Defamation of Religion Passes at U.N. Human Rights Council

[Kernos]

Defamation of Religion Passes at U.N. Human Rights Council Again

COLUMN By TERRY SANDERSON
From NSS Newsline
April 1, 2009

The United Nations Human Rights Council has once again passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries which urges the creation of laws in member states to prevent criticism of religion, namely, Islam.

On March 26, members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor with 11 nations, mainly from the West, opposing, a resolution to combat "defamation of religion." Thirteen countries abstained.

Ahead of the vote, nearly 200 secular, religious and media groups from around the world (including the NSS) appealed to the Council in Geneva to reject the proposals, which were introduced by the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

In a statement, the coalition of NGOs said the "defamation of religion" resolution "may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters and other independent voices," and to restrict freedom of religion and of speech. The resolution, its critics said, would also restrict free speech and even academic study in open societies in the West and elsewhere.

The OIC argued that criticizing or satirizing religions is a violation of the rights of believers and leads to discrimination and violence against them. The resolution, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, says "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence. Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs".

The resolution is not binding, but versions of it have been passed repeatedly by the Council, at which Muslim countries and their supporters have a built-in majority. It is thought that the resolution will have a chilling effect on free speech and help justify suppression of dissent in many of the despotic countries that voted for it.

The Canadian representative said: "It is individuals who have rights, not religions. Canada believes that 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 German representative, speaking for the European Union, said that while instances of Islamophobia, Christianophobia , anti-Semitism and other forms of religious discrimination should be taken seriously, it was "problematic to reconcile the notion of defamation (of religion) with the concept of discrimination."

"The European Union does not see the concept of defamation of religion as a valid one in a human rights discourse," the German rep said. "The European Union believes that a broader, more balanced and thoroughly rights-based text would be best suited to address the issues underlying this draft resolution."

Activist groups say this new resolution is part of a growing offensive by the Islamic countries to impose their concepts of rights and religion on the rest of the world. They argue that the concept of "defamation of religions" is so vague that it can be used against any challenge to a religious tenet and bolster laws against blasphemy in authoritarian regimes where one religion holds sway.

Condemnation of "defamation" was originally included in a draft of a declaration to be issued by a U.N. anti-racism conference, dubbed Durban II, in Geneva next month, but was withdrawn after Western countries said it was unacceptable.

However, critics say they fear OIC states and their allies are working to insert it in an existing U.N. convention against racial discrimination. They say "defamation of religion" has no validity in international law because only individuals, and not concepts or beliefs, can be defamed.

Among the groups signing Wednesday's statement were the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), the Geneva-based U.N. Watch, the Muslim Council of Canada, the American Islamic Congress, the World Jewish Congress, the U.S. Freedom House, and the Paris-based International Press Institute. It was also backed by organizations representing believers, agnostics and atheists in India, Australia, Europe, Africa and Latin America.

Roy Brown of the IHEU (with which the NSS is affiliated), and the moving force behind the NGO protest, said: "The resolution is part of a wider campaign by the Islamic States to impose values on the rest of the international community which are largely unacceptable in liberal democracies. Freedom of Expression is protected in international law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 states that everyone has the right "to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression." ... if the beliefs of one religion are to be deemed 'defamation' of another, society is on a very slippery slope."


Terry Sanderson is the vice president of the National Secular Society (U.K.). He is also the editor of the weekly NSS Newsline, in which this article first appeared on March 27, 2009. This article is republished by permission of the NSS.

[Michael C. Page]

Thanks for the information Kernos ....I think (mike says as he shakes his head in ever continued bewilderment of humanity's determination to fight over faith. )

If you'll excuse me, I'll go and meditate for understanding, forgiveness and peace now.

[DJ Droood]

Glad my country gave it a pass...a bit surprised though, considering they largely cater to rightist religious kooks in elections and have a number in cabinet. I guess it was because it was "their" kooks and not ours (this time). I am hopeful, however, that this sort of thing raises red flags and helps focus people on protecting our hard-won secular rights in the West.

[cursuswalker]

So when I mention that Mohammed married a six year old, but held off consumating the relationship until she was nine, and then add that this would define him as a paedophile in my culture.....am I defaming a religion?

(source: The Hadith, Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

[DJ Droood]

So when I mention that Mohammed married a six year old, but held off consumating the relationship until she was nine, and then add that this would define him as a paedophile in my culture.....am I defaming a religion?

(source: The Hadith, Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

yes. many thanks.

[wyeuro]

I suppose it's a matter of where you draw the line between defamation and fair criticism. And if a religion enshrines racist or creedist principles that terrify the outsider, where does legitimate protest fit in. Yeah our planet's got a long way to go before we resolve questions like this. May we be rightly guided.
wyverne /|\

[DJ Droood]

I suppose it's a matter of where you draw the line between defamation and fair criticism.

no....it is a matter of freedom of speech, which we sort of still have in the West, although it is being steadily attacked. The banning of the Danish cartoons was like a breach in the wall that we still haven't repaired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is often, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false, and, or alternatively, that the publication is made to someone other than the person defamed.

In my world, Islam and Christianity have done a pretty good job of defaming themselves, but if a little more calumny helps the matter, I am all for it.

And if a religion enshrines racist or creedist principles that terrify the outsider, where does legitimate protest fit in.

They all do, and all protest is legitimate.

Yeah our planet's got a long way to go before we resolve questions like this. May we be rightly guided.
wyverne /|\

Maybe parts of the planet...my society, since at least Voltaire, has shed a lot of blood in building and protecting our basic freedoms. I'm certainly not willing to throw it all away to placate some screaming denizens of the dark ages.

How come we haven't seen Muslim protests in Western cities over this?

A new Afghan law that dramatically inhibits the rights of women, including reportedly legalizing rape within marriage, has raised the ire of Canadian politicians from all parties, who are demanding that President Hamid Karzai clarify his position on the legislation.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories

This is what some fine young British, Canadian and American soldiers have died for??

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!
I can't help writing on this one....
I've read the original post and I'll start by saying this:
Without having the specifics at hand, from the sumary presented in that article, it seems OK as long as that's applied to all religious traditions, not just Islam.
Second, concerning every faith, I believe it wrong to state things like "Such-and-such religion is <insert>" No religious tradition is monolithic, never was and never will be. That's why I see this resolution as fair. You can take a specific case/person/incident and vehemently criticise/protest and loudly proclaim it's wrong (like the above "rape-in-marriage" law, since we have this abominable example at hand ), but to criticise a religion as a whole is not correct precisely because of its non-monolithic caracter.
Blessings!
/|\

[Corwen]

Without having the specifics at hand, from the sumary presented in that article, it seems OK as long as that's applied to all religious traditions, not just Islam.

Its not OK at all because as Cursus and the Drood say its an attack on free speech. We should have the right to say whatever we want, whoever it upsets, otherwise there can be no free debate, and in fact no freedom at all. Plus I personally and genuinely think that some religions are not worthy of the name, being nothing more than bundles of superstition, handed down tribal taboo and ill thought out illogical systems of ethics, including Islam and most of Christianity. Does that mean if I say that out loud in public I'll be in breach of the law?

[Aylyn]

IMO, if a religion cannot stand scrutiny and criticism, it is not worth looking into. Everything must be open to discussion and assessment, otherwise it cannot grow and develop. The general rules of freedom of religion protect anybody, regardless of the religion, so if somebody has problems because of their beliefs, they already are protected. Further protection for the religion in general is unnecessary and harmful. And that applies to ALL religions.

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!

if a religion cannot stand scrutiny and criticism

In my book "defamation" means insult, not criticism. Those are 2 distinct things. You can criticise and examine all you want. Insulting is a verry different issue, but people on both sides consider them the same thing (relious folk see criticism as insult and secularists legitimise insult by labeling it criticism) and that's WRONG in both instances.
Blessings!
/|\

[Aylyn]

Peace!

if a religion cannot stand scrutiny and criticism

In my book "defamation" means insult, not criticism. Those are 2 distinct things. You can criticise and examine all you want. Insulting is a verry different issue, but people on both sides consider them the same thing (relious folk see criticism as insult and secularists legitimise insult by labeling it criticism) and that's WRONG in both instances.
Blessings!
/|\

However, I will not let the religious folks decide what is criticism and what defamation, because in their book, anything short of loud admiration is defamation. It is just black and white for them, and that does not work. Therefore, the legislation is wrong, and I am glad that there is at least a voice of reason still about.

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!

It is just black and white for them, and that does not work.

Deffinitely.
As far as "loud admiration" goes, I think we can safely say that a majority isn't iritated by criticism as long as words such as "stupid", "silly" etc. (refering to a particular congregation) stay out of discussion along with words like "pedophile", "warlord" or other some such (when refering to any religious figure whoever that may be--yes, I gave examples of insults usually thrown at Muhammad, pbuh, but the principle applies to all spiritual traditions just the same) . The rest is just fine.
One can argue a counter-case (i.e. criticise) without adding the above "epithets", which is only fair I think.
(I hope that's all that that legislation refers to, otherwise there will be another huge pile of sensless trouble, just the way humanity is so adept at doing... )
Blessings!
/|\

[Aylyn]

As far as "loud admiration" goes, I think we can safely say that a majority isn't iritated by criticism as long as words such as "stupid", "silly" etc. (refering to a particular congregation) stay out of discussion along with words like "pedophile", "warlord" or other some such (when refering to any religious figure whoever that may be--yes, I gave examples of insults usually thrown at Muhammad, pbuh, but the principle applies to all spiritual traditions just the same) . The rest is just fine.
One can argue a counter-case (i.e. criticise) without adding the above "epithets", which is only fair I think.
(I hope that's all that that legislation refers to, otherwise there will be another huge pile of sensless trouble, just the way humanity is so adept at doing...

There is no need for additional legislation, it is already covered in the general legislation. Personal insults to others can be prosecuted, and calling a tree a tree is still permissible. The fact that Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old makes him a paedophile in our legislation, like it or not, so if I call him that, it is just a fact, not an insult and you need to acknowledge that, too. And here is where the real value of criticism comes in: Can see Mohammed critically, prophet or not, or do I have to bend down to his every whim reverently? If the latter, I have no intention of supporting that. If the former, then I can examine the circumstances under which it happened and derive an opinion from this, and then, and only then, can I see the truth. You claim to be a follower of the truth - where do you fail?

