More than 100 groups sound alarm over UN’s proposals on ‘defamation of religion’
More than 100 religious and non-religious organisations, including several Muslim, have signed a petition against the proposed United Nations resolutions on the ‘defamation of religions,’ which they state will do more harm than good for religious freedom.
The groups express fears that if the new resolutions become legally-binding as an international treaty, they will seriously limit the criticism of religion and would provide international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws in Islamic countries where these laws are used to persecute Christians under the guise of protecting Islam.
The groups argue in their statement:
‘... unlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the ‘defamation of religions’ punish the peaceful criticism of ideas.
‘United Nations resolutions on the defamation of religions are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs’.
(Click here to read the statement)
The UN proposals trace their roots to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which states that ‘all rights are subject to Shariah law’ and makes Shariah law ‘the only source of reference for human rights.’
The push for the proposals started in 1999 when Muslim states pushed non-binding resolutions on combating religious defamation through the 192-nation General Assembly and the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, arguing that Muslims need protection from Islamophobic race-hate. Subsequently, they called their plans ‘Defamation of Islam’, which would ban criticism of the beliefs of Muhammad worldwide.
Support for the resolution peaked in 2006 when, after the cartoon controversy and Pope Benedict XVI’s divisive address at the University of Regensburg, Germany, a total of 111 countries voted in favour in a General Assembly ballot.
It is the first time ever that a UN body has proposed a binding treaty to combat the ‘defamation of religions’.
The proposals were supported by the 57 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Pakistan and Nigeria have specifically declared in a UN meeting that they are seeking a new legally-binding treaty that would enforce limits on freedom of expression with regard to religion.
Tina Lambert, Advocacy Director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a human rights group specialising in religious freedom and working on behalf of those persecuted for their Christian beliefs, said:
‘In seeking to protect ‘religion’ from defamation it is clear that existing international human rights protections will be undermined, specifically freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression.
‘A legally-binding treaty would enable states to justify dubious domestic legislation such as the blasphemy law in Pakistan as a ‘human rights’ requirement.
‘For the sake of those who already suffer unjustly under such legislation and for the protection of our existing international human rights framework, it is vital that member states act to prevent such a treaty or optional protocol being established.’
Jeremy Shull, the advocacy officer of International Christian Concern, also expressed his alarm. He said:
‘This is the first time a binding effort is being made in an organization with the international influence of the U.N.
‘We are dismayed at this movement in the U.N. to infringe upon religious freedom. Countries like Pakistan already use non-binding resolutions as international cover to imprison and harm Christians in the name of human rights. Human rights laws exist to protect individuals, not countries or ideas.’
Angela C. Wu, the international law director of the Becket Fund, a Washington, DC-based public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions, stated:
‘Human rights are meant to protect the individuals, not ideas or governments. Yet the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ further empowers governments to choose which peacefully expressed ideas are permissible and which are not.
‘It is pivotal for human rights defenders around the globe to unite against this flawed concept before it becomes binding law.’
(See the Becket Fund press release)
The final plenary vote on the UN proposals is expected in early to mid-December.
Media links