Religion Watch
Religious Freedom Challenged
By James Beverley
religious freedom is mainstream news again this spring, thanks
to a human rights Council resolution at the united nations
How many things can you think of that can unite
more than 200 organizations from 46 nations?
Well, a resolution from the United Nations Human
Rights Council did just that recently – although the
unity was the result of anger and deep concern. And, frankly,
when the Human Rights Council passed
“Combating Defamation of Religion” in
Geneva on March 27, freedom took a major
hit not only in terms of freedom of expression
but also in terms of freedom of religion.
How can a resolution fighting defamation of religion actually hurt freedom of religion? Why are religious groups, including
the Muslim Canadian Congress, upset? The
answer has to do with dangers implicit in
the resolution and with its checkered history
and context. The whole story is proof that appearance is not
always reality, even at – and sometimes especially at – the
United Nations.
The 1,600-word resolution warns that “defamation of
religions is a serious affront to human dignity” and expresses
alarm “at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend.” The resolution says there is “need to effectively
combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious
hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular.” There should be “deep concern” that “Islam is frequently
and wrongly associated with human rights violations and
terrorism.” The resolution asks for more reporting on “all
manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular
on the serious implications of Islamophobia.”
The only religion specifically mentioned is Islam. This is
not surprising since the resolution is the brainchild of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC has pushed
similar resolutions at the Human Rights Council over the
past few years. The source explains a lot of the controversy.
The OIC comprises 57 Islamic states and is the second largest inter-governmental organization in the world next to the
UN. The OIC track record on freedom is depressing. The
resolution is a shining example of hypocrisy and denial of
the obvious.
Take the resolution’s concern that some people link Islam
with human rights violations and terrorism. Many Muslim
leaders say that true Islam has nothing to do with either. We
are still left with the fact that Pakistan has offered sanctuary
for years to both the Taliban and members of al-Qaida. This
has been documented in detail in Ahmed Rashid’s recent book
Descent into Chaos (Viking, 2008). The OIC should turn its
gaze on Pakistan if it really wants to destroy perceptions about
“Islam” and terrorism.
Likewise, most of the OIC countries fail
on matters of human rights. Freedom House
is an organization that rates every country
of the world on a scale of 1-7. In its 2008
report, only six of the 57 OIC countries are
rated as “free,” while 26 are “partly free”
and the remaining 25 are “not free.” This
last category includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Uzbekistan. You can find more complete details at www.freedomhouse.org. Or
ask your search engine for reports on child brides, female
genital circumcision and persecution of non-Muslims in various OIC states.
None of this is meant to suggest that western countries
or other faith traditions, including Christian, are innocent of
abusing freedom. Think of the recent use of torture by the
United States against Muslim militants. Historically, think
of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the burning of witches.
Think of modern Hindu persecution of Christian missionaries. Think of current Buddhist persecution of the Tamils in Sri
Lanka. Freedom is necessary so that bad faith (and bad politics) receives proper critique. If this is defamation, so be it.
Thankfully, the resolution is not legally binding in international law. As well, it is encouraging to see the incredible range
in the 200 or so groups protesting the resolution’s dangers.
This includes, among others, the Gay and Lesbian Humanist
Association (U.K.), Dalit Humanist group (India), the Atheist
Foundation of Australia, World Jewish Congress, Nigerian
Humanist Movement, Syria Reform Party, Muslims Against
Sharia, and the World Evangelical Alliance.
The arguments will continue at the Human Rights Council.
Nonetheless, we can sleep better tonight because groups
like these are standing up for freedom.
None of this is
meant to suggest that
western countries or
other faith traditions,
including Christian,
are innocent of
abusing freedom
James A. Beverley is professor of Christian thought and ethics at
Tyndale Seminary in Toronto.
