UN Human Rights Council passes resolution to 'combat defamation of religions'

March 26, 6:02 PMSecularism ExaminerPaul Fidalgo

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Secularism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

UN Human Rights Council President,
Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, earlier this month
(AP Photo/KEYSTONE/Salvatore Di Nolfi)

Cementing its irrelevance while simultaneously empowering theocratic oppression and censorship in one fell swoop, the United Nations Human Rights Council today passed a resolution labeling "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation. The 47-member council, with membership selected by region rather than by their stance on human rights, is dominated by 17 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and its allies from African nations, China, Russia, and Cuba, human rights champs all. This gives the OIC, as phrased by Reuters, a "built-in majority" for its agenda, which in this case is purportedly to "“effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular.”

The resolution itself is a sham of a human rights document, giving easy cover to oppressive regimes who would silence and punish dissenters, apostates, and the nonreligious, and excusing their own human rights abuses when justified by religious dogma. The resolution "urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions," and asserts a "need to combat defamation of religions." It declares as inherently immoral the "Of course, the resolution mentions only one religion in particular, Islam.

In a must-read piece released immediately following the vote, the International Humanist and Ethical Union's UN representative Roy W. Brown breaks through the game being played by the OIC, writing:
 

. . . for the past ten years they [the OIC] have also had their sights set on a far bigger prize, the acceptance and adoption by the international community of the Islamic interpretation of human rights. To achieve this they needed to tackle head on freedom of expression. . . . The unstated objective was to create a framework for the world-wide introduction of laws to silence any criticism of Islam, its laws or its practices.

As Frank Jordans of the Associated Press puts, it rather succinctly:
 

Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

So who has stepped up to resist this latest incarnation of a now-perennial officialization of the repression of free expression? Dozens of atheist, humanist, and yes, religious groups were in Geneva to protest, and the Christian Post reports that 187 non-governmental organizations, both religious and secular, have signed on to a statement urging the rejection of the resolution.

In the Human Rights Council itself, the German delegation represented the entire European Union in opposition, saying (per Reuters), "The European Union does not see the concept of defamation of religion as a valid one in a human rights discourse," while Canada expressed the obvious-yet-forgotten point, "It is individuals who have rights, not religions . . . to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."

The United States is not currently a member of the council, though the Obama administration may place the US in consideration for a seat during the upcoming May elections, according to the AP. So far the president has not spoken out publicly on any of these anti-blasphemy UN resolutions. In fact, the first reaction from the US government concerning this particular resolution came from Republican Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, who took this refreshingly progressive stance, via the AFP:
 

Authorities in a number of Islamic states have used domestic defamation laws to target political dissidents or others who fall out of favor by branding their ideas blasphemous, Franks said.

He warned that a UN resolution could be used to justify persecution of religious minorities or people who are not religious.

"International human rights law protects individuals, not religions or belief systems," wrote Franks, a co-chair of the Congressional International Religious Freedom Caucus.

"The individual right to freedom of religion or belief does not include the right to have one's religion or belief be free from criticism."

It remains to be seen what real-world effects this and other similar resolutions will have. Though the resolutions are nonbinding, the UN seems to have enough difficulty curbing human rights abuses done in the name of religion without having official language to excuse the practice, writ several times over. Anti-blasphemy language was recently scrubbed from the upcoming UN conference on racism, known as "Durban II," which lead to the cancellation of a protest outside the UN building by American Atheists. But in light of the actions of the Human Rights Council, it seems a small victory, especially considering Durban II's already-flawed foundations.

Expect more on this developing issue from this column. The right to free expression is inseparable from the right to criticize and even mock or lampoon any and all ideas, be they of a religious or fully-terrestrial nature. The fact that favoritism for religious notions, no matter how abusive or oppressive, is being codified by the United Nations is an ugly, dangerous phenomenon that must be fought and fully reversed.