GENEVA – The U.N.’s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.
The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries – with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela – had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.
A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.
The resolution urges states to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
“Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers,” Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said.
“It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone,” he said.
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.
“Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism,” the resolution said.
Opponents of the resolution included Canada, all European Union countries, Switzerland, Ukraine and Chile.
“It is individuals who have rights and not religions,” Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said.
India, which normally votes along with the council’s majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.
India’s Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution “inappropriately” linked religious criticism to racism.
The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Its resolutions are not binding, but are meant to act as recommendations for U.N. member states on issues of human rights.
Earlier, a coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.
The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the Geneva body’s anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.
U.S. diplomats resumed their observer role in the council after President Barack Obama took office, though it is unclear whether Washington will stand for one of the 18 council seats up for election in May.
Esther Brimmer, Obama’s nominee for the job of Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs, told a Senate hearing Tuesday that the council was a “major disappointment, diverted from its mission by states with some of the worst human rights records.”
Associated Press – March 26, 2009
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted March 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm
What a farce.
But with any luck this resolution will be enforced with the same vigor that the UN enforces any of its other resolutions.
posted March 27, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Good Luck with that one!
posted March 27, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I am so glad our UN rep had the courage to stand up to such nonsense.
So many religions are deserving of GREAT criticism, especially the ones that do not treat ALL of The Creator’s children with dignity and respect (not to mention equally).
posted March 27, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations”
“wrongly”???
But then again, the same applies to the currently popular American version of fundagelical “Christianity” – as frequently witnessed right here on Beliefnet.
posted March 27, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I was reading about this, approving a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.
I don’t agree with the intent as all to often, Islam deserves to be criticized as does other religions as well. Also, the U.N. can pass such a law but it’s not binding. Sovereign nations do not have to abide it. This law cannot trump Nations whose constitutions will not allow the prosecution of its citizens and individual rights in these countries.
Honestly, all religions are called to the carpet at times and most of the time, rightly so. Does Islam think this is a way to get around this? Sorry but it won’t happen. More importantly, this law was poorly thought out, as it will bite Islam in the backside just as easily as things currently are. Besides, Islam criticizes other peoples and religions a lot of the time too.
Basically, it will do nothing and doesn’t have the power to change or enforce anything.
Personally, I think that all it’s going to do is put Islam and the Muslim countries supporting it in a very awkward situation and it won’t change a thing.
posted March 27, 2009 at 11:01 pm
The good news is, “The resolution urges states to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
The Quran unfortunately in some of its verses does defame Christians, Jews, and Pagans as blasphemers and polytheists who are worthy of death. Therefore, under this resolution, that kind of wording has now been outlawed by the UN because the Quran defames many non Quranic religions.
“Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers,” Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said.”
This is statement is also very true as many Christians, Buddhists, Hebrews, Hindus etc. in Islamic countries face defamation, persecution, and often death because of they follow the Bible. Now, thanks to this UN resolution, it now becomes a crime under the UN for any Muslim or any other follower of a religious creed, to persecute and defame a family member for choosing Christianity or another non Quranic religion. A good lawyer can interpret this new resolution as a Godsend for non Islamic religions.
Religions birthed milleniums ago should never be given protections or favors that many human beings still are not afforded. All religions must be open to scrutiny, debate, and examination as such would improve the human condition and keep with the natural evolving of human rights, human dignity, and human equality. As one person already, people have rights to practice religion. Protect people from being persecuted and killed because of their religious choice, not the religion they choose.
When a religion proliferates beliefs that lead to oppressive and unjust actions or indoctrinates followers to violate and defame of the human rights and dignity of other human beings, that religion brings upon itself just condemnation from humanity. Humanity has the right to call into question and critic of those scriptural beliefs and doctrines that plant derogatory thoughts that justify violence, hatred, and murder against another person or group of people.The individuals who are actively carrying out such doctrines place themselves by their own unjust and unfair actions into the Humane light of critcism.
posted March 27, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Good statements above. Let me just add two things:
It’s a the believers in a religion must think it’s kind of weak if its truth is so non-obvious that it needs to be protected by law. Or maybe it’s the officials of such religions who want to be protected from criticism. Congratulations to Canada and all countries which opposed it. And I’m glad it would be unconstitutional in the US.
As was pointed out above, be careful what you wish for. This is a pretty blunt instrument to accomplish any purpose.
posted March 28, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“The resolution urges states to provide ‘protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.’”
This is not a call to cease and desist any criticism. It is a call to end hate crimes and stupid acts against religious people. If a religion cannot stand to be criticized it is not sturdy enough for the rigors of life. It is criticism that hones the blade of faith so it can slice through the huge mounds of “stuff’ that obstructs life lived well.