Opposing UN Defamation of Religions Proposal

In a Geneva meeting that concluded on October 30th, Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, proposed a binding treaty amendment to the ICERD (International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1969, an existing international treaty on racism) concerning the defamation of religion.

Meanwhile, in New York on October 29th, Syria, on behalf of the OIC, along with Belarus and Venezuela, proposed yet another General Assembly resolution “combating defamation of religions.” The resolution lends credibility to the proposal of a binding treaty and continues to provide international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws in countries like Pakistan and Sudan.

The United Nations has continuously passed non-binding resolutions on defamation of religions since 1999. However, for the first time ever, a UN body has now proposed a binding treaty to combat the defamation of religions.

In response,  over 100 NGOS from over 20 countries have signed a Common Statement protesting the resolution against the concept of defamation of religions:

United Nations resolutions on the defamation of religions are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.

Unlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the `defamation of religions’ punish the peaceful criticism of ideas. Additionally, the concept of `defamation of religions’ is fundamentally inconsistent with the universal principles outlined in the United Nations’ founding documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the protection of the rights of individuals, rather than ideas.

Such resolutions provide international support for domestic laws against blasphemy and injury to religious feelings, which are often abused by governments to punish the peaceful expression of disfavored political or religious beliefs and ideas. Moreover, existing international legal instruments already address discrimination, personal defamation, and incitement in ways that are more carefully focused to confront those specific problems without unduly threatening the rights of freedom of expression and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

It is vitally important for governments to combat violence motivated by bias and hatred and to encourage respectful speech and civil dialogue, while at the same time affirming that freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion are integral to the health of free societies and the dignity of the human person.

Finally, legal efforts alone cannot foster an environment of respect and religious freedom. Education and public diplomacy are vital tools in the protection of a peaceful and robust exchange of ideas and beliefs.