The United Nations took a step backward in its support of human rights this last week. A resolution claiming to be a human rights resolution, but limiting criticism of religions, passed the UN General Assembly narrowly.
One observer referred to the 85-80 vote with 42 abstentions as a “very Orwellian moment.”
Canada.com summarized the concern by free speech advocates:
But while the draft’s sponsors say it and earlier similar measures are aimed at preventing violence against worshippers regardless of religion, religious tolerance advocates warn the resolutions are being accumulated for a more sinister goal.
“It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy,” said Bennett Graham, international program director with the Becket Fund, a think tank aimed at promoting religious liberty.
“Those arrests are made legitimate by the UN body’s (effective) stamp of approval.”
Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure “renaissance” of the “Muslim Ummah” or community.
While the current resolution is non-binding, Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan reminded the UN’s Human Rights Council this year that the OIC ultimately seeks a “new instrument or convention” on the issue. Such a measure would impose its terms on signatory states.
Western countries criticized the resolution saying that a religion cannot be immune from criticism because that would require a legal ruling that its teachings are the truth.
The same countries also criticized the resolution for defending religion and not the adherents to a religion.
“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings,” said Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.
“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.”
The opponents of the resolution said that similar laws have been used to squelch dissent, “prosecute, and imprison journalists, bloggers, academics students and peaceful political dissidents.”
Examples are a bill in the Iranian Parliament to impose the death penalty for apostasy. In India, artists who have rendered Hindu gods in modern ways have been charged. Even in Russia, television stations that have aired “South Park” and “The Simpsons” have been accused of defamatory charges against Christianity.
All of this in the name of human rights…George Orwell would not be surprised.
Pingback: Conspirama