments simply because we do not know what course it might take down the road.