Clearly, the purpose of this U.N. Defamation of Religions resolution is to set a precedent for persecuting and prosecuting anyone who openly criticizes Islam, Muslims, or Shariah Law.
Louis P Sheldon
The Obama Administration has joined hands with Egypt to push through a United Nations Resolution that will forbid “defaming” religions worldwide. The resolution is being presented as an effort to protect “freedom of opinion and expression” but it actually an Islamist strategy to criminalize any criticism of Islam.
A hearing on defamation of religions was conducted by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives this fall. A representative from TVC was present at this 3-hour hearing.
Witnesses at this hearing included Leonard Leo, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International and Religious Freedom, Angela Wu, the International Law Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Tad Stanke, Director of Policy and Programs, Human Rights First and Zainab Al-Suwaij, Executive Director of the American Islamic Congress.
Leonard Leo, expressed the following concerns about the “defamations of religions” resolution at the hearing:
While they may sound tolerant and progressive, these resolutions do not solve the very real problems of persecution and discrimination suffered by the adherents of many religions around the world. Rather, they exacerbate these problems.
The “defamation of religions” concept promotes intolerance and human rights violations, creating wide latitude for governments to restrict free expression and religious freedom. In addition, the concept deviates sharply from the historically rooted object of international human rights protections by addressing the interests of religious institutions and interpretations, rather than the rights of individuals.
The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is overseeing passage of this resolution, is dominated by Marxist and Islamic nations. Among these nations are China, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba. These nations routinely violate the human rights of their citizens by killing, beheading, enslaving or imprisoning them. “This council is a grim joke,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “This group of Communist and Islamic tyrants are sitting in judgment of what the United States or Israel does – and now the Obama Administration has joined with Islamists to violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.”
The resolution begins with a positive statement about the importance of “the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression” and condemns the violations of free expression occurring against journalists and other media workers.
It then states:
… its 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, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.
This statement will be used by Islamists to stifle criticism of Islam. An Islamist can claim that criticism of Islamic terrorism creates hatred and is an incitement to discrimination against Muslims. Christians or Jews speaking about against Islam will be considered criminals.
The resolution then calls upon nations to:
To take all necessary measures to put an end to violations of these rights and to create the conditions to prevent such violations, including by ensuring that relevant national legislation complies with their international human rights obligations and is effectively implemented;
This section asks governments to create legislation that will conform to the U.N. resolution on defamation of religions.
To ensure that victims of violations of these rights have an effective remedy, to investigate effectively threats and acts of violence, including terrorist acts, against journalists, including in situations of armed conflict, and to bring to justice those responsible in order to combat impunity.
***
To promote a pluralistic approach to information and multiple points of view by encouraging a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information, including mass media, through, inter alia, transparent licensing systems and effective regulations on undue concentration of ownership of the media in the private sector;
This section is the international version of the liberal “fairness doctrine” that the Obama Administration wants to revive. The Federal Communications Commission, headed by Mark Lloyd, an admirer of Hugo Chavez’s treatment of the media, will spearhead this effort to force conservatives off the airwaves.
To review their procedures, practices and legislation, as necessary, with a view to ensure the full and effective implementation of all their obligations under international human rights law, including to ensure that any limitations on the right to freedom of opinion and expression are only such as are provided by law and are necessary for the respect of the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public) or of public health or morals;
This section is clearly designed to kill freedom of speech in democratic nations. Governments are encouraged to control criticism against religion (meaning Islam) in order to “respect the rights and reputations of others” and can be used to protect national security, public order, public health or morals. This would give governments wide-sweeping powers to control the content of all media that criticizes Islam in any way.
To refrain from using counter-terrorism as a pretext to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression in ways that are contrary to their obligations under international law.
This anti-free speech resolution has been pushed by Islamic nations for years. It was first introduced by Pakistan in 1999 on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference under a “racist” agenda in the U.N. In the original version it was titled “Defamation of Islam.”
The focus was changed to “defamation of religions” after the Islamic attack on our nation on September 11, 2001.
Steve Groves with the Heritage Foundation is concerned about the U.S. co-sponsoring this resolution with Egypt. “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech and expression, even when speech is offensive or insulting. Moreover, a religious ‘speech code’ would disrupt the assimilation of religious minorities that has occurred throughout U.S. history and could breed resentment rather than understanding among America's religious communities.”
Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law, criminal law, tort law and religious freedom law at UCLA sees serious problems with the U.N. resolution:
If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries – including the U.S. – should adhere to this resolution.
If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
"[The Obama Administration] presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).
I’m worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and possibly of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.”
Advocacy of mere hostility – for instance advocacy that people should hate and be hostile to radical strains of Islam (and its adherents), or to Scientology, or to Catholicism, or to fundamentalist Christianity, or for that matter to religion generally – is clearly constitutionally protected here in the U.S.; but the resolution seems to call for its prohibition.
Beyond that, I’m worried that the executive branch’s endorsement of speech-restrictive “international human rights” norms will affect how the courts interpret the First Amendment, so that over time, an international norm against hate speech ... [would] supply a basis for prohibiting [hate speech], the First Amendment notwithstanding.”
The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty has published a couple of detailed analyses of the “Defamation of Religions” resolution. The Fund concludes that the resolution is a direct assault on our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion.
A June 2008 Becket Fund analysis notes the following:
Defamation laws are meant to protect individuals from public slander or libel that would negatively affect their livelihood, and is closely aligned with individual and personal, rather than group, rights. The traditional defense in a defamation lawsuit is the truth, as defamation laws are meant to inhibit someone from using mistruths to harm another.
“Defamation of religions” measures, however, are used to protect a set of beliefs, ideas, and philosophies. Yet religions make conflicting truth claims and indeed the diversity of truth claims is something that religious freedom as a concept is designed to protect. Thus, the traditional defense of truth in a defamation suit is subject in a “defamation of religions” case to what ideas, worldviews, or religious beliefs the judging authority believes to be true. The nature of the inquiry is factual.
However, “defamation of religions,” as opposed to the defamation of persons, forcibly requires the state to determine which ideas are acceptable, as opposed to which facts are true. A fundamental rule of law problem presents itself in the notion of “defamation of religion,” as belief cannot be empirically proven true. “Defamation of religions” measures are thus distinct from traditional defamation laws because they do not protect persons, good faith speech, or dissent.
Enforcement of “defamation of religions” measures, including anti-blasphemy and anti- vilification laws, is typically left to the unbridled discretion of local officials who are free to act on their own prejudices. Ultimately, “defamation of religions” measures empower majorities against dissenters and the state against individuals.
***
Pakistan, Iran, and Egypt have all expressed strong support for the “defamation of religions” resolutions. Pakistan Penal Code 295 states that defiling Islam or its prophets is deserving of the death penalty; defiling, damaging or desecrating the Qur’an will be punished with life imprisonment; and insulting another’s religious feelings can be punished with 10 years of prison. Anti-blasphemy laws “are often used to intimidate reform-minded Muslims, sectarian opponents, and religious minorities, or to settle personal scores.” In Iran, an academic and member of the pro-reform Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution, was sentenced to death for calling for the reformation of religion in which people should not “blindly follow” religious leaders. In Egypt, a professor at Cairo University was declared an apostate for teaching his students to read certain parts of the Qur’an metaphorically.
Each of these instances required the state to mediate which religious viewpoints were acceptable and which were not. Further, in many instances, enforcement of “defamation of religion” measures requires a judgment based on the subjective sensibilities of the listener rather than the objectively ascertainable speech of the speaker. Under the standards promoted by the “defamation of religion” resolutions, when a Muslim states his belief that Jesus was a prophet, but not God incarnate, such statements could also be considered “defamation” against the Christian faith of many believers. But no OIC member state supporting defamation of religion laws would want to strip Muslims of their right to state this Qur’anic teaching. In such an environment, we effectively abolish the right to disagree over matters of truth, rendering “freedom of belief” a mere illusion.
Becket Fund lawyer L. Bennett Graham published an analysis of the defamation of religions resolution in the Emory Law Review.
According to Graham:
In order to enforce a defamation of religion suit in the same manner, a judge would first have to recognize that an idea, philosophy, or religion can be defamed in the same way that an individual can be defamed. Human rights law has always intended the protection of individual rights, just as traditional defamation laws have always intended to protect individuals from false claims that cause an undue burden on an individual’s livelihood or reputation.
Second, if a judge were able to accept the initial premise and continued with the case, he would also be forced to make a subjective decision. In order to decide a defamation case, a judge or jury must determine what is true in the case. Thus, if a Muslim were to make the statement that Jesus was only a prophet, would that statement be considered defamatory to Christianity, which claims the Jesus was the Son of God?
In order to rule in that case, the judge would be forced to take sides in a theological debate. When it comes to religion, a judge cannot objectively determine what is true unless the state is willing to make the audacious claim that it has a monopoly on eternal truth. Finally, it is also important to note that defamation laws are not meant to protect individuals from offensive statements that are peaceful in nature. Determining what is and is not offensive also requires a subjective opinion. And as uncomfortable as it may be, there is no such thing as the right not to be offended.
The U.N. Watch organization based in Geneva is also concerned about the resolution to criminalize criticism of Islam. Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch has warned:
The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights law and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims. International law already protects victims of religious discrimination.
***
[The latest resolution is] not really trying to protect individuals from harm, [but rather attempting] to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate and to ban any discussion of Islam that may challenge state orthodoxies or offend Islamic sensibilities.
Clearly, the purpose of this U.N. Defamation of Religions resolution is to set a precedent for persecuting and prosecuting anyone who openly criticizes Islam, Muslims, or Shariah Law.
Additional Resources:
Islamists Attack Free Speech At United Nations
United Nations Assaults Free Speech – Moves To Protect Islam
Islamist Hate Exposed By TVC
Obama Picks Pro-Shariah Law Advocate?
Surrender To Islam & Socialism Tour
U.S. Faces Home Grown & Overseas Islamic Terrorism
Islam On The Move:
