UN Resolutions May Limit Legitimate Criticism of Religious Extremism

HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIETY & CULTURE, HOMELAND SECURITY & TERRORISM

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

UPDATE: The latest in a series of so-called “defamation of religions” resolutions adopted by the United Nations may result in unreasonable limits being placed on public criticism of Islamic extremism. It appears that the most recent versions of these “defamation of religions” resolutions are designed to silence worldwide criticism of Muslim extremists for expressing intolerance toward other religious groups or for engaging in violent acts against people of other faiths.

According to a report released by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (U.S. Commission Report), since 1999, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an organization of 57 nations with a Muslim majority or a significant Muslim population, has sponsored “defamation of religions” initiatives in the UN Human Rights Council.  Every year since 2005, the UN General Assembly has adopted similar “defamation of religions” resolutions.

However, the content of the latest resolutions reflects a shift from expressing concern about the negative stereotyping of specific persons based on their religious beliefs to expressing a more general concern about the negative stereotyping of types of religions.  It is widely believed that the intent behind these resolutions, either authored or supported by members of the OIC, is to silence worldwide criticism of the intolerance of minority faiths that is prevalent in Muslim countries and/or violent actions taken by Islamic extremists.  If this proves to be the case, in passing the resolutions, instead of protecting individual freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief, the United Nations will have accomplished just the opposite.

As explained by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the latest UN “defamation of religions” resolutions constitute a step backward from the April 2009 UN Durban Review Conference Outcome Document, which defined “defamation of religions” as “the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief.”  It was only a few months later, in October 2009, at the 12^th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, that a more expansive definition was adopted.  The broader language, contained in a non-binding compromise resolution co-sponsored by the United States of America and Egypt (referred to as the U.S.-Egypt Compromise) and titled “Freedom of opinion and expression,” goes beyond expressing concern about the “derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons” to express broader concern “that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world.”

Even though the resolution does not provide for legal prohibitions against negative religious stereotyping, according to the U.S. Commission Report, the members of the OIC strongly supported the statement of concern about negative religious stereotyping, since the statement advances the idea that  “defamation applies not only to individuals, but also to religions and belief systems.”

On December 18, 2009, the UN General Assembly passed the most recent of these resolutions, titled "Combating defamation of religions." Hidden on pages 67-73 of a 151 page report titled Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms , submitted by the General Assembly's Third Committee, the final text evidences the implied intent of the October resolution to insulate Islamic extremists from criticism about their own religious intolerance.

To illustrate, the resolution 1) acknowledges the "recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups," and 2) as the sole example of "the intensification of the overall campaign of the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general," singles out "the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."

What is of particular concern is that the resolution also stresses that there are special duties and responsibilities that come with freedom of expression. Specifically, it suggests that speech, including legitimate criticism of Muslim extremism, may be "subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals."

Religious liberty advocates have expressed their concern about the recent expansive interpretation of “defamation of religions.” According to the joint statement, A Common Statement from Civil Society on the Concept of the 'Defamation of Religions,' signed by 100 international NGO’s, including the Becket Fund, the defamation of religions concept, “has no basis in domestic or international law, and . . . would alter the very meaning of human rights.”  On this subject, the U.S. Commission Report adds that the latest resolutions give “international legitimacy for existing national laws that punish blasphemy or otherwise ban criticism of religion, which often have resulted in gross human rights violations.”

Although the United States co-sponsored one of the resolutions expanding the meaning of “defamation of religions,” in August 2009, the United States Mission to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva wrote: “We believe an approach such as “defamation of religions” entails a slippery slope, and endangers the very freedom of expression that international human rights treaties are designed to protect and that is essential in a democratic society.”

Moreover, on October 26, in a speech announcing the State Department’s 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted the distinction between a broad prohibition on the so-called “defamation of religions” and true religious persecution against persons.  According to Secretary Clinton: “Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.”

Yet, as stated in the U.S. Commission Report, even without significant U.S. support, the adopted resolutions may lead to UN global governance of religious expression, as they “provide justification for governments to restrict religious freedom and free expression . . . and protect religious institutions and interpretations, rather than individuals, [thus helping to] create a new international anti-blasphemy norm,” a norm that may eventually become binding international law.