Defamation of Religions

Since 1999, the 57 member Organization of the Islamic Conference ("OIC") has sponsored and actually pushed to passage a UN resolution calling on countries to criminalize what it terms defamation of Islam. The OIC is now working to enshrine a binding version in international treaty law just as the US is softening its traditional opposition in order to curry favor with the Islamic world.

The OIC does not precisely define "defamation of religions," but as an example of the sort of censorship it has in mind consider this: In 2008, a court in OIC member Turkey blocked access to the website of prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins after a creationist complained the website was "defamatory" of religion.

Similarly, Egypt and Pakistan forced the U.N. Human Rights Committee to ban in-depth discussion of religions after an NGO representative to that body described female genital mutilation as sanctioned by Islamic law.

It should come as no surprise then that over 130 NGOs from across the ideological spectrum have signed a joint statement warning that banning "defamation of religions" is incompatible with free speech rights.

A recent report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom adds the OIC effort is based on domestic laws OIC members already exploit domestically to "intimidate and … detain" religious minorities.

Nevertheless, the administration has announced it is prepared to work with the OIC. In September 2009, the United States "surprised" many in the Human Rights community by co-sponsoring a resolution with Egypt that condemned "negative religious stereotyping," "incitement to discrimination," and the "promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes." News sources quoted American diplomats saying the measure was part of the Obama administration's "effort to reach out to Muslim countries."

There are a number of specific reasons, beyond an abstract commitment to free speech, to be very concerned about this:

· The continued dominance of U.N. human rights discussions by the OIC's "defamation of religion" rants distracts attention and resources away from actual human rights violations in the world. (e.g., the arrest of journalists and bloggers and killing of others, the persecution of religious minorities (view here & here), "honor" killings, acid attacks, and genocide.

· Making it illegal to "defame" religion will actually lead to true human rights violations. For a detailed discussion of why outlawing "defamation of religion" is fundamentally incompatible with numerous human rights including freedom of expression, thought, and yes, even religion, view here.

· The existence of treaties limiting speech can color the way U.S. courts construe the boundaries of free expression. International law and the First Amendment are not independent issues. The more such treaties there are, the greater the likelihood courts will find they embody a compelling government interest which trumps the First Amendment.

The Legal Project is working on both the policy and public awareness fronts to address this threat. It participated in the joint NGO statements opposing the measures, and the 2010 version of the resolution passed the Human Rights Committee by a dramatically narrower margin than previous years'. Nevertheless, sustained vigilance is required particularly given the Administration's willingness to engage the OIC on the issue. Accordingly, the Legal Project continues to monitor the issue with articles, speeches, and blog posts.

Further Reading

Daniel Huff – "Is the First Amendment in Jeopardy?" – Why U.S. support of the OIC initiative to establish an international covenant against defamation of religions is a slippery slope.

Jeremy Rabkin – "Islam and Free Speech" – A look at U.S. and European responses to the OIC's defamation campaign.

L. Bennett Graham – "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?" – An article in Emory's International Law Review on why laws providing for "defamation of religions" are problematic.

Daniel Huff – "A Silver Lining at the Human Rights Council" – Why the latest victory for the OIC's "defamation of religions" resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council may actually portend defeat in the General Assembly.

Supna Zaidi – "Lawful Islamism's Greatest Attack Yet: The OIC Resolution against Defaming Religion" – How passage of a binding U.N. resolution on "defamation of religions" would insulate the Muslim world's worst human rights violators from criticism.

Reports

"The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from 'Defamation': A Threat to Universal Human Rights Standards" – A report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on how efforts to expand the definition of defamation—and conflate it with incitement—pervert international human rights norms.

"Defamation of Religions" – An issue brief by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on the OIC's campaign to codify "defamation of religions" into international law.

"Why the U.S. Should Oppose 'Defamation of Religions' Resolutions at the United Nations" – Steve Groves on why any attempt to legitimize the concept of "defamation of religions" in the U.N. must be resisted.

Links

U.N. Human Rights Council – "Combating Defamation of Religion" – The most recent non-binding resolution passed by the U.N. human rights body on March 25, 2010.

U.N. Human Rights Council – "Freedom of Opinion and Expression" (i.e. "the U.S.-Egypt compromise") – An October 2009 non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by Egypt and the United States, adopting a more expansive definition of defamation.

Organization of the Islamic Conference – "Islamophobia Observatory" – A collation of incidents and developments compiled by the OIC "that vindicate the Ummah's concerns about the rising trend of Islamophobia."

Read More...