Anti-blasphemy resolution passes UN

Well, I'll be god damned.

Anyone have an actual link to the resolution? Also... does anyone know if the word Blasphemy is even in the resolution. What I have here, is this, which apparently actually comes from the resolution:

Quote:

The 2008 draft "underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national regional and international levels."

It also laments "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

What precisely is the objection to this?

[url=http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N08/595/48/PDF/N0859548.pdf?OpenE...'s a .pdf version of the resolution[/u][/url].

Excerpts from the Committee's minutes:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm

 

Quote:

A final draft approved by a vote -- on combating the defamation of religion, which was passed by 85 votes in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions (see Annex I) -- would have the Assembly urge all States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred resulting from defamation of religions and the incitement to religious hatred in general. The representative of Uganda, its main sponsor, explained that the text incorporated the concerns of many delegations that all religions be covered by the text and not just Islam, because although Islam was usually at the core of such acts, it did not preclude the possibility that other religions could be targeted later (See Annex II).

Prior to the vote, the representative of the United States said he objected to the text's way of conflating racism and racial discrimination, and would vote against it. The language appeared to suggest that, like race, a person's religion was a characteristic that an individual could not change, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contained provisions which said that individuals had a right to change and choose their religion, or to choose not to practice a religion at all. Also urging a "no" vote, the representative of the Observer Mission of the Holy See said he feared the resolution would lend itself locally to laws that would penalize religious minorities and stifle dialogue. The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the concept could have been better captured in terms of combating the incitement to religious hatred, which in his view could be fought on a clear legal basis.

….

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1), hearing from its main sponsor, the representative of Uganda, who spoke on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, together with Belarus and Venezuela. She said a wide number of delegations had participated in each of the three rounds of consultations, while some had not participated at all. The text reflected a desire to accommodate concerns raised during those consultations. The approach on the text had been changed to lay stress on the ills posed by the defamation of religion on all religions, and would call on States to combat such acts without exception. Though Islam was usually at the core of such acts at present, it did not preclude the possibility that other religions could be targeted next.

She said those States that claimed that the notion of defamation of religion had no bearing in international normative frameworks were overlooking the fact that all States had recently affirmed the global counter terrorism strategy, which had sought to de-link terrorism to a particular religion or ethnic group. The international community had further resolved to promote a culture of peace and respect for all religions. Eleven weeks ago, all States had reaffirmed their commitment to implement that strategy in an integrated manner, as reflected in General Assembly resolution 62/272 of 5 September, which had been adopted without a vote. She hoped that the negative reaction shown by some delegations would not signal a departure from that commitment. She also expressed hope that all those that said they would support the text if it made a reference to all religions would live up to their promise.

She then made an oral amendment to preambular paragraph 8 of the text, to change the reference to "illegal immigration" to "irregular immigration".

The representative of the Observer Mission of the Holy See said the Committee had seen an increased focus on protection of religions based on the perceived rise in defamation of religious symbols and institutions. The concept of defamation had arisen from the belief that religious ideas and figures deserved protection by the State in an effort to ensure that their adherents were not offended. In the current international context, that notion risked removing the focus from the rights of individuals and groups towards the protection of institutions, symbols and ideas, and would lend itself locally to laws that would penalize religious minorities and stifle dialogue. While he was supportive of the need to protect believers from hate speech, he also believed that it was possible to protect religious freedom by applying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the agreements on the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion and belief.

The representative of Egypt, aligning himself with the statement by Uganda, said the draft was an important one. Many changes had been introduced, and it now dealt with the defamation of all religions. It also dealt with the concerns of some that the Assembly should focus on discrimination of religious minorities, as the Holy See had indicated. The text dealt with those problems in the context of those existing instruments.

The Chair then informed the Committee that a vote had been requested.

In an explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of India said his country opposed defamation and stereotyping based on religion. The draft was an improvement on previous texts on the subject, but retained a focus on a single religion. Defamation and stereotyping was a problem of concern to all religions. He would abstain from the vote.

The representative of the United States said he appreciated the sponsors' aim to address the denigration of religion in a number of manifestations, and agreed with the general tenets of the draft -- including its emphasis on education, its concern for the perpetuation of stereotypes, and encouraging public officials to respect people's religions. He also appreciated the fact that the text had been expanded to include a reference to a variety of religions. While deploring hateful speech, his Government had a strong view that people should be free to express their opinion in challenge to an ideology of hate. He believed that some States were seeking to restrict expression in the name of defamation of religion, when they should be promoting dialogue involving all peoples.

He called on all Member States to reaffirm their belief in the freedom of expression and to call into account those that misused General Assembly resolutions to harass individuals who were seeking to express their opinions and beliefs. He also objected to the text's way of conflating racism and racial discrimination. The language appeared to suggest that, like race, one's religion was a characteristic that one could not change, which was in direct conflict to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration, which said that individuals had a right to change and choose their religion, and to manifest their beliefs through its teaching, practice and observance, or to choose not to practice a religion at all. It was unhelpful and incorrect to suggest that race and religion were the same. He would vote no on the draft.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said belief in tolerance, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, thought, conscience, religion or belief, were the principles upon which the Union had been formed. The European Union attached great importance to fighting the incitement to religious hatred. While he thanked the Organization of the Islamic Conference for organizing consultations on both the concept of defamation of religion and on the text itself, the European Union believed that human rights were indivisible. The right to freedom of expression was at the essence of the right to thought, conscience and belief.

He said it was necessary to make distinctions between incitement to religious hatred and the right to discuss or criticize religion, adding that only the former should be forbidden. He noted that the recent report of the Special Rapporteur on racism and related intolerance had recommended dealing with the concept of defamation of religion through the establishment of legal norms to combat the incitement to religious hatred. There was no need for additional norms on the question. In situations where fundamental rights were in conflict, only courts could establish the limits. That question could not be tackled in the political field, but in the legal field. He also could not accept the idea of defamation of religion being integrated into the human rights framework. International human rights law should be aimed at protecting people in exercising their freedom of religion, not in protecting religions, as such. He believed the resolution could be used to justify arbitrary decisions against religious minorities, for instance, by not allowing them to exercise their right to religion or belief. He could not support the resolution and would vote against it.

The draft was then approved, as orally revised, by a vote of 85 in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Nigeria reaffirmed his delegation's vote in favour of the draft. He noted that Nigeria was a multicultural and multiethnic country, in which religion had been given a great amount of protection. Overall, interreligious dialogue and harmony should be promoted in such a way as to foster unity for all peoples and mankind, with due respect to all cultures and religions.

The representative of Chile said that there should be no discrimination in the exercise of freedom of religion or expression and those freedoms could not be limited, except in those cases expressly referred to in international conventions. All incitement to racial or religious discrimination should be prohibited by law and States parties should immediately undertake such efforts. In addition, the concept of defamation of religions should not be used to weaken the right to freedom of expression, a right that was essential to strengthening rule of law and building democracy.

Colombia's delegate said that the media could contribute to a greater understanding among all religions, beliefs, cultures and peoples and could facilitate dialogue among various groups. Colombia had abstained from voting due to the ambiguous nature of some of the concepts expressed in the draft, specifically those that could lead to unjustified limitations of freedom of expression. He expressed hope that, at the next session, more details could be heard regarding the defamation of religion and its relationship to freedom of expression.

The representative of Brazil said his delegation had abstained from voting because the draft contained some aspects that posed difficulties. Brazil's constitution in regard to the freedom of religion was in line with the relevant articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. Brazil shared the view that the issue of defamation of religions should not be considered from a political perspective, but, rather, from a strictly legal one. He also underscored the importance of treating Islamophobia, Christianophobia and anti-Semitism on the same footing, as doing otherwise would invite accusations of selectivity and double standards.

The representative of Singapore said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft, on the understanding that its contents applied to all religions. In addition, Singapore's understanding of the oral amendment made to preambular paragraph 8 was that it would have to be in accordance with each country's national legislation. Defamation bred intolerance, stereotypes and distrust, and harmful rhetoric and demonization along cultural and religious lines were often the precursors to conflict. Such actions should be combated, along with all forms of intolerance.

….

ANNEX II

Vote on Combating Defamation of Religions

The draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 85 in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.

Absent: Albania, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu.

-------------------

[b]I spent 15 minutes fucking around with this stupid forum software, trying to get this document to format properly, in what should have been a 30-second paste-and-post operation.

Just for the record.[/b]

Cueball wrote:

Well unfortunately I can not get Spector's link to the actual text to work at this time.

Try this:

[u]http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1[/u]

Then pick your language.

Thanks. Now its pretty clear that there is nothing in there about Blasphemy.

Can we say that the title of the article that begins this thread is more or less defamation, since it contains a falsehood that is of the kind where Islam is "frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations..." as the resolution opines?

This kind of thing is just outrageous: 

Quote:

20. Calls upon the international community to foster a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religion and belief, and urges States, non-governmental organizations, religious leaders and bodies and the print and electronic media to support and foster such a dialogue;

Just can't have that.

Really? You think it should be changed? I don't. I think it is an excelent example of the kind of defamation that the resolution is talking about. For that reason it should stay.

The thread title can't be changed. Even the moderators can't change it.

Sorry about the document link that doesn't work. The URL is correct, but for some reason the UN website blocks direct access to it from another website.

Gack! At least, Uncle Ben voted against this...

 

Meh. People have individual and collective rights. Looking at this through the rights of individuals only would mean that half of all UN rights resolutions would have to be thrown out. Individuals within a collective have a right to assert their collective right not to be defamed.

"Arabs are all terrorists."

"Muslims are all terrorists."

Same difference.

Cueball wrote:

Meh. People have individual and collective rights. Looking at this through the rights of individuals only would mean that half of all UN rights resolutions would have to be thrown out. Individuals within a collective have a right to assert their collective right not to be defamed.

"Arabs are all terrorists."

"Muslims are all terrorists."

Same difference.

Still you are talking about people, not ideas. People have individual and collective rights. Ideas don't. The resolution is not about saving "Muslims" from defamation. It is about saving "Islam" or other ideologies from defamation. The difference is crystal clear.

Defamation of people: "Muslims are terrorist and backward."

Defamation of religion: "Islam is a false promise and a hoax".

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between the above two statements?

 

I think there is no need to go to such length to interpet it. it is very clear: 

Quote:

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions,

The OIC started this move not after the Sep. 11 events, but after the Danish cartoons incident. Clearly this is not about "Muslims". It is about Islam and religion. 

And it is sickening that the defamation of muslims is raised as an issue but the horrific situation of some religious minorities in Islamic countries is completely ignored. Nobody can even dare to compare the situation of Muslims in North America with that of Bahais in Iran,    

 

I am more than a little tired of hearing about how important it is to defend religious freedom. Religious faith is not an immutable characteristic. Frankly, I am prepared to 'dis em all... whether they base their superstitions on the paranoid babblings of a failed science fiction writer or the gold tablets miraculously translated by an Ohio conman -- be they monotheistic, polytheistic or pantheistic. Time to draw a very clear distinction between the right(s) of individuals and groups to privately indulge their superstitions and their ongoing attempts to exercise their historical privilege of imposing these superstitions on others.

The committee minutes included the statement:

The international community had further resolved to promote a culture of peace and respect for all religions.

I am fine with putting a stop to the the violent feuding between the absolutist
believers... whose guiding principle seems to be "Tuez-les tous; Dieu
reconnaitra les siens". I would even go so far as to agree that all religions should be treated equally, and as an equal-opportunity atheist I will go so far as to promise to disrespect them all equally. [where is the roll-eyes smiley when you want it?]

I searched on YouTube for a copy of the Spitting Image song and dance number "My God is Bigger Than Your God" -- but the only link I could find was no longer supported... it sums up my feelings about the question beautifully.

But you really have no specific objection to anything in the resolution?

Merriam-Webster defines defamation as the act of harming a reputation by libel or slander. Blasphemy is defined as "1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable".  Defamation law is based on the idea of an objective truth. The main problem with this resolution is that religion is not based on truth - so who will decide what is true?

 

So if I defame Islam or Christianity by showing irreverence to Allah or God ("Allah and God are gay lovers!") - would this not be blasphemy? There are lot of ways that defamation of religion can be viewed as blasphemy and I am sure of why a progressive person would support this resolution. Most Western coutries have defamation laws against individuals on the books, this should suffice.  I support the right of individuals to say whatever they god damned please about idiotic supernatural beliefs.

 (and as someone pointed out - try being a religious minority in most Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia. The cartoons thing is also quite hypocritical, considering some of the disgusting cartoons aimed at Jews.)

 

 

As one of the atheists around here, I have a problem with any resolution that attempts to link human rights with religious rights.  As others have said,

Quote:

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions

this is a problem.

Defamation of religions should never be a problem.  I can envision fundamentalists of all stripes now being able to go to the UN and argue that their rights are being violated by laws in their country permitting gay marriage, etc., because any laws violating the basic tenets of any religion can, under this resolution, be interpreted as "defamation."

Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs should not be accorded special status over and above edicts against hatred of all other kinds. 

Ghislaine: "Defamation law is
based on the idea of an objective truth. The main problem with this
resolution is that religion is not based on truth - so who will decide
what is true"

Actually, it's the other way around. In Canada at least, defamation is based on effect. You can defame someone by issuing a true statement and a court of law can find that defamation has happened but can be justified, according to criteria such as the truth of the matter, freedom of expression, the fair comment principle and reasonable belief ("honestly held opinions"). This is indeed what happened when a male-supremacist B.C. activist, Ken Wiebe, sued Quebec feminists for including his name and a pic from his website in their Status of Women research report "School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse". The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in March 2008 that defamation had occured, but that the fair comment principle justified it. With religion, there being no universally-agreed objective truth to offset religious statements, Ghislaine's criterion couldn't work. And IMO denigration of people sharing a religion is a wholly different ball of wax than individual defamation of people. Wars, invasions, pogroms, inquisitions, crusades have shown the lethality of the passions fueled by anti-religion propganda, whoever is pouring the oil on the fire. As for the "who will decide?" old saw, trotted up whenever limits are envisioned to the fundamentalist principle of "whatever we want to say goes", the answer is simple: We, the people, through institutions such as parliaments, the courts and the United Nations.

Serves me right for quoting a U.S. govt representative (above):

"The representative of the United States said he appreciated
the sponsors' aim to address the denigration of religion in a number of
manifestations, and agreed with the general tenets of the draft"

 Also, I have been advised to show some vulnerability...

"not the tenants of religious philosophies"

I am sure you mean "tenets".

As for religions and pie in the sky gods I agree with the sentiments of the the Jewish faith and the Zen philosophy. The concept of god is by definition inherently unknowable by mere mortals. So I always have no time for people who tell me that they have been enlightened by any "entity".  I hope my karma is not affected by my dogma.

___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny

Quote:

Also, interestingly, since you bring up Gay Marriage, the Beckett Trust, who are quoted as talking about the "sinister" implications of resolution in the article that begins this thread, are on record as saying the forcing religious organizations to perform marriages for same sex couples is a violation of religious freedom. 

I imagine the Christian loony right perceive the resolution as being a part of a hidden "Islamist" agenda, but if they sat back and thought about it, could they construe gay marriage rights as being defamatory of Christianity?  How about Roe v. Wade? 

Quote:

Wars, invasions, pogroms, inquisitions, crusades have shown the lethality of the passions fueled by anti-religion propganda

Don't you mean, "religion" propanda, without the "anti-", Martin?  Unless you're saying all these things were perpetrated by atheists? 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As for religions and pie in the sky gods I agree with the sentiments of the the Jewish faith and the Zen philosophy. The concept of god is by definition inherently unknowable by mere mortals. So I always have no time for people who tell me that they have been enlightened by any "entity".  I hope my karma is not affected by my dogma.

___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny

Still waiting for the defenders of the secular faith to come forward with their specific objections to the resolution at hand.

I'm not sure how far we can presume to know the minds of crusading Christians in the Middle Ages, but surely believing others to be heathens takes faith in one's own religion.

I mean, you don't call other people heathens if you yourself are a heathen. 

"...surely believing others to be
heathens takes faith in one's own religion."

It may simply mean that one uses religion (that of the target being the wrong one). Regardless of one's own level of faith (e.g. "Thou shalt not kill"...), the invader/inquisitor/ultra-republican projects religion on the Other - deemed the only "fundamentalist" - in a manner similar to the well-established way that men project gender on women - in French, one classic male designation of women is "les personnes du sexe" - to justify any self-interested discrimination against them.

UNITED
NATIONS - Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an
anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being
used to limit freedom of speech.

***********************************************************

Prolly has something to  do with the War on Islam...Sorry the War on Terror, which has targeted mainly Muslim countries.

All manner of atrocities have been perpetrated on Muslims, from Abu-Ghraib, to Guantanamo, to Diego Garcia, to Baghram Airbase, to the secret rendition sites around the globe, not to mention wholeasle destruction of entire countries

Remember Canada has a Conservative gov't. which has been in lockstep with the Bush regime and wants the freedom to demonize Islamic countries today, and Gawd knows which other religion tomorrow, which is why they use the ol' freedom of speech argument.

What they really after is the freedom to demonize some other religion.