By Jim Coggins

CANADA and several European nations have voted against a United Nations resolution amid fears that it could be used to limit freedom of speech.

The United Nations Human Rights Council voted March 27 to adopt resolution 7/19 on ‘Combating defamation of religions.’

The resolution condemns “Islamophobia,” including “attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.” It states “freedom of expression . . . may be subject to certain restrictions     . . . necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others.”

The resolution was introduced by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an umbrella organization of 57 Islamic nations.

The OIC also wants all states to enact laws to counter Islamophobia, including “deterrent punishments.”

Gordon Nickel, assistant professor of intercultural studies at ACTS Seminaries in Langley, said the UN resolution is remarkable for its use of language.

The resolution demonstrates that Muslims have learned to use “politically correct North American concepts” – such as tolerance, nondiscrimination, human rights, respect and racial harmony – to promote the Islamic agenda.

In recent months, Islamic groups in Canada have brought human rights commission complaints against Ezra Levant for reprinting Danish cartoons satirizing Muhammad and Mark Steyn for an article on Islam in Maclean’s magazine.

The UN Human Rights Council vote was 21 - 10 with 14 abstentions.

Continue article >>

Shaun Tinkler, a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, said, “Canada takes the position that people, not religions, have rights . . . The right to freedom of religion includes the right to adopt or to leave any religion.” Thus, he stressed, “the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ runs directly counter to the universal rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

Elizabeth Kendall of the World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission wrote in a recent report, “Of all things in this world, religion has the least grounds to claim an exemption from scrutiny.”

Kendall argued that the OIC talks about protecting Islam from defamation, or false accusations, when it really means it wants to protect Islam from criticism.

Nickel asked, “What if you study Islam and its source books in an objective way and find a connection between Islam and violence there?” Using the language of ‘Islamophobia’ accuses opponents of having a mental illness and “shuts down public discourse.”

Sameer Zuberi, a spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada, said Canada should have voted for the UN resolution.

“We already have these laws in Canada – the hate speech laws.” Zuberi added that the UN resolution does not prevent free discussion, but just requires that “there should be respectful speech in all debates.”

Part of the issue is what exactly is meant by ‘respect,’ said Nickel. While it is necessary to give respect to all persons since they are made in the image of God, it is not necessary to give that respect to ideas. “If we find something is false, can we really respect it?”

Believing that one religion is true and others are false need not lead to hate of adherents of other religions, Nickel said, adding: “When we talk with people of another faith, we need the freedom to express what is dear to us and hear what is dear to them. We also need to leave room for disagreeing where we think things are not true . . . We shouldn’t allow anything to shut that down.”

May 2008