So there's a rather livid article in the Independent by Johann Hari, titled "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?"
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
There's more, but I wanted only to discuss the UN-bashing here. There has been no such resolution by the UN, either by the General Assembly or the Security Council. And in fact Pakistani political leaders pointed out that if such a resolution were enforced, it would mean that Muslim countries couldn't repress Bahai or Buddhism or "polytheisms". Yes, Muslim leaders have asked the UN to ensure respect for religion, but only in the sense of tolerance for all religions, and at the same time they condemned the use of suicide bombers and attacking schools.
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like all secular charters, serves to protect one religion against others. It says:
Article 18.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
This hasn't changed. Moreover, at the 61st General Asembly, introducing an informal debate on tolerance, Trond Bakevig said to the committee
Religion, and indeed cultural values, can be used for good or for bad. Respect for cultural diversity is indeed a prerequisite for dialogue, but respect can never mean uncritical acceptance of any kind of cultural diversity. We must identify these elements in any culture which are destructive.
Humanity can never stop probing for values which can benefit the common good. Guided by respect for the inherent dignity of each person we must look for those values which nourish life, build local and national communities, and promote international peace and justice. This probing, this search must be the basic concern in all dialogues.
There's precious little in what he said that a sane person could dispute. There's a fine distinction to be had between respecting persons who are religious, and respecting religions per se. Sure, religious leaders will seek to serve their interests by trying to get everyone else to give them exceptional standing in society. So too will oil producers, the military, toy manufacturers, and artists. What a secular declaration of rights means is that they do not succeed so long as we continue to support it. And here is the danger of stuff like Hari's diatribe - it tends to lessen our support for the UN, for rights, and for the rule of law internationally. This is in many ways more dangerous than the ever-present special pleading in favour of religion, which we have always with us. Please do not undermine the one thing that prevents us all from being repressed by religions: secular institutions. Crying wolf never works in the medium to long term.
- Log in to post comments
[Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" â and Brown was ordered to be silent.]
The man provided you with a specific example of how this rule change will be used to squelch speech in the article you cited. Too bad you didn't think it relevant to include that example in your article and address the fact that its already being used to silence critics of human rights abuses.
Artists can get exceptional standing?
Is there an application or something?
By the IHEU's own account of the matter, that account is misleading; Brown was not "ordered to be silent" but was told, after a series of points of order about the agenda were raised, most of which were overruled but the last of which was upheld, that he should refrain from that particular topic and "revert to statements made in this room on other issues," and as a result he decided that he should skip part of his statement. Nor was he at the time trying "to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage"; his statement was a general one about the relation of the Cairo Declaration, and its affirmation of Shari'ah law, and its consistency with the Universal Declaration; no specifics were considered, nor did he intend to raise them, because that was not the point (the statement was about free speech). The IHEU, when it itself has complained about the treatment, has instead complained about the unnecessary burden such moves by diplomats places on rational discussion of certain kinds of civil rights abuses and has stated its suspicions that the points of order were simply manufactured in advance because of a written statement to which the oral statement was a follow-up.
You have also misread Hari, I think; he doesn't say (and would be wrong to say, because the two things are not directly related) that that problem was raised by the "rule change". His claim instead was that it was created by the fact that religion "no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN", which is a different issue; he doesn't propose this as an effect of the "rule change" but as a cause of the UN failure to address such matters properly.
I should have been more clear that my previous comment was directed at the first comment.
O annoying ambiguity of pronoun antecedents, you are my nemesis!
There is no reason whatsoever for me to show any respect at all for someone else's free choice to believe in the supernatural. Period.
If folks want respect for their Imaginary Friends, (of which there are many to choose from), how about at the minimum providing some proof they aren't just figments of your collective imaginations, so we can begin a discussion based on reality.
ALL Godfigures exist only in the minds of those who choose to believe in them.
At least that's what the evidence shows.
Sad that someone's fantasies can lead to such death and destruction as we see worldwide, carried out by rabid afficionados of their chosen diaphanous deity.
They're actually much worse than your Football Hooligans.
Will mankind ever grow up?
Buzz Daly, so does that mean we DO have to show respect for anscestor worshippers, or nature worshippers? :)
Dear Mr. Buzz Daly,
Are you saying it is simply too much for you to be genteel in your actions and attitudes toward those who are religious?
