|
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 that "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 resolution achieves one of the OIC's goals in its 'Ten-Year Plan of Action': "to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments."
The 'Ten-Year Plan of Action' covers a wide range of issues including Islamic unity, socio-economic cooperation, development, human rights issues, and opposition to terrorism. It was enacted in December 2005, shortly after the publication of Danish cartoons satirizing Muhammad, which touched off riots in the Islamic world.
The UN resolution was preceded by a 58-page document prepared by the OIC called '1st Observatory Report on Islamophobia May 2007-March 2008,' which calls for "the international community to come up with a binding legal instrument to fight the menace of Islamophobia" so that "the right to freedom of expression" not be used as a licence for "insulting the sacred religious symbols of Islam."
The report mentions among "the most outrageous" expressions of Islamophobia the Dutch cartoons and the September 2006 Regensburg speech by Pope Benedict XVI, which mentioned in passing a reference to Muhammad's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Canadian Application
Gordon Nickel, assistant professor of intercultural studies at Associated Canadian Theological Schools, said the UN Human Rights Council 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, he said.
Islamic groups in Canada have brought human rights commission complaints against Ezra Levant's reprinting of the Danish cartoons and Mark Steyn's article on Islam in Maclean's magazine.
The UN Human Rights Council vote was 21 - 10 with 14 abstentions.
CC.com has been unable to reach any representative of the Canadian government willing to talk about the issue. However, an Associated Press article cited European diplomats as being concerned that the resolution was one-sided in defending Islam while giving little attention to other religions; they also expressed concern about "the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech."
Free Speech
In a comprehensive analysis of the OIC's 'Observatory Report,' Elizabeth Kendall of the World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission wrote that human rights laws are intended to protect the rights of human beings, but the OIC is using them to protect ideas.
"Of all things in this world, religion has the least grounds to claim an exemption from scrutiny," she wrote, because religious freedom is based on the freedom to question, debate and convert.
Kendall also argued that the OIC report talked about protecting Islam from "defamation," or false accusations, when it really meant it wanted to protect Islam from criticism.
Continue article >>
|
Nickel said the resolution condemns "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations." However, he 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," said Nickel.
He noted that the resolution also opposes stereotyping of "sacred persons." Muslims do not claim that Muhammad is divine, but under Islamic law, "saying about Muhammad something less than what Muslims say about him" is considered "blasphemy" and punishable by death, said Nickel. Yet at the same time, Muslims "take full freedom" to deny that Jesus is divine, which really is blasphemy, from a Christian point of view.
A recent Maclean's article denying Jesus' divinity is deeply offensive to Christians, said Nickel, but "we don't burn down the Maclean's offices because, in the Gospels, Jesus didn't give us that option. When he himself was accused of doing miracles by the power of the devil, he responded that blasphemy against him will be forgiven."
Similarly, Nickel said the UN resolution complains of coercion being employed against Muslims, while taking no notice of the fact that in Islamic law anyone who wants to leave Islam is punished by death.
Sameer Zuberi, a spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada (CAIR-CAN), said Canada should have voted for the UN resolution because "there is nothing in the contents of the resolution that Canada has not supported in the past."
Regarding the resolution's call for laws against Islamophobia, Zuberi said: "We already have these laws in Canada -- the hate speech laws." While recent applications of hate speech laws by human rights commissions in Canada have come under criticism, CAIR-CAN supports these laws and notes that human rights commission rulings can be appealed to higher Canadian courts.
Zuberi said the UN resolution does not prevent free discussion, but just requires that "there should be respectful speech in all debates." Zuberi said the resolution was necessary because of the "negative stereotyping" of Islam in the Western media in recent years. CAIR-CAN issued an "alert" about the Steyn article, calling it "Islamophobic," but is not participating in the human rights case against him. However, it is involved in some other human rights cases.
Part of the issue is what exactly is meant by "respect," said Nickel. The UN resolution calls for "respect for all religions and their value systems," but 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?" he said.
The resolution compares Islamophobia to racism, arguing that just as it is wrong for one race to claim superiority, so it is wrong for any belief to claim "superiority" over Islam. However, Nickel said, "All religions believe they are superior. In fact, in a number of verses the Koran claims superiority for Islam over all other religions . . . To compare is completely natural."
However, believing that one religion is true and others are false need not lead to hate of adherents of other religions. "There are all kinds of people we disagree with. We can still love, respect and work with them," said Nickel.
Muslims make certain truth claims and Christians make certain other truth claims, and people should be allowed to make a choice without one side shutting down the other, said Nickel.
"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," he said. "We also need to leave room for disagreeing where we think things are not true . . . We shouldn't allow anything to shut that down . . . It is a blessing of God that we live in a country where we can talk freely."
April 10/2008
|
