THE TANDEM PROJECT

http://www.tandemproject.com.

info@tandemproject.com.

UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,

FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

Separation of Religion or Belief & State

DEFAMATION OF RELIGION

Available in other languages: click here if the language box does not display.

Issue: Defamation of Religion – 2 Papers, UN Resolution and UN Member States comments.

For: United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs, Academia, NGOs, Media, Civil Society

Review: Excerpts from two papers on Defamation of Religions by Human Rights First and the International Humanist and Ethical Union, followed by the UN Human Rights Commission 2007 Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religion (A/HRC/4/L.12) and comments by UN Member States. “Since 1999 several resolutions have been adopted without consensus by the UN Commission on Human Rights, UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. The resolutions proponents argue they will enhance freedom of religion and prevent human rights violations, while critics have compared the resolutions to ‘blasphemy laws’ that violate freedom of belief and expression by criminalizing criticism of religion.”

Article 19: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. It may be subject to certain restrictions as provided by law and necessary for respect for the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.

Article 20: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Human Rights First: Paper on Incitement Laws and Religious Defamation Laws

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090429-FD-hrf-working-defam-relig.pdf

Human Rights First is a non-profit, non-partisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. There mission is to build respect for human rights and the rule of law to help ensure the dignity which everyone is entitled and to stem intolerance, tyranny and violence. They utilize creative coalition-building, insider advocacy, litigation, research and reporting and public advocacy through the following programs: Crimes Against Humanity; Fighting Discrimination; Human Rights Defenders; Refugee Protection and Law and Security. Michael H. Posner, former Executive Director of Human Rights First, is U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

Excerpts:

According to a study commissioned by Human Rights First - there is a high risk that Incitement Laws and Religious Defamation Laws will unnecessarily trample upon the right to freedom of expression. To avoid this, States should be guided by the following five considerations: (a) The fundamental right to freedom of expression should only be restricted in certain narrowly defined circumstances, prescribed by ICCPR Article 19 and 20; (b) The fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion should only be restricted in certain narrowly defined circumstances, prescribe by ICCPR Article 18; (c) The fundamental rights of freedom of expression and religion can only be protected if States ensure that the elements of Incitement and Religious Defamation Laws are defined precisely, provide for punishment that is proportionate to the alleged offense, and provide adequate safeguards to prevent abuse of powers in the Laws’ enforcement; (d) The need to protect religious freedom should not be conflated with the need to prevent racial hatred. Thus, States should not place undue emphasis on Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), at the expense of the right to freedom of expression and religion; (e) Any incursion on the rights to freedom of expression and religion, in favor of greater regulation of speech, other than those limited incursions permitted by the ICCPR, may well exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, the problem of hate speech aimed at religion.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU): Speaking Freely about Religion: Religious Freedom, Defamation and Blasphemy: http://www.iheu.org/UN-blasphemy-report

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is “a world union of over 100 Humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, atheist and free-thought organizations in more than 40 countries.” Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, they are a world umbrella for these organizations. The IHEU vision is “a world in which human rights are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. Their mission is “to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, and Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris).”

Excerpts: Speaking Freely About Religion: Religious Freedom, Defamation and Blasphemy:

Since 1999 several resolutions entitled “Combating Defamation of Religions” have been adopted by several United Nations bodies, including the UN Commission on Human Rights, the new UN Human Rights Council and, in 2007 and 2008, by the UN General Assembly itself. The resolutions proponents argue they will enhance freedom of religion and prevent human rights violations, while critics have compared the resolutions to “blasphemy laws” that violate freedom of belief by criminalizing criticism of religion. The authority of the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly are necessarily constrained by their charters and international law. This report therefore examines the concept of defamation of religion to see if it is consistent with international human rights law. The report reaches a number of significant conclusions: (a) The concept of “defamation of religion” and the resolutions lack validity in international law; (b) Outlawing “defamation of religions” as conceived in these resolutions, would violate the human right to freedom of religion or belief as well as the right to freedom of expression; (c) Laws combating “defamation of religion” are analogous to laws against blasphemy, with the potential for similar human rights abuses and; (d) the concerns the resolutions seek to address would be better addressed by more uniform application of the existing UN standards for countering intolerance and discrimination.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Resolution: Action on Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions (A/HRC/4/L.12): UN Human Rights Council.

In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.12) on Combating defamation of religions , adopted by a vote of 24 in favor, 14 against, and nine abstentions, as orally amended, the Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; further urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided; invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of this resolution at its sixth session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. Against (14): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom. Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.

Comments by UN Member States

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) presenting the resolution L-12 on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the text was not new to anyone. Pakistan had held open handed consultations. The draft resolution addressed the defamation of foreign religions and particularly the one of Islam. Today, it was Islam that was being targeted. There was a clear recognition of the existence of the phenomenon. The manifestations of Islamophobia had extensively been document by three Special Rapporteurs. In a post 9/11 world, Muslims had suffered from discrimination. There were numerous instances reflecting the defamation of Islam, not only in law and judicial practices but also through Islamophobia. Therefore, the draft resolution was presented. The profiling of Muslims constituted racism and was a human rights violation. The resolution would compel the international community to address the phenomenon of the defamation of religions and the consequence it had on individuals. The OIC hoped that the draft would be adopted by consensus. Oral amendments were also made to the text.