Isn't it ironic how those who whine and cry about stereotypes and intolerance are the biggest perpetrators of such abuses.
Mr. Daly, not all religions are equal. Not all religions seek to dominate the world through tyranny. To say so is dishonest.
Oh, if life were that simplistic. Cherish your freedom to reject God and I will cherish mine to live in the same land as you and to embrace my Creator.
It seems that the atheist movement's evangelism is more sinister than simply a rejection of a diety. It seems that their agenda is to abolish our freedom to embrace one. Who is the true danger to a free thinking society?
There is a huge difference between respecting the contents of religious beliefs and respecting the holders of religious beliefs. I've never understood why so many otherwise rational people seem unable to grasp this.
Indy Jane,
In fact in each of the monotheistic, or "Abrahamic" religions, there are believers who do seek to "dominate the world through tyranny." Remember when Christians had their turn? That was called the Dark Ages, the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Being "genteel" toward religious believers falls in the same category as dealing with children who think there are monsters under the bed. One should be humane and gentle to the person, while helping to disabuse them of their mistaken notions. But there is no obligation to be respectful toward the idea that there are monsters under the bed.
You can be sure there are thousands of letters on their way right now urging the elderly living on fixed incomes to send money to help fight the Evil UN which is trying to establish islam as the one true religion in the US and to kill all the christians. If you want, I can send some to you when my mother gets them. The people who send them are very considerate; they always send several each week.
I served as a delegate to the 63rd general assembly and listened to this rapporteur in the 3rd committee, October 22, 2008. No such thing has happened or would happen and I don't know what has spawned this craziness now, especially since the GA has concluded its body of work. Sorry to inform Mr. Hari, but he needs to perhaps do some investigating before he calls it journalism. Speaking ONLY FOR MYSELF, I believe that the UN has full respect of all religions and belief systems, but would not tolerate so biased a piece of legislation in connection with the Special rapporteurs.
If you would like to read the full transcript from the meeting by the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights (where none of this was mentioned), it is on the UN/ONCHR website.
OR, if you are lazy, check it out here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/statements.htm
I believe that if humankind survives long enough, the notion of God will have become extinct.
Greg: Let us only hope we can evolve that far without killing each other over this kind of moronic stuff first.
Cheers.
People can believe what they like as long as it doesn't contravene human rights. Unfortunately many religions do just that.... contravene human rights, especially the human rights of females. Some of the most abominable edicts against females are issued by religious patriarchs, the most obscene to day usually from those who practice Islam.
Our misguided respect for these religious practises are puzzling in what is supposed to be a 21st C modern liberal democracy, so much so, that there are grounds to believe that we have not got rid of our own level of misogyny. In the UK today, you can in the name of religion carry out the most horrific gender based human rights abuses with impunity, fgm being the most obscene, an abomination of ever there was one, frankly its GBH of a little girl child which we just refuse to address in case we upset a religious cultural community that just will not stop doing this. At present there are approx. 20,000 little girls in the London district alone who have been mutilated in this way and denied their basic right to their own genitals, yet not one prosecution EVER! Forced marriages, the extent of which is just coming to light, and 'honour' killings, do very well here and we try with no great difficulty to turn a blind eye in respect for these religious cultural practices. In fact we'll do anything and in fact let others do anything to females provided we are not labelled racist.
We have a covert deal operating with these religious cultures whereby we leave them to treat their women in the manner to which they are accustomed providing their men don't accuse us of racism. The religious patriarchs have managed to hijack our anti racist agenda in order to maintain their gender violent practices and we have in true lily livered fashion fallen for it. We have even been persuaded that Islam requires that little pre-school girls and primary school girls must have their heads covered in protection of their sexual modesty! Just how foolish and naive have we become?
It's time religions and their practices where challenged full frontal and we stopped respecting these gender fascists.
Simon Blackburn, Religion and Respect 2004
The only respect we owe to others is for their rights as fellow human beings. Respect in any other sense has to be earned, it is not an obligation on others. We should respect the right of anyone to follow Islam if that is their free choice, but those Muslims who throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, for example, in the name of some perverted notion of their faith deserve our contempt not respect.
Brandon: I am very pleased that I am not the sole pronominal amphibolist.
On respect: the respect due to a person is the respect for their welfare, their rights, and their place as a contributor to the body politic. It does not mean I must respect their religion, wife or dress sense. But I may not impinge upon their rights to believe whatever silly shit they like, and to express it where appropriate. And I retain the right to call it silly shit, if I think that.
But no religion has the right in a secular society to commit acts that remove or denigrate the rights of others, especially children. And I will not respect that under any circumstances.
You encapsulated what I was going to ramble for a couple of paragraphs about in those two sentences. If you believe in invisible pink elephants just because your parents did and you read about them in an ancient storybook then you have given me no reason to respect your beliefs. As John points out I have every right to refer to those beliefs as silly shit.
In the article the claim is made that the Vatican has backed a declaration that proclaims that "It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or *forsaking the Islamic community.*" Since the current Pope publicly baptized a former Muslim last Easter, I somehow doubt the claim of Vatican support for such a declaration.
It sounds to me like Wilkins' argument is a practical, one over necessary evils. The secular UN is too important an organization to disparage over some relatively slight religious encroachment now and again.
If that's the case, then I disagree with Wilkins. Criticizing the UN for bending to religious exceptionalism is precisely what we should be doing if we want to keep the UN secular.
"There is no reason whatsoever for me to show any respect at all for someone else's free choice to believe in the supernatural. Period."
If it is a belief then there is no choice at all. Period.
If it is a belief then there is no choice at all.
Interesting segway to free will topics. Schopenhauer and Einstein would say that you can do whatever you want, but you cannot will what you will. Not a vindication for exceptionalism, of course. Saying, "hey, I am what I am" or "I make no apologies for my existence" does not make you worthy of special respect. A mosquito is what it is too, but that doesn't stop me from squashing it.
Gilt: if the UN were bending to exceptionalism, I'd agree. My argument is that it has done no such thing, and claims to the contrary are alarmist.
Greg: I think man is likely to continue to "make god in his own image" for as long as mankind exists although he may change god's name to protect the ridiculous!
Ok so is there anything going on at the UN that would cow tow to religion?
I am not a political commentator so I am not really in a position to judge but *if* discussion of matters such as genital mutilation are stifled because it puts the blow torch on a particular religion then that is a bad thing IMO.
The press release on "Combating defamation of religions" is at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/hrcn1082.doc.htm
There is a bit of text here:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/cfi_pushes_back_against_religious_…
And a news article here:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008/06/19/story_19-6-200…
This discussion is doubtless over, but...
"There has been no such resolution by the UN, either by the General Assembly or the Security Council."
No such resolution as what? There's no resolution mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, so I'm not clear about what the 'such' refers to. But at any rate there has been this resolution
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/hrcn1082.doc.htm
which is a resolution on 'combating defamation of religions' - a phrase which is flatly antithetical to freedom of speech and inquiry.
Just to underline the point - the editor and the publisher of the newspaper The Statesman (India) have been arrested in Kalkota for '"hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims' because The Statesman published Hari's article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7883612.stm
Johann isn't 'bashing' the UN as such, he's protesting this particular abdication to religion and in particular the OIC.
Ophelia,
Defamation is decidedly not tantamount to curtailing of protected speech. Defamation is actionable in most liberal democracies, including the U.S. It is not a tort to "hurt someone's feelings," but it is a tort to impugn a person or organization on false or misleading grounds. That's what defamation means. It doesn't mean just causing distress to people generally.
Perhaps the Human Rights Commission should have been more precise in delimiting their terms. But, unlike the resolutions of the security council, HR Commission resolutions are not binding, and not enforceable. It is difficult for me to understand what your objection would be for the Commission's expression of
Nothing in there about feelings.
Regarding the Statesman article, there is no mention of UN sanction or support for the statute under which the editors were arrested. It is part of the Indian penal code, not an international treaty and the language it employs is very different from the UN Resolution we are discussing.
You'd have to make a much stronger causal argument than you've made here or on B&W that denouncing defamation is tantamount to locking people up for offending religious sensibilities.
"Defamation is decidedly not tantamount to curtailing of protected speech. Defamation is actionable in most liberal democracies, including the U.S. It is not a tort to "hurt someone's feelings," but it is a tort to impugn a person or organization on false or misleading grounds. That's what defamation means. It doesn't mean just causing distress to people generally."
Yes but believe it or not the fans of laws against 'defamation' are misusing the word. This is rather the point.
Does that fact indict the resolution?
If some bad people got a good resolution through the UN HR Commission, in the hopes that they could subvert the meaning of the word, then the battle is over protecting the standard, secular liberal meaning of defame, not over the resolution itself.
The resolution, as written, is admirable. Who gets punked remains to be seen.
The resolution is not admirable, because it treats criticism of and disagreement with religion as unacceptable. This is the opposite of admirable.
Chris Schoen,
The social and political context for this resolution does not involve controversies over plain assertions of fact which can be assessed for truth or falsity (e.g., claiming that Khomeini was a child molester). Instead, it involves controversies over symbolic and literal expressions of disrespect (e.g., The Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoons, exploiting the 'Muslim terrorist' stereotype).
So your reading seems unlikely.
But Dave2, my "reading" is according to standard practices of international jurisprudence. Defamation has a definition, and so does blasphemy, and they do not overlap.
If the Satanic Verses, e.g., is adjudged "defamatory" by some court in Bahrain, that is abuse of the term. But you can't blame the UN for that, any more than you can blame the US Constitution for Jim Crow, or for the Trail of Tears, though many Southern racists and ethnic cleansers thought those acts were in keeping with the U.S. charter documents. (Not a perfect example, because there was a lot of bad stuff in the Constitution back then, that has since been amended. Most of it, anyway.)
Just to be clear, I'd support a resolution protecting people from so-called blasphemy laws and torts (provided no other laws are broken). I have no truck with the legal enshrinement of protection from blasphemy.
I'm trying to find out whether Hari's specific claim that the UN's "global guardian of free speech" has recently had his mandate changed to one of seeking out "defamation of religions" is, in fact, true. Does anyone know of any evidence for it?
For a longer explanation of my confusion, see:
http://unspeak.net/free-speech/#comment-6633
Chris Schoen,
One should distinguish between the literal legal content and the tone which gradually affects the interpretation of that literal content.
To use an example from the United States (because that is the legal regime I'm most familiar with) imagine that congress or some other prominent political actor releases a resolution stating that,
Of course in this hypothetical case as in the text being debated here the literal legal content is zilch. Not only does lack the power to ammend the constitution via mere legislation the literal content of the statement is an expression of concern about how people use a right plus a logical truism: the 1st ammendment is subject to those limitations the 1st ammendment is subject to. However, it would be mistaken to believe that there would be no practical import to such statements. The tone of my hypothetical statement strongly suggests that those traditional exceptions to the 1st ammendment should be stretched in cases of pro-drug speech to limit it's harmful effects.
This is how rights are curtailed. No one stands up one day and says, "Yes, we should eliminate free speech protections for X." Rather they start emphasizing the limitations, rather than the breadth, of the right particular in connection with the area they feel the right protects undesierable behavior. This attitude slowly shapes the public perception of the extent of the right as the limitations on the right in a particular context are repeatedly emphasized. Eventually this affects jurisprudence.
Sometimes this process of reinterpratation of basic rights can be desierable (it can also expand the basic rights as various courts have done with respect to protection against racial discrimination). Indeed, many people would applaud the slow erosion of the protections afforded by the US 2nd amendment (gun rights) from what they were understood to provide in the 1800s. However, it's instructive to look at what happened. It wasn't by explicit demands to curtail the 2nd amendment but by placing increased emphasis on the limitations of that right and slowly increasing the scope of those limitations.
While it's hard to tell without more context it seems likely to me that the text you quote above is similarly choosing to emphasize the limitations of free speech and the ways it can be curtailed rather than it's breadth. Sure, it doesn't literally advocate giving governments more discretion over outlawing speech than they already have but in tone it seems to suggest a friendliness to expanding the scope of the traditionally recognized exceptions like defamation.
------
Also as a practical matter anti-defamation laws can be very dangerous to free speech when they place the burden of proof on the party making the supposedly injurious speech. In particular I worry about the expansion of anti-defamation laws to allow their application to reputation damaging statements made against religious figures despite the absence of a clear financial harm.
Of course you would object that this is no problem. After all it's only defamation if it's a false statement about the person. Sure, but the practical import depends on who has the burden of proof. Such anti-defamation laws can be terrifically destructive of free speech when they place the burden of showing the claim is substantially true on the person making the claim. Indeed, the difficulty of proving any particular historical claim about Mohamed, Christ or Moses would have the practical effect of barring any speech damaging the reputation of these leaders, especially if a jury sympathetic to religion hears the claims.
