Few would disagree that “fighting religious discrimination” is a worthy resolution for the United Nations. But what if the organization that sponsored the resolution is one made up of many repressive member states which routinely practice—not fight—religious discrimination? Saudi Arabia, which founded and continues to drive the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the sponsor of Resolution 16/18, practices blatant religious discrimination. Some are starting to notice the disparity.
Blasphemous Speech and Defamation of Religion
For the past several years the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has repeatedly presented the UN with a resolution purportedly aimed at banning religious defamation and fighting religious discrimination. At first, the wording urged criminalization of “blasphemous speech” and “defamation of religion.” The impetus behind this was the OIC’s determination to fight “Islamophobia.”
Very real concerns were raised by Western states, however, since this resolution if passed would effectively stifle free speech. Having underestimated the West’s support for one of the bedrock principles of liberal democracies, the OIC realized its error, and altered the text to ensure the resolution passed. The revised wording now called for states to prevent discrimination on religious grounds and to ensure religious freedom. With the problematic wording removed, UN members passed the resolution by consensus in April 2011, with no objections raised.
UNHRC Resolution 16/18
The specific title of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 is “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.”
Among other actions, UN members are called upon:
- To ensure that public officials "do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief."
- To promote religious freedom by allowing members of all religious communities "to manifest their religion."
- To encourage the full participation of individuals, of all religious faiths, in society.
- To counter religious profiling and protect places of worship.
- To promote tolerance, respect for human rights, and diversity of religious beliefs.
- To "foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance ... based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs."
Categorizing Speech and Ascribing Blame
Although these are very lofty aims, many objections have been raised. Here are just a few:
- Who defines “incitement to violence” and could it include such predictable reactions as the post-Muhammad-cartoon rioting?
- What criteria and what legal system—US law, international law, or Sharia law—would be used in this definition?
- Will this lead to restrictions on speech that causes some to become violent?
- Is this not then ascribing blame to those who discuss, debate, and question—not on those who carry out violent acts?
- Why is this resolution necessary for liberal Western countries with already strong human rights laws?
- Will “negative stereotyping” be miscast to apply to legitimate criticism of an ideology?
Apart from those serious concerns, there is the question of the OIC’s obvious double-standard: while parroting the rhetoric of human rights, it ignores its own member states’ poor records. Saudi Arabia, especially, as the primary force behind the OIC, deserves scrutiny. This autocratic kingdom violates human rights and basic freedoms as a matter of course. The US government's 2010 report on conditions there reads like a litany of horrors.
Saudi Arabia’s record illustrates common practices there that are in contradiction of UN Resolution 16/18:
- School textbooks promote Jew-hatred and Muslim superiority.
- Non-Muslims are banned from Mecca and Medina.
- Jews are banned from the entire country.
- Visible Christian, Jewish, and Hindu religious symbols are not allowed.
- Severe restrictions are imposed on churches, and any non-Muslim religious gathering.
- Judaism is defamed in mosques.
Similar overt acts of discrimination and hate-promotion are prevalent in other OIC member states. A recent report released by Open Doors, an international non-profit ministry, showed that nine of the top ten persecutors of Christians are Muslim states.
Motivation for Resolution
The incongruity of an organization made up of mostly repressive states pressing a world body to implement a human rights resolution banning intolerance is jarring. If taken seriously, this resolution would necessitate massive changes in the internal policies of the OIC’s member base.
Such an outcome is unlikely to be the aim here, especially since the OIC is strongly biased in favor of Islamic states, reluctant to criticize them, even when faced with such dire situations as the carnage in Syria. However, by looking at just who benefits from the implementation of this resolution a possible motive becomes clearer. A recent OIC statement in this regard is revealing.
The Istanbul Process
OIC Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu issued a statement corresponding with the December 2011 meeting in Washington of the states involved in the Istanbul Process, the international series of conferences aimed at implementing Resolution 16/18.
His remarks do not stress direct benefits to anyone, only the negative consequences of non-implementