Muslim Nations Seeking International Blasphemy
Ban
(AP, November 19, 2009)
Geneva, Switzerland - Four years after cartoons of the prophet
Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic
nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect
religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially a ban on
blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech
laws in the West.
Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Algeria and
Pakistan have taken the lead in lobbying to eventually bring the
proposal to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly.
If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of _expression_ as a
fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free
speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers. The
process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent.
The proposal faces stiff resistance from Western countries,
including the United States, which in the past has brushed aside other
U.N. treaties, such as one on the protection of migrant workers.
Experts say the bid stands some chance of eventual success if
Muslim countries persist. And whatever the outcome, the campaign risks
reigniting tensions between Muslims and the West that President Barack
Obama has pledged to heal, reviving fears of a "clash of civilizations."
Four years ago, a Danish newspaper published cartoons lampooning
the prophet Muhammad, prompting angry mobs to attack Western embassies
in Muslim countries, including Lebanon, Iran and Indonesia. In a
countermovement, several European newspapers reprinted the images.
The countries that form the 56-member Organization of the Islamic
Conference are now lobbying a little-known Geneva-based U.N. committee
to agree that a treaty protecting religions is necessary.
The move would be a first step toward drafting an international
protocol that would eventually be put before the General Assembly — a
process that could take a decade or more.
The proposal may have some support in the General Assembly. For
several years the Islamic Conference has successfully passed a
nonbinding resolution at the General Assembly condemning "defamation of
religions."
If the treaty was approved, any of the U.N.'s 192 member states
that ratified it would be bound by its provisions. Other countries
could face criticism for refusing to join.
The United States has declared it won't accept international
treaties that restrict the First Amendment right to free speech.
But there are signs the U.S. is worried by the Islamic Conference
campaign. Behind the scenes it has been lobbying hard to quash the
proposal, dispatching a senior U.S. diplomat to Geneva last month for
talks described as akin to trench warfare.
"The U.S. presence can be significant in determining the whole
destiny of the process," said Lukas Machon, who represents the
International Commission of Jurists at the U.N.
From a legal point of view, "the whole exercise is dangerous from
A-Z because it's a departure from the practice and concept of human
rights," Machon said. "It adds only restrictions."
In a letter obtained by the AP, Pakistan said insults against
religion were on the increase.
The Islamic Conference "believes that the attack on sacredly held
beliefs and the defamation of religions, religious symbols,
personalities and dogmas impinge on the enjoyment of human rights of
followers of those religions," the letter said. It was sent last month
to members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, a
temporary committee created to consider a previous anti-racism treaty.
In a separate submission to the committee, Pakistan proposed
extending the treaty against racism to require signatories to "prohibit
by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in
relation to matters held sacred by any religion."
It's not clear who would decide what is considered grossly
abusive, but each country's criminal courts would likely have initial
jurisdiction over that decision, according to Marghoob Saleem Butt, a
Pakistani diplomat in Geneva who confirmed the campaign's existence and
has lobbied for the ban.
"There has to be a balance between freedom of _expression_ and
respect for others," Butt said in a telephone interview.
"Taking the symbol of a whole religion and portraying him as a
terrorist," said Butt, referring to the Muhammad cartoons, "that is
where we draw the line."
One American expert with more than 20 years experience of the U.N.
human rights system said the treaty could have far-reaching
implications.
"It would, in essence, advance a global blasphemy law," said
Felice Gaer, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom. The independent, congressionally mandated panel issued a
report last week warning that existing laws against blasphemy,
including in Pakistan, "often have resulted in gross human rights
violations."
In Egypt, blasphemy laws have been used to suppress dissidents,
said Moataz el-Fegiery, executive director of the Cairo Institute for
Human Rights Studies. Abdel Kareem Nabil, a blogger, was sentenced in
February 2007 to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak.
He said reformists who reinterpret traditional Islamic texts have
also become the target of blasphemy accusations.
More broadly, introducing laws to protect religions from criticism
would weaken the whole notion of human rights, said Sweden's ambassador
to the U.N. in Geneva, Hans Dahlgren.
"Religions as such do not have rights — it's people who have
rights," he said, adding that the European Union, whose presidency
Sweden currently holds, would oppose attempts to limit freedom of
speech.
The treaty goes against the grain of recent efforts by Western and
Muslim countries to find common ground on human rights.
Only last month a joint U.S.-Egyptian resolution on freedom of
_expression_ won unanimous support in the U.N. Human Rights Council, much
to the surprise of seasoned observers. "We will engage, and we're going
to keep engaging," said Michael Parmly, spokesman for the U.S. Mission
in Geneva.
In a telephone interview Wednesday, the Ad Hoc Committee's
chairman, Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, said concerns the treaty
could stifle free speech have been "whipped up into a bugaboo."
Failure to agree on a treaty would boost extremists in the Arab
world, said Jazairy, a former envoy to Washington now considered a key
player in the U.N.'s human rights forum.
"If we keep hitting this glass wall and say there's nothing you
can do about Islamophobia — you can do something about anti-Semitism
but Islamophobia is out of bounds — you give an ideal platform for
recruitment of suicide bombers," he said.