Even when the party bringing the defamation claim must prove the falsehood of the claim such laws still could threaten free speech by letting the faithful pick apart any critical article looking for a historical oops. Ohh, does the best historical evidence show that Mohamed's youngest wife was 12 not 10. Sorry, your article just defamed him.
I don't know how much of a risk this really is (are defamation laws being used like this someplaces?) but I think you are overly sanguine about the risk posed by "anti-defamation" laws.
Also I'm not endorsing this comment but it's what brought me here today and I think it might be useful for the author to reply to it:
Actually, I see it the other way. I think that countries such as Australia need to engage constructively but aggressively with the UN to ensure that it does not develop its flawed concept of "human rights" in an increasingly illiberal direction. I'm not suggesting that some drastic action should be carried out now by the more liberal countries, but I totally support Johann on all this.
I think that a bit of healthy scepticism about the UN is a good thing: there's a tendency among my fellow vaguely lefty, secular people to think that the UN can do no wrong. But everything the UN does is a compromise, sometimes a botched one. If it takes very bad directions, as is happening with the free speech issue, we really should criticise it trenchantly and fearlessly. If a time comes when the UN (along with international law) is doing more harm than good, then the more enlightened nations should simply leave. That hasn't happened yet. It may be many decades away, or it may never happen. But it's a possibility that we need to keep in mind.
What really matters is not the UN, which has largely failed so far; what really matters is commitment to liberal principles such as freedom of speech and the Millian harm principle. If I have to choose between those principles and the UN, the UN can go to hell.
Truepath,
As you point out in your fourth paragraph, continued dialogue by a society to clarify and reinterpret laws and norms is an essential part of preserving liberal democracy. In fact it is probably unavoidable in any society.
Obviously there is a large and difficult conflict today between traditionally religious cultures and subcultures (largely, though not exclusively Muslim), and secular democracies. It is the UNHRC's job to deal with this conflict, and the main way they can do that is by having the exact public conversation they are having. Hari believes we should uncompromisingly prioritize speech over other protections. Obviously this is not a standard held even by the society with the most robust free speech protections, the US (which is, by the way, the only major liberal democracy without laws against group defamation, or "hate speech.") There are numerous exceptions to protected speech in the US, including slander, incitement ("fighting words"), copyright, the "harm principle" (shouting fire in a crowded theater,) and even offense (it's generally accepted that people have a right not to encounter pornography or images of extreme violence without going out of their way to seek it out.)
No right is absolute or without conflict, and it is disingenuous for Hari to write as though speech had slipped through the constraints that every society must provide to regulate peace and justice. He paints religious people as privileged whiners who can't stand to have their feelings hurt, but this too is disingenuous. To a devout Muslim, seeing the prophet Muhammad depicted pictorially is roughly equivalent to being exposed to child pornography. We secular types have mostly forgotten what blasphemy means to a traditionally religious person. But we can easily remember by recalling that we still have powerful taboos, and probably will for as long as our species exists. We don't just think that incest or cannibalism are wrong, intellectually; we recoil from them in disgust. By the same token, "fighting words" evolve, but they will be with us for a long time.
I am not advocating, here, the criminalization of blasphemy, or any revision of speech laws to account for people's feelings. I do, however, advocate taking this issue seriously, which Hari does not. (Is he prepared to characterize subjects of a cross burning as whiners who don't know how to manage hurt feelings in a free society?)
At any rate, I'm looking for evidence that blasphemy and defamation are being conflated by the UNHRC, and all I see is careful language to the contrary.
The whole idea of defamaation of religion is nonsense. Even US defamation law is arguably too broad, but if it's really true (which I seriously doubt) that there are concepts of group defamation in every country other than the US, that just confirms how perilously endangered freedom of speech is in the contemporary world. We must ensure that speech about the public actions of public figures, the actions of business corporations, the actions of religious organisations and communities of religious believers, and the truth of religious doctrines, etc., is not chilled by applying concepts of "defamation" beyond their very narrow area of justification. If The Sydney Morning Herald accuses me of being a pedophile, it will be very difficult to remove that slur without taking some kind of action in the courts. If the slur is believed by my friends, they will shun me. If it's thought more generally that there's any truth in the slur, then my career will be ruined. In situations like that, individuals can be destroyed as social beings, and it seems that the only way to counter the possibility is by invoking the majesty of the law to clear their names and provide damages for the loss.