And finally: There is a saying in Germany: If you hit a dog, it barks. Seems to me the Islamic organizations are barking too loudly....

[cursuswalker]

And finally: There is a saying in Germany: If you hit a dog, it barks. Seems to me the Islamic organizations are barking too loudly....

Maybe the dog is being wagged?

[Druid Faqir]

The fact that Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old makes him a paedophile in our legislation

Exactly what I mean. OUR legislation. But you can't judge someone by a law that, neither morally nor legaly, existed at that time. Moreover, I think Aisha wouldn't have loved him if she had indeed felt molested, as she would have been traumatised. Is that not so?

do I have to bend down to his every whim reverently?

No.

You claim to be a follower of the truth - where do you fall?

You really should know that by now... I have a religious nature but I have a brain too...

If you hit a dog, it barks. Seems to me the Islamic organizations are barking too loudly....

You do realise that if one were to rely solely on the above 2 statemnts, one wouldcontend that those Muslim organisations were indeed hit, which gives them the right to bark. So if I'd try to make my case against this legislation, I'd refrain from drawing that paralel.
But to continue objectivelly, can anyone supply a link to the content of those documents so we could have a look? 'Cause, Aylyn, part of me fears you and other critics could be right, which gives me the chills...

Maybe the dog is being wagged?

I don't remember what "wagged" means in English, but if it means "intentionally irritated so as to become angry and bite", that may also be the case, and that gives me the chills too.

Blessings!
/|\

[pangurban]

Exactly what I mean. OUR legislation. But you can't judge someone by a law that, neither morally nor legaly, existed at that time. Moreover, I think Aisha wouldn't have loved him if she had indeed felt molested, as she would have been traumatised. Is that not so?

My problem with that Druid Faquir is that for a religion that claims Allah is a loving God having sex with a nine year old should have been morally wrong. The fact that it was not calls in to question whether Islam is moral and irrespective of what any law says I retain the right to say so.

[Aylyn]

Exactly what I mean. OUR legislation. But you can't judge someone by a law that, neither morally nor legaly, existed at that time. Moreover, I think Aisha wouldn't have loved him if she had indeed felt molested, as she would have been traumatised. Is that not so?

And the druids performed human sacrifices in their days, which might have been legal in their time, but certainly is no longer in our time. Which is why we have to look critically at the practices they performed and assess whether they still apply to our practice. So if someone tells me that the druids of old were murderers: Yes, they were. They might have had reasons for it, but the DID perform human sacrifices. And there is no getting past the fact, so why get all hot and flustered and call a law into being that forbids others to say what they want?

As far as Aisha is concerned: Maybe you should read up on child abuse. Children very often love their abusers, which does not excuse abuse itself. And since Aisha had no say in what was written, she might have cried herself to sleep every night and it would still be in the scripture that she was excessively happy. fact is: A 9-year old is physically not mature enough to have sex with an adult, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

You do realise that if one were to rely solely on the above 2 statements, one would contend that those Muslim organisations were indeed hit, which gives them the right to bark. So if I'd try to make my case against this legislation, I'd refrain from drawing that parallel.

Not sure which statements you mean. The one about Mohammed being a paedophile or the one about having to bow to his every whim? The former is a fact and not an insult, and the latter is also a fact if the legislation is made active. So if the dog barks, that is because it has been hit by something it does not like, in the case of the islamic organizations the fact that we are calling things by a name they do not agree with. Which is still no reason to try and gag us. Freedom of speech, yes please.

[Corwen]

Peace!

It is just black and white for them, and that does not work.

Deffinitely.
As far as "loud admiration" goes, I think we can safely say that a majority isn't iritated by criticism as long as words such as "stupid", "silly" etc. (refering to a particular congregation) stay out of discussion along with words like "pedophile", "warlord" or other some such (when refering to any religious figure whoever that may be--yes, I gave examples of insults usually thrown at Muhammad, pbuh, but the principle applies to all spiritual traditions just the same) . The rest is just fine.
One can argue a counter-case (i.e. criticise) without adding the above "epithets", which is only fair I think.
(I hope that's all that that legislation refers to, otherwise there will be another huge pile of sensless trouble, just the way humanity is so adept at doing... )
Blessings!
/|\

Recently Islam seems very bad at distinguishing between reasoned criticism and defamation. Just ask Ali Mohaqeq Nasab, Rafik Tagi, Samir Sadagatoglu, Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasrin, or any of the other writers, journalists, human rights campaigners, feminists, philosophers and political campaigners in jail all around the Islamic world. Lets face it your religion can't take reasoned criticism, it has a massive chip on its shoulder. Muslims seem to think that God 'himself' can be offended, which is obviously ridiculous! Now that really is stupid.

[wilde]

This sort of thing makes me just want to disappear into a remote forest grove and not come back out. Honestly, the way the world is going.......