The Human Rights Blog

UN Restricts Freedom of Expression

Protecting the belief at the expense of the believers:
Another post 9/11 legacy?

Dr. Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director

It happened quietly. There was no uprising. No emotional speeches. No angry
debates. But on March 30, 2007, the UN Human Rights Council passed a
resolution that violated international standards on freedom of expression.
A resolution stating that freedom of expression may be restricted "to
ensure respect for religions and convictions" was passed by 24 council
members, with 14 against and 9 abstentions. The resolution was sponsored by
Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The
OIC could have made a wiser choice than to hand over that responsibility to
a country where still people are put to death for blasphemy. The OIC might
have been given pause by China's support - a country hardly distinguished
by its commitment to freedom of religion - or by Russia's, whose treatment
of religious minorities and religious freedom stands as a negative example
to all. But perhaps, the OIC took its comfort in South Africa's or Mexico's
endorsement.

Human rights and freedom of expression activists, on the other hand, can
only be left wondering . . . Can the human rights destruction waged by
President Bush's version of America, justify undermining the human right
that, ultimately, is among the most effective recourse and instruments
against these abuses - the right to freedom of expression?

Since 9/11, as too often this newsletter has had to report, restrictions on
and violations of universal human rights have multiplied all over the
world, justified on the grounds of national security. At the same time
there is evidence of growing intolerance and burgeoning discrimination
within established democracies, especially vis-à-vis Muslims whether as
residents or foreigners. There is little doubt that a number of governments
have fed this intolerance through policies and laws targeting explicitly or
implicitly Muslims.

In this environment, a resolution reminding the international community of
its obligations under article 20 of the UDHR, particularly as far as
Muslims are concerned, could have been important and timely. The proponents
of the resolution could have insisted on strengthening the protection of
all people's and each individuals' rights to life, equality, and justice
and on the obligations of all states to protect minorities, including
religious minorities, against acts of hatred, oppression, violence. But
instead, states chose to focus their efforts on protecting religion itself:
NOT the believers and NOT freedom of religion.

For example, paragraph 10 of the resolution distorts blatantly Article
19(3) of the ICCPR, by quoting largely from it but then adding, without
acknowledgment a new "respect for religions and convictions" ("le respect
des religions et des convictions") to the otherwise carefully defined
grounds that may justify a restriction on freedom of expression. The
resolution's frequent use of the term 'defamation' also suggests wider
restrictions are being sought than are actually permitted under
international law. In particular, while certain restrictions on speech are
allowed to protect reputation of individuals these are not allowed in
respect to religions, which cannot be said to have a "reputation" as such
and thus cannot be said, under international law, to have been defamed.
While international law does not entirely rule out restrictions on speech
to protect religion, it very carefully circumscribes the scope of such
restrictions.

Religious believers have a right not to be discriminated against on the
basis of their beliefs, but they cannot expect their religion to be set
free from criticism, even in its harshest or most sarcastic form. The
equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to
debate them freely is the keystone of democracy. As international human
rights courts have stressed, freedom of expression is applicable not only
to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received but also to those
that may offend, shock or disturb any or all of us.

In many ways, the Human Rights Council resolution is in keeping with a
trend that has resurfaced with great strength in our post 9/11 world:
protecting the belief at the expense of the believers, of all believers.

ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around
the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It
takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which guarantees free speech.

For further information, contact Agnes Callamard, tel: +44 20 7278 9292,
e-mail: agnes@article19.org, or ARTICLE 19, 6-8 Amwell Street, London, EC1R
1UQ, U.K., tel: +44 20 7278 9292, fax: +44 20 7278 7660, e-mail:
info@article19.org, Internet: http://www.article19.org

Posted by marga at April 20, 2007 4:24 PM | TrackBack