Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a strongly worded policy document (PDF) blasting the various defamation of religion resolutions that have been passed by the United Nations over the last few years. It begins:
Although these resolutions purport to seek protection for religions in general, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims. Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined.The resolutions also do not define what would make a statement defamatory to religions or explain who decides this question. For its part, the OIC appears to consider any speech that the organization, or even a cleric or individual, deems critical of or offensive to Islam or Muslims to automatically constitute religiously defamatory speech. This view goes far beyond the existing domestic legal concept of defamation, which protects individuals against false statements of fact that damage their reputation and livelihood. Implementing this approach would violate provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various human rights treaties that protect, with only narrow exceptions, every individual's right to receive and impart information and speak out.
And continues:
In essence, the "defamation of religions" resolutions are an attempt to export the repressive blasphemy laws found in some OIC countries to the international level. Under these laws, criminal charges can be levied against individuals for defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging, and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations. In Pakistan, for example, domestic law makes blasphemy against Islam a criminal offense subject to severe penalties, including death. Extremists have abused these broad provisions to intimidate and arbitrarily detain members of minority Muslim sects, and others with whom the extremists disagree, and unscrupulous individuals have misused them to settle personal scores. Blasphemy allegations in Pakistan, which are often false, have resulted in imprisonment on the basis of religion or belief and/or vigilante violence. In Egypt, charges of blaspheming or insulting Islam have been used by the government to imprison purportedly "unorthodox" Muslims and individuals, including bloggers, who have called for political and religious reforms.
Interestingly, the document appears to criticize the Obama administration for sponsoring a resolution with Egypt in September that, while not specifically mentioning defamation of religion, contained language that was immediately interpreted as supporting such laws by the OIC.
In addition, in the same paragraph that refers to negative religious stereotyping, the U.S./Egypt resolution condemns "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" -- language taken directly from ICCPR Article 20(2)--and calls on states to "take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations" to address such advocacy.To be sure, the United States previously has supported UN resolutions on religious intolerance that condemn, but do not require laws against, incitement. In addition, without an express call for legal prohibitions, the new resolution does not run afoul of the U.S. Article 20 reservation insofar as it applies to the United States. However, the U.S./Egypt text does give the United States' imprimatur to the demand that other countries that have accepted such legal obligations take effective measures to enforce them. Moreover, the resolution's language is sufficiently broad to allow the "defamation" proponents to interpret it as supporting their efforts to redefine the existing incitement provisions. Indeed, in its statement introducing the joint resolution, Egypt characterized
both negative stereotyping and incitement as examples of the freedom of expression being "misused." Hence, the resolution appears to have opened the door for further
infiltration of the "defamation of religions" concept into both UN resolutions and national practice.
The commission is exactly right. The September resolution was a very bad idea, a weak attempt to split the baby and find common ground where there can be none. The call for laws criminalizing anti-religious speech is absolutely contrary to the first amendment and should be rejected by the U.S. government without reservation. It's interesting to see one agency criticize another in this way.
Politics
Comments
I hadn't heard of this entity before and did a little digging. One reason is that I saw no 'money quote' in Ed's blog post promoting and celebrating the criticism of ideas in the public square, including religious ideas and dogma. I also wondered why they condemned only Muslim nations.
Their Wikipedia entry frames them as controlled by the Christian Right. If true, that would explain their focusing only on Islam when we know that the Vatican also promotes the suppression of speech policies at the U.N. level and the criminalization of such speech within nations.
This WaPo entry claims they are an independent commission and don't speak for the U.S. government in spite of their offical sounding name.
This all begs the question. What weight does this declaration carry? It appears like none. I also wonder what they've ever actually accomplished that justifies our tax dollars.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 20, 2009 9:46 AM
It's strange that the commission failed to mention the recent anti blasphemy law passed by the government of the republic of Ireland that addresses many of the failings of the Islamic sponsored laws. In the Irish law there is a firm definition of the meaning of blasphemy (anything published that offends a substantial number of members of any religion) and no any singling out of any particular religion for special treatment.
It's not even discriminatory to those of a non-religious viewpoint so long as they are prepared to follow some simple rules - basically make sure they never publicly admit their lack of belief, something that the atheist bus campaign has shown is clearly offensive to many.
Posted by: Sigmund | November 20, 2009 10:24 AM
Michael Heath -- thanks for the research. Ed, I think the information provided by Michael really should have been in your post.
Of course, the misleadingly named Commission happens to be basically right on this issue -- but you wouldn't want to let people get the idea that this group is either any kind of official govt entity, or someone we can trust in general.
