The International Press Institute (IPI) is becoming increasingly alarmed at the use of phrases calling for the prevention of the "defamation of religions" in a series of documents issued by the United Nations (UN).

The phrase "defamation of religions" has its origins in a draft resolution brought before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in 1999 by Pakistan’s then permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, Switzerland and was originally titled, "Defamation of Islam."

Because of criticism that the draft resolution unfairly highlighted one religion, the title was later amended to "Defamation of Religions" and passed by the UNCHR as Resolution 1999/82 of 30 April 1999.

Since the passage of this resolution, there have been other resolutions containing the phrase, including a 12 April 2005 resolution before the UNCHR titled, "Combating Defamation of Religions." Tabled once again by Pakistan, the resolution expressed the need to "effectively combat defamation of all religions."

Recently, on 8 September, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a global counter-terrorism strategy that contained the phrase, "and to promote mutual respect for and prevent defamation of religions." In a speech before the UN General Assembly on 20 September, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf called for a ban on the "defamation of Islam."

Commenting on the issue, IPI Director Johann P. Fritz said, "The growing acceptance of this phrase at the international level has worrying implications for freedom of the media."

"In a conference in mid-July hosted by the OSCE, I warned that the UN’s willingness to use the word ‘defamation’ in conjunction with religion remains a lingering concern. It could provide suitable legal cover and justification for several countries wishing to introduce fresh blasphemy laws. If this were to happen the media would find it increasingly difficult to comment upon religious principles, religious practices and even religious leaders," Fritz added.

"While I accept that journalists should be tolerant of religion and, when necessary, express themselves sensitively, I am very concerned that the ‘space’ for the media to report critically is gradually being eroded. I am also worried that this disturbing trend is being aided and abetted by governments and inter-governmental organisations who share the view that the news media are playing a role in encouraging and promoting terrorism."

"Xenophobia and racism should be rightfully condemned at every possible opportunity. However, in the argument about their impact on the promotion of terrorism, it seems that press freedom and freedom of expression are being increasingly ignored to the detriment of all who believe that a critical media has a role to play in democratic societies," said Fritz.

Led mostly by Muslim countries, the U.N. has voted for a proposal to prevent "defamation of religion" that stands contrary ...

Although the article expresses superficial concern for preserving the right to free speech, its author's understanding of why free speech is actually needed seems deficient. He explains that "the idea… poses no greater problems than prohibiting hate speech against racial, ethnic, or religious groups - a law adopted in almost all countries of the world except the United States". Yes, and those laws are unacceptable infringements upon free speech as well. The cure for bad speech is not a law prohibiting it, but better speech. When we try to ban ideas simply because the majority finds them outrageous, embarrassing or offensive, those ideas are inevitably driven underground to flourish. . . . In all cases, the cure for a bad argument is a better argument, one which exposes its fallacies while at the same time showing we are not afraid of allowing it to be voiced.

Excellent point. You might have added that one of the reasons forbidden speech flourishes is because when a particular discussion becomes forbidden it necessarily gets pushed underground and becomes one-sided. As you say, "the cure for a bad argument is a better argument" but when the bad argument is forced into hiding the better argument is deprived of an appropriate public stage -- and in consequence good arguments may be forgotten or remain underdeveloped.

Another thing I found grating in Khan's article on the "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolution was his insistence on the importance of protecting "the dignity of religion". He writes

One key function of law is to make distinctions and draw balance between competing rights. In the complex realm of human affairs, no right is absolute, not even free speech or the dignity of religion. Accordingly, the law against defamation of religions may be constructed in a way that does not abridge legitimate speech including artistic freedom and yet
protects the dignity of religion.

Balancing the right of "free speech" with the right of "dignity of religion" is nonsensical, because free speech is a right an individual can have, yet "dignity of religion" is a "right" only a religious institution or worldview can have. It's not an individual right at all. Furthermore, whether the institution or worldview has "dignity" is a matter of personal opinion. The only way one could even attempt to preserve the "dignity" of any set of beliefs & practices would be to prohibit any opinion (or facial expression) to the contrary. It is impossible to "balance" that with free speech.

Khan (who is a professor of law) also writes, rather chillingly,

[A]ll nations must devote intellectual and moral resources to teach children and adults respect for the diversity of religions. A legal system in which religions are respected rather than trashed will not be a blemish on human civilization.

I take this to mean that he believes the American legal system "trashes" religion -- an absurd claim for a professor of law at an American university to make. What he really wants, I fear, is a legal system which punishes those of us who don't appropriately respect the "dignity" of his particular worldview.

Love the new graphics, btw.

-This resolution also highlights one of the problems with the U.N., namely, that it allows elected officials, once appointed to the U.N., to then by-pass the consent of their own constituents (i.e., the citizens of their own countries), to impose laws on those constituents. Hence the ominous spectacle of the majority of the world's leaders voting to impose what amounts to a blasphemy law on the whole world, without the consent of ordinary citizens. The idea that a bunch of corrupt dictators and religious fanatics (i.e., the vast majority of the people who populate the U.N.) can get together to "vote" on the whole world's freedom of expression is (a) absurd, and (b) unfortunately a reality.

-Most (perhaps all?...I believe 57 or 56) of the Islamic countries have signed on to a separate declaration called The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990). It states [excerpts]:

"Article 19
(a) All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.
(b) The right to resort to justice is guaranteed to everyone.
(c) Liability is in essence personal.
(d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.
(e) A defendant is innocent until his guilt is proven in a fair trial in which he shall be given all the guarantees of defence.

Article 22 (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.

Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
Article 25
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."

Source: http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm

http://www.religlaw.org/

-Several western countries still have blasphemy laws on the books as hangovers from previous centuries, though they are seldom used. In Islamic countries, blasphemy is generally punished criminally, with penalties ranging from fines and short prison terms up to life in jail or death penalty.