There is no comparison with the public actions of elected officials. It's well known that these are controversial and that any criticism, no matter how trenchant, has to be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, elected officials have enormous resources with which to put across their own viewpoints and defend themselves without recourse to the majesty of the law. Moreover, whereas the sex life of an individual citizen is not, prima facie, a matter whose discussion is of public interest, there is great public interest in conducting robust discussions of the public actions of elected officials. Accordingly, it should at the very least be extremely difficult for elected officials to succeed in defamation cases relating to criticism of their public actions.
When it comes to religious organisations, religious claims about prophets, gods, and so on, there is even less need to resort to the majesty of the law. If it's claimed that Muhammad was a pedophile, that has no effect on Muhammad, who is long dead, has no friends to shun him, has no career that can be ruined. Moreover, there are literally hundreds of millions of followers of Muhammad to defend him, and many of them wield enormous power and influence, and have easy access to the mass media. Furthermore, it's known that issues surrounding the lives of ancient and medieval prophets and saints are matters of almost intractable controversy, so any false claims are taken with a grain of salt by reasonable people. Indeed, the greater problem is that true claims in criticism of religion are also taken with a grain of salt. At the same time, there is a strong public interest in discussing the origins and credibility of religions. The case for it being inappropriate to have something like a defamation action available is even stronger than the equivalent case applying to the public actions of elected officials.
Similarly for claims about the behaviour of religious organisations. These organisations wield enormous power and influence, and their actions are inevitably controversial. They have enormous resources to defend themselves against untrue claims without recourse to law, and even true claims are likely to be taken with a grain of salt. It is in the public interest to discuss their actions without chilling the debate.
When it comes to actual religious doctrines and rejection of those doctrines, the case is even stronger. If someone says "God does not exist", well, even if God exists he will not be shunned by friends or have his career ruined. There is no equivalent to destroying him as a social person. Claims about God's existence or non-existence are highly, intractably, controversial, and many people take all such discussion with a huge grain of salt. Nonetheless, it is important to conduct philosophical inquiry into these matters, and we must ensure that the debate is not chilled.
I could go on and on about how the justification for some kind of concept of defamation in liberal societies is an extremely narrow one, and how attempts to broaden it into concepts of group defamation, or even worse, defamation of religion, are fundamentally flawed. We should not just say, "Defamation of individuals is a bad thing; therefore anything analogous to it is a bad thing." Even the first bit is not true - if the individuals concerned are elected officials and the "defamation" relates to their public conduct (not, say, to their sexual practices) then it is by no means obvious that defamation law should apply, certainly not in the same way.
Once we move beyond individuals to organisations, communities, bodies of doctrine, and so on, it is even less obvious that any concept of defamation is applicable. Indeed, it should be obvious that all the indicia point the other way: there should not be a legal concept of "defamation of religion", whatever, exactly, that is supposed to amount to. It is in the public interest that scrutiny of religion go ahead from every possible angle without the ensuing discussion being chilled by anything analogous to defamation law.
We should be camapaigning to confine defamation law as narrowly as possible, not extend it even further. What I would support (and this already exists in many jurisdictions) is a narrowly-confined tort of interference in privacy, according to which even true publications about the strictly private behaviour of individuals can be met by a claim for damages. Such revelations can damage individuals as social beings, and the individuals concerned may have no other redress when confronted by media corporations. But it would need to be confined narrowly in some way so that it applies only to revelations in the mass media. Anyway, that is quite remote from ideas of defamation of religion; if it's justified, it's on a totally different basis.
The concept of defamation of religion is a very worrying development. If it starts to gain legal force, it has terrible potential an encroachment on freedom of speech. I think that we should take this very seriously and fight against it tooth and nail. Our whole Enlightenment legacy is at stake here, and if we do some damage to the credibility of the UN in fighting for it ... well, the UN doesn't have all that much credibility anyway. I certainly don't feel under some kind of moral obligation to make the UN seem credible at all costs, and I don't see why Johann should feel such an obligation either.
More strength to Johann's arm.
John, you said this at Derick Varn's blog today -
"But I ask - is there any evidence that the UN has in fact been made to adopt these measures? Sure, Islamic and other religious societies will act in various ways that run contrary to the UN Charter on Human Rights. This is not a criticism of the UN itself. Before we start bashing the UN, show me the actual resolution - Hari and others have not done this."
I've done it, I posted the link a few days ago when you asked about it at Butterflies and Wheels. Here it is again -
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/hrcn1082.doc.htm
GENEVA, 13 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted by recorded vote two resolutions on combating defamation of religions, and on the right to development.
The first text concerned combating defamation of religions and was adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour, 16 against, with 7 abstentions (Armenia, Chile, India, Mexico, Nepal, Peru and the Republic of Korea). In the resolution, the Commission expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance in some regions of the world, and the frequent and wrong association of Islam with human rights violations and terrorism. The Commission also noted with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and expressed deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular, when supported by governments.
Thank you. I missed it when you did that before.
Now, does this mean that any member of a nation of the UN is bound not to make critical claims about a religion, and that they can be legally dealt with if they do? I ask this because I can't actually find the text of the resolution anywhere. In other words, has there been any establishment of a civil offence of defaming religion via the UN?
Many people have said there is. But I only want to see it for myself. If there has been, then I am completely onboard.
I note with pleasure that my country, Australia, voted against.
John,
The defamation resolution is on the HRC website, here:
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf
It does not have any binding authority, though it does "urge" states to adopt protections against discrimination, and to take action to prohibit dissemination of materials that constitute incitement. Mostly it is, as Ophelia's quote suggests, an "expression of concern." It does not in itself establish a civil offense.
Also, small nitpick: I don't think Australia or the US have seats on the council, presciently. The resolution that Australia voted against is the one on development, also mentioned in the press release Ophelia links to.
In case you're interested, the other resolution Hari alludes to (though he gets many particulars wrong), that amends the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Free Expression, is here:
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_36.pdf
Thanks Chris! It took a while for that to come forth.
Now, which bits of those deep expressions of concern (pretty well all of which I share, by the way - legislation singling out members of a religion ought to be understood to be anathema these days, let alone in the context of the UDHR) are people objecting to? And which bits restrict the Special Rapporteur? I read the documents, but I must be dense, because I can't find these terrible texts.
Join the club. I asked Ophelia about this over at B&W, and she said the part she was concerned about was in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which isn't a UN document, but a document of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which advocates a sharia-based Human Rights system. If I understand Ophelia correctly, the Cairo Declaration provides the context for the UN documents to be interpreted as advocating suppression of speech on religious grounds, but that sounds like pretty thin gruel to me, and most importantly it does not resemble the picture painted by Hari in his two articles.
John,
"Now, does this mean that any member of a nation of the UN is bound not to make critical claims about a religion, and that they can be legally dealt with if they do?"
No, not currently - the worry is that that is where the move will end up, via new laws, especially binding international treaties. One major potential (and not unlikely) problem is extradition. The worry isn't that the UK and Australia and the US are going to sign up to such laws tomorrow, but it is that many other countries may sign up to it, thus putting many more people at risk of punishment for criticizing religion, through extradition if not through domestic laws.
"I asked Ophelia about this over at B&W, and she said the part she was concerned about was in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam"
No, that's not what I said. I said (quoting directly, not paraphrasing) "CS, there's a context for all this, in particular the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam."
That was shorthand, but as I said, I don't have time to inform you about all this from the beginning; I think you should look into it before being so breezily dismissive.
There's a chapter on the subject in my (and Jeremy Stangroom's) forthcoming book. That's not to say 'Read it,' it's just to say that I'm not talking off the top of my head here.
Ophelia,
This is fair enough, I suppose. Let's by all means keep our eyes on it. But the way that Hari wrote about this matter falsely implies that such binding authority has already been promulgated by the UN. It hasn't. The OIC has thus far failed to introduce into international law any new principles of jurisprudence that would criminalize blasphemy. The system works--so far.
Chris,
Well, I would say the system hasn't entirely worked - if it had the General Assembly wouldn't have passed the resolution, on the grounds that it's flatly incompatible with Article 19 of the UDHR. The fact that the GA did pass it is another step in a ratcheting process that's been going on for several years. I certainly hope it fails, but so far it's making slow but steady progress.