BIRGITTA MARIA SIEFKER-EBERLE ( Germany ), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union strongly believed in freedom of religion, expression and belief, and believed an ongoing dialogue was the best way forward, and regretted that such a dialogue had not taken place in the Council. There were increasing risks of stereotyping Muslims after the events of September 11, but the European Union was strongly committed to fighting this phenomenon. All forms of religious intolerance should be fought as discrimination based on religion and belief was not limited to adherents to Islam, it was equally relevant with regards to anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and such as Candomblé and other beliefs. Followers of all religions were victims of human rights violations.

It was problematic to reconcile defamation with discrimination, as the two were of a different nature. It should be stressed that human rights law, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights particularly forbade discrimination due to belief. The main focus should remain the rights and freedoms of individuals, and such an approach would be better for this resolution. International human rights law protected individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion and belief and not the religion itself. Against this backdrop, the European Union had supported round tables and other discussions on religion in the context of the Council. For all these reasons, the European Union called for a vote on the resolution, and would vote against it.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) , speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Guatemala condemned defamation of religions and any practice incompatible with the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms. This draft resolution was unbalanced and gave importance to one single religion over all others. It was a selective document that did not take account of the situation of discrimination against other religions around the world. The Guatemalan delegation would vote against this draft resolution and any other that was not inclusive in its content.

MUNU MAHAWAR ( India ), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that India firmly opposed the defamation or negative stereotyping of any religion. In regard to the resolution L-12, the resolution excessively focused on one religion. But all religions were facing the problem of defamation in one form or another. The resolution did not envisage any role for the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It inappropriately sought to address this complex issue as a manifestation of racism. India would abstain during voting on this resolution.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said religious intolerance was a matter of concern for all in the world, including all people. Religious tolerance was part of Canada's efforts to increase harmony, both at home and abroad. Canada respected diverging views and ideas, and hoped in the future the Council could take a consensus view on this approach, based on dialogue, cooperation, frank dialogue and best practice sharing, and looked forward to achieving this goal. Canada consistently worked to promote religious tolerance, and called on all States to do so.

Canada was also a strong promoter of the freedom of expression, and was concerned that this was not included in the text. There was also concern that the protection of the religions themselves, rather than the protection of the adherents to the resolution, was the focus of the resolution. Canada was also concerned that one religion only appeared to be the focus of the resolution. A lack of implementation of existing obligations was the single most pressing obstacle to tackling religious discrimination. For these reasons and others, Canada would vote against the resolution.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Brazil abstained because operative paragraph 10 of L. 12 contained elements found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 19 paragraph 3 of the Covenant stated that exercise of freedom of religion may be subject to certain restrictions but these should be provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights of others, for public order, or national security. The same paragraph 10 mentioned respect of religions and beliefs in connection with freedom of expression. Amendments did not address the main concerns related to operative paragraph 10 of draft L. 12.

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that in supporting L-12, the resolution emphasized that everyone had the right to freedom of religion. The Philippines viewed the inter-religious dialogue as a way of combating the defamation of religions.

MURIEL BERSET KOHEN ( Switzerland ), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said freedom of religion was a fundamental right for human beings, and could not be restricted or suspended, except under criteria of international law. Switzerland was aware of problems encountered by Muslims after September 11, and considered that defamation and discrimination based on religious reasons were intolerable in all cases.

Switzerland had however voted against. It would have preferred that the resolution be against discrimination based on religion, and not defamation per se. Its unclear wording could lead to restrictions on the freedom of expression. There should also have been a clear reference to the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief. Mutual understanding should be strengthened through education so as to avoid stereotypes, and discrimination based on religion should be fought so as to promote and protect harmonious communities.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Japan regretted that it had to vote against the resolution. Japan was against the defamation of religion. All religions, including Islam, should be fully respected and not subject to negative labeling. Japan understood the underlying sentiment behind L. 12, but the draft only focused on one religion. Japan's suggestions for amendments to cover other religions were not taken on board and it regrettably had to vote against the resolution.

ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Argentina had always sought to bring positions together rather than extend division between communities. The country would have liked to see reflected in the resolution historical positions and shared the view expressed by other delegations on paragraph 10 in the resolution. Argentina also advanced some proposals to strike a balance in the text. Although an effort had been made, it was not sufficient to allow Argentina to vote in favour. Therefore, the country abstained.

CARLOS ALBERTO CHOCANO BURGA (Peru), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Peru condemned and opposed discrimination based on religious belief. Religion was not incompatible with freedom of expression - both were fundamental rights, and the two should not have been set against each other in the resolution. It would also have been better if, rather than singling out one religion, there had been protection of all religions and beliefs, and this was why Peru had abstained.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the Republic of Korea shared concerns about intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religious belief. Constructive dialogue between cultures, education and respect for fundamental human rights norms were necessary to combat this, but other human rights norms were equally important. This draft contained an element that might impact on other human rights. There was a need to support efforts to fight against intolerance of all religions. For this reason, the delegation voted against.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan ), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that they sincerely wanted to take the opportunity to thank all those who voted in favor of the resolution. There was a license apparently for anyone to attack Islam and Muslims. The Organization of the Islamic Conference hoped that the Human Rights Council would look at the resolution again to see how best the concerns of the OIC in this matter could be addressed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Documents Attached:

Defamation of Religion

The Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

The Devoted Student

The Tandem Project is a non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 1986 to build understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity, and to prevent discrimination in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief. The Tandem Project has sponsored multiple conferences, curricula, reference materials and programs on Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

Surely one of the best hopes for humankind is to embrace a culture in which religions and other beliefs accept one another, in which wars and violence are not tolerated in the name of an exclusive right to truth, in which children are raised to solve conflicts with mediation, compassion and understanding.

The Tandem Project is a UN NGO in Special Consultative Status with the

Economic and Social Council of the United Nations