Support drops for UN resolution on religious defamation

James Reinl, United Nations Correspondent

• Last Updated: November 14. 2009 10:55PM UAE / November 14. 2009 6:55PM GMT

Supporters of Jamat-e-Islami in Pakistan chant slogans during a protest against the reprinting of cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. Athar Hussain / Reuters

NEW YORK // A UN resolution advanced by Muslim countries that seeks to outlaw criticism of religion has seen a decline in support since last year.

The number of countries continuing to support the resolution proposed by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to promote the concept of “defamation of religions” dropped to 81. Eighty-five countries in the UN’s Third Committee on Human Rights voted for the resolution last year, which itself marked a reduction in support from 95, in 2007.

Likewise, the number of countries voting against the resolution increased to 55 this year from 50 last year, while the number of abstentions rose from 42 to 43.

The concept of religious defamation has divided western and Muslim countries since before September 2005, when a Danish newspaper published a dozen cartoons satirising the Prophet Mohammed and sparked violent protests across the Islamic world.

Muslim states have pushed non-binding resolutions on combating religious defamation through the 192-nation General Assembly and the Geneva-based Human Rights Council since 1999, arguing that Muslims need protection from Islamophobic race-hate.

The latest text warns that “defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups” and expresses concern that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”.

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.

Although the 56-nation OIC bloc has found support in African and non-aligned countries, campaigners have lobbied hard against the resolution over the past year and won over nations other than the traditional naysayers in Europe and North America.

Before the vote, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC secretary general, asserted the need to protect Muslims and other religious groups from discrimination and race hate while criticising what he said was a western smear campaign that spread “misinformation and misunderstanding”.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said atheists and believers were entitled to express their feelings about religion, and argued that “these differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse”.

A coalition of more than 100 human rights organisations, including secular, Muslim, Christian, Baha’i and Jewish groups, opposed the resolution, saying it sought to provide cover for anti-blasphemy laws and the marginalisation of religious minorities in repressive countries.

“We have been very opposed to this idea that there should be laws or human rights principles protecting religions, as opposed to protecting people,” said Elizabeth Cassidy, a policy expert for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. “Over the last few months the publicity has really spiked and there is growing awareness of the problems that ensue from legally enforcing these ideas.”

The concept has critics among liberal Muslims who say it undermines their right to question their own faith, and among ultra-conservatives in such countries as Saudi Arabia who fear it would outlaw the practice of criticising non-Muslim faiths.

The General Assembly is set to vote on the resolution again in coming weeks, although attention has already turned to Geneva, where Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, last month advanced a binding treaty amendment to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The amendment would see the principle of religious defamation enshrined in international law, rather than non-binding resolutions.



jreinl@thenational.ae