Posted by: Tom | November 20, 2009 11:47 AM
Sigmund: is truth considered a defense according to the Irish law?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 20, 2009 11:52 AM
Ahem, but the group is an official government entity.
I don't know whether we can or can't trust them, but I don't think the criticisms in the Wikipedia article are very adequately sourced. As far as partisanship, 3 out of 8 current commissioners were appointed by Democrats.
Posted by: nicole | November 20, 2009 12:28 PM
Michael-
"This WaPo entry claims they are an independent commission and don't speak for the U.S. government in spite of their offical sounding name."
There is no official spokesperson of the US Government, just poeple representing different branches and organizations. The USCIRF is most definitely part of the federal government. The fact that they have a .gov tag should clue you in. Also, the wapo article you reference refers to them as "an independent U.S. agency whose job is to make sure religious freedom is taken into account in U.S. foreign policy." I believe somehow you missed the U.S. agency part of that statement. Independent in the sense of not being beholden to any other part of the federal government.
Tom -
Do the research yourself, if you think something is important information, then look it up, don't count on someone else to do that job.
Posted by: matt | November 20, 2009 1:30 PM
Raging bee asked:
"is truth considered a defense according to the Irish law?"
There is an exception allowable in this law if the blasphemous statement is judged to be of "educational or artistic merit."
While it is therefore technically possible to be found not guilty of blasphemy there is the problem that the law is part of the overall defamation bill. This means, in effect, that, like the Simon Singh libel law case in the UK, the financial burden is not in the fine or judgement at the end of the case, but in the legal costs incurred in defending yourself during the trial. In effect it means that simply being accused of blasphemy - if the State decides it merits prosecution, would be enough to bankrupt a citizen of average means. Overall its the perfect law to keep people from speaking out against religion and religious abuses.
Of course, the fact that the law was passed right in the middle of a series of horrendous child abuse cases involving the Roman Catholic church in Ireland is purely coincidental.
Posted by: Sigmund | November 20, 2009 2:25 PM
The additional problem with the UN resolutions is that they can't possibly be evenly enforced since by far the greatest defamer of other religions is Islam. The Qur'an is laden with denunciations of other religions and their followers, as are the Hadith, and such denunciations are a routine part of sermons and prayers in many mosques and propaganda by Islamic organizations. This makes it quite clear that the interest of the OIC is the suppression of all criticism of Islam.
Posted by: Bill Poser | November 20, 2009 2:28 PM
Matt and Nicole - I was too quick in my comment to more accurately note their position. However, the primary question I asked goes unanswered; what policy weight do they have?
Ed is pointing towards an issue that I assume would get dealt with by the U.S. Government through either the State Dept. or our U.N. representatives. The WaPo article report the following about this entity:
So while my description of them is flawed, I think my questions are relevant.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 20, 2009 2:35 PM
Time for some updated Noel Coward:
Don't let's be beastly to the Muslims
Now their victory is ultimately won,
Let us treat them kindly
As we would a long lost friend,
We might send them out some Bishops
As a form of lease and lend.
Let's be sweet to them
And day to day repeat to them
That jihad simply isn't done.
Let's sweetly sympathize again
And help the scum to rise again,
But don't let's be beastly to Imams.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 20, 2009 9:09 PM
While the commission is right about the resolution, no enforcible international law will result. But the proposed protocol to ICERD, on a parallel track in the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, will be enforcible international law. It will criminalize all criticism of Islam, rendering us mute and defenseless in the war of ideas.
Posted by: Dajjal | November 20, 2009 10:05 PM
Robert Spencer had a few things to say about "defamation" of Islam at the Rally for Rifqa a few days ago:
YouTube video of interview at the rally
A quote: "Slander in Islamic law is not lying about somebody. Slander in Islamic law is telling something about someone that they don't want known."
One thing to note: Islam and Islamists do not want anything like freedom of speech and religion. Islam and Islamists call for submission ("Islam") of everything and everyone to the dictates of Islam. The actions of the OIC are 100% consistent with an Islamic supremacist agenda.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 21, 2009 12:17 AM
Considering how Jews and the Star of David are constantly and freely defamed in the Muslim world and media it is obvious these blasphamy laws that Muslims demand will be applied only to their benefit. Isn't the Koran full of blasphamy towards Christians and Jews? Certainly many of the restrictions forced on non-muslim in Muslim contries could be interpreted as blasphamy. It is offensive that the Muslim world seeks to restrict the freedom of speech of the infidel, even in our own land, while leaving Muslims with the rights to talk about Jews, Christians, gays and women however they wish to.
Posted by: jane doe | November 24, 2009 1:52 AM