http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4985/united_nations_affirms_the_human_right_to_blaspheme_|_politics_|_/
United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme
By Austin Dacey
...but the UN will protect our right to freedom of conscience.
Austin Dacey
Austin Dacey is a representative to the United Nations for the
International Humanist and Ethical Union and author of The Future of Blasphemy:
Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights (Continuum, March 29, 2012).
Having followed the debates on religion and freedom of expression at the
United Nations over the last several years, I have become accustomed to passing
on bad news, such as a decade of resolutions by the Human Rights Council and
the General Assembly "combating the defamation of religions." Now that there is
some good news, almost no one has noticed.
Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of freedom of
speech under international law. It says that laws restricting blasphemy as such
are incompatible with universal human rights standards.
The statement came from the Human Rights Committee, the body of eighteen
"independent experts" mandated to monitor compliance with the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, the 1966 human rights treaty
that provides for freedom of opinion and expression and other fundamental
rights. The Committee's general comments represent authoritative
interpretations of the provisions of the ICCPR. Unlike the highly-publicized
resolutions produced by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the
provisions of the ICCPR are legally binding to its more than 165 parties.
The detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34, is the outcome
of two years of intense debate among representatives of governments and civil
society organizations. The Committee's previous comment on freedom of opinion
and expression, in 1983, was only four paragraphs long. In addition to taking
up such matters as treason, defamation of heads of state, "memory laws"
enforcing an official version of history, and the rights of bloggers, Comment
34 comes down strongly against religious limitations on speech. It does so not
only by asserting that the right to free speech is foundational to a free and
democratic society as well as to the protection and promotion of other rights.
It also appeals explicitly to the values of freedom of conscience and equality
before the law.
According to paragraph 48, "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for
a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible
with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article
20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant." Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to
prohibit "advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence." The Comment is careful
to require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions' guarantees
of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion (Article 18).
Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to
discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems,
or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor
would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish
criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets
of faith.
Laws against blasphemy or "religious insult" (found throughout the world,
including half of all Council of Europe member states) are inherently
discriminatory against secularists and religious dissenters. They are
discriminatory in that secularists have no legal recoursenor should theywhen
the words of believers offend their moral sensibilities, nor can gays take the
publishers of Leviticus to court for the spiritual affront to them that it
surely is. Skeptics and heterodox believers, on the other hand, do have an
Article 18 right to live and speak according to their conscience even when it
offends the orthodox.
Paragraph 32 of the new comment also cautions states against employing a
narrow notion of so-called public morals to restrict speech, effectively ruling
out laws that defer to a particular faith tradition: "the concept of morals
derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently,
limitations... for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles
not deriving exclusively from a single tradition."
The implication of these recommendations is that controversies over
blasphemy are not just conflicts between "free speech" and faith, but clashes
between competing claims of conscience. This stance is defended by the
International Humanist and Ethical Union and elaborated in my forthcoming book,
The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights.
The message of General Comment No. 34 is not only a clear condemnation of
the blasphemy laws of countries such as Pakistan, which despite having ratified
the ICCPR in 2008, continues to impose the death sentence for blasphemy and
"defiling" the name of Prophet Muhammad. The Comment equally repudiates the
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has upheld
Austrian, British, and Turkish laws against blasphemy and religious insult by
invoking a sui generis right to "respect for the religious feelings of
believers."
The major disappointment in the comment, in my view, is its failure to
address hate speech laws, which in many countries function as de facto
restrictions on blasphemy and sacrilege. Theoretically, we can distinguish
between bashing a belief and bashing its adherents. Yet, absent some precise
international norm, "advocacy of religious hatred" could mean anything from
provoking imminent violence against individuals (criminalized even under the
First Amendment) to the effectively unverifiable standard of being motivated by
religious hostility, as under the UK's Crime and Disorder Act of 1998.
Convictions against writer and activists such as Paul Giniewski in France, Lars
Hedegaard in Denmark, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria demonstrate
that hate speech laws are ripe for abuse even in liberal democracies.
Civil society activists now have the final legal authority of the United
Nations on their side as they press governments to come into compliance with
their treaty obligations and bring an end to the criminalization of blasphemy.
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
