Imagine a world where speaking or publishing criticism of a religion is a human rights violation, where displaying the Icthus-fish-gone-Darwin car decal is considered punishable by the international community, where calling one religion's God false is reason for national action.
These far-fetched images are now not-so imaginary according to a resolution recently adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), composed of 56 Islamic nations, proposed this religious defamation resolution last month to the U.N. Human Rights Council. The Council approved the resolution which cited defamation of religions
and incitement to religious hatred in general could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights . . . stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular.
In this case, the Human Rights Council is over-stepping its bounds greatly. Human rights belong to individuals, not institutions. A resolution that disallows criticism of religion could easily be construed to justify anti-blasphemy laws. Blasphemy is hardly relevant to the serious issues of human rights, and should be dealt with by the church, not the state. This resolution, with the intent of protecting religion, will clearly trample over other essential human rights like freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
Instances of anti-Semitism, persecution of Muslims or Christians should be taken seriously in the global community, but solely on the bases of protecting individuals, not the honor of their religions. If the Council is seeking to protect religions more so than the individual rights of human beings, it has lost focus of its existing purpose. The greater concern is that the OIC has commandeered the attention of the recent Durban Conference in Geneva for the promotion its own personal agenda.
The Durban Conference, already a borderline joke because of the blatant anti-Semitism displayed in opening speeches during its 2001 gathering, was intended to address issues of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. Instead an agenda hijacked by some off the greatest offenders of human rights, attempted to redirect the focus to combating the defamation of religion. Hardly justifiable.
Notably, Islam is the only religion motioned in the resolution. Does the OIC intend to stand against persecution of Judaism and Christianity as well? Doubtful, considering that Pakistan, the country that presented this proposal, is a Muslim state.
The Council's actions in this situation legitimize already extreme persecution of non-religious or simply non-Muslim people in nations such as Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where individuals and the press are jailed for speaking out against Islam.
This U.N. Human Rights Council resolution is a distraction from real human rights issues, urgent ones that should be the focus of an organization that, by name, occupies itself solely with those issues. It is not the Human Rights Council's responsibility to protect any religion from being offended; it should expend its efforts elsewhere, and focus on dealing with true, serious human rights violations.
If religion is the subject at hand, fine. Then it should fight for freedom of religious expression for all, even dissenters. If that is the case, the nations that compose the OIC should start in their own backyards.
Leah Hitchens is a junior studying magazine journalism. Send her an e-mail at lh303105@ohiou.edu.
4
Opinion
Leah Hitchens