But you're right that this isn't binding international law yet. And I don't think it will be, either - I can't imagine the US signing up to it, for one thing. But I also think the resolution itself and the pressure behind it has a strong chilling effect, as it's intended to. Jeremy and I are getting some of that with respect to this book, even as we speak.
Ophelia, which resolution has the General Assembly passed that is inconsistent with the UDHR? Be specific, please.
The one I linked to; I thought that was what we were discussing.
[Posted by John on Ophelia's behalf]
Ophelia,
Have you read the actual resolution? The link just takes you to the press release. I don't see anything inconsistent with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is the specific provision in conflict?
The strongest statement I see is this:
And here's Article 19 of the UDHR:
How specifically does "reporting on all manifestations of defamation of religions" abridge Article 19?
I read this back before it was passed and didn't like the sound of it then. Thankfully Australia, the USA and a number of other civilised countries voted against. Take note Chris Schoen - you are out of step with the governments of all the free speaking nations on earth. Look at the countries that voted for this bill and think hard about what sort of a world you want you and your children to live in.
But few seem to have raised the point - why is the UN even discussing this? This is not the first time in the last year or 2 that the UN has endorsed "inter-faith" sessions between religists (not not national representatives). Religion is not a "right". People that practice religion are humans and have rights, not ideologies. You cannot change your race or gender and discrimination on these grounds should be prevented. Religion is simply a worthless pile of lies and the clerics that push it are no more than fraudulent or deluded. Of course they want protection to keep their little scam going.
As long as moderates and apologists worry about some mullah, rabbi or priest feeling as if they had been exposed to pornography if they see a cartoon of the pope in a funny hat, the end is nigh for free speech, humanity and the planet. Dark Ages here we come - burn the books, burn the heretics and stone outriders to death (non-binding of course, just "tolerated").
Defamation (from memory) in Australia does not mean that the accusation was false, just that it defamed (ie denigrated) the person's "good" name. This will certainly be the interpretation with the UN resolution. It will also distract people from the rampant abuses of radical theists that invariably rise to power within these death cults. This very UN resolution is an action by the current cabal.
Wake up to yourself Chris.
Edit: (note - not national representatives) from "not not"
Offended: in Australia, defamation has to be both false and damaging to the reputation of the person. Truth in several jurisdictions is an absolute defence (although politicians added "in the public interest" provisions to the laws in the more corrupt states).
John,
Thanks for the clarification. I googled unsuccessfully for the case I was thinking of, but it reminded me of another abuse of the defamation laws.
A bribe can be passed in the open. Someone wants to have a law changed but the government won't. By prior arrangement this person then defames someone in government. The elected representative then sues, the first party settles out of court for specified damages. The official then votes in favour of the defaming person, claiming "no hard feelings" and that they were going to vote that way anyway. This has happened at least once and can easily happen again.
I think what apologists seem to forget is that so many people could be freed from a pointless life of tyranny, fear and silence if religious thugs didn't kill anyone that so much as exposes an ankle or draws a picture of he-of-the-sky-fairy or his errant (sic) boy?. What demented nightmare world does Chris (above) see as wonderful and tolerant and so enlightened?
Obviously (as any pious person knows) schoolteachers with teddy bears need a sound thrashing or a bit of a knee-trembler in the sand deserves a prison term. What about dancing?
Self-censorship so as not to offend, or FSM forbid, out of fear of acts of terror is even worse than a law that prohibits free speech. This sort of legislation would not even have been proposed unless there was an agenda behind it - and rest assured, it is not an agenda intended to protect the rights of rape victims or the halal (ie those whose blood it is permitted to spill)
John,
Over at Unspeak dsquared has done a nice job of untangling what is happening at the HRC.
There is some justification for playing close attention to this matter, but it does not seem to be the case that these resolutions are having quite the "chilling effect" that the IHEU is claiming.
Dsquared linked to this report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review from just two weeks ago, which consists entirely of a conversation between the delegation of Saudi Arabia and the full body on whether and how sharia law conflicts with universal principles of equal rights, which is exactly the discussion that Ophelia is claiming can no longer take place.
What gives religion the right to a special and elevated place in society such that it must be "respected"? It is a belief system founded on faith, not reason and has no supporting evidence. I might as well believe in a pink armadillo God then demand tax exemptions and respect from society. Totally senseless, we are still shedding our primitive ancestry.