UN RESOLUTION ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS

In general I see the UN as a positive force in protecting human rights. But sometimes they get things wrong. What follows is written by a fellow Culture Kitchen writer from Nigeria and he raises some real concerns regarding the idea of making "defamation of religion" a human rights offense. Freedom of religion does not mean protection from criticism. I am thinking of the Danish cartoons that set of (wrongly I think) such outrage in the Muslim world or Salmon Rushdie's works, etc. This comes from Leo Igwe from Nigeria:

In March, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution on combating defamation of religions. The resolution sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) expressed deep concern over “the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence against followers of certain faiths occurring in many parts of the world”. In addition, it noted with dismay the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001. The resolution stressed that “defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of religion of the adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence”.

Alarmed by the inaction of some states to combat discriminatory acts against adherents of certain religions, the resolution urged all states to provide within their respective legal and constitutional systems adequate protection against acts of hatred and discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and to take all measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs”. Personally I am not sure the members of the Human Rights Council were aware of the inherent flaws, conflicts and contradictions in this resolution especially the danger it poses to the full exercise and enjoyment of human rights.

As soon as I received a copy of this resolution, I checked in my dictionary for the meaning of the word “defamation”. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the term defamation means “the act of causing harm to somebody by saying or writing bad or false things about them”. That means this resolution seeks to combat any act that causes harm to religions including saying or writing bad or false thing about religions. And my question is this: In which way can an act cause harm to a religion? A religion is an idea, not a human being. So how on earth can one cause harm to an abstract religious notion?

Again who determines-and how-which saying or writing is bad or false about a religion or religions. Because every religion considers the teachings of other religions as bad and false. Every religion regards itself as the absolute good, as the eternal truth and treats all opposing and critical viewpoints as blasphemies. In fact every religion is a defamation of another religion or other religions. So this resolution does not make sense at all. It is self defeating and self contradictory. Because to combat the defamation of religions is to combat all forms of religious expression. But in actual fact this resolution was meant to protect religions, Islam especially, from criticism. It makes criticism of religions an abuse of human rights.

And with this, the resolution dealt a heavy blow to human rights especially the right to freedom of religion or belief, the right to freedom of thought and expression and freedom of the press. And I humbly submit that it is this resolution, not the defamation of religions that constitutes any affront on human dignity and liberty.

I dont think that members of the Human Rights Council gave a serious thought to the section of the resolution that deplores acts of intolerance, discrimination and violence against some religious believers. Because for centuries religions have been used by individuals, groups, networks, brotherhoods and sects to perpetrate and justify similar and in fact worse forms of atrocities. And this is particularly the case in the Islamic states that sponsored this resolution. Many OIC countries have terrible human rights records. Many of them fund and sponsor acts of intolerance, discrimination, persecution and violence against religious minorities including atheists, religious dissenters and freethinkers. And these human rights violations have largely gone unaddressed and unaccounted for. The Human Right Council should not have allowed this resolution to pass. Instead the Council members should have adopted statements to check, combat and address human rights abuses committed by states in the name of religion.

Not surprising, this resolution generated concerns, criticisms and condemnation from human right groups world wide. Before the Council voted on the resolution, the UN Watch, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), Freedom House and the Becket Fund for Religions Freedom were among over 200 civil society groups from 46 countries that urged member states to reject the resolution. In a joint statement, the NGOs described the resolution as an “attempt to misuse the UN to legitimize anti-blasphemy laws thereby restricting freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of the press”. They expressed an obvious concern that “defamation of religions” resolutions may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters and other independent voices.

In a similar statement, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to iInformation declared that the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own.

That restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular institutions, or abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones.

That restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent intolerance should be limited in scope to advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

They therefore urged the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Council to desist from further adoption of statements supporting the idea of “defamation of religion.

In spite of these cogent concerns, observations and recommendations, the Council still went ahead to pass the resolution. Once again, the Human Rights Council has failed to live up to its mission. And now the Council must work to restore its credibility before the international community by totally abandoning the infamous and theocratic idea of “defamation of religions” For the sake of human rights.

You can read more here and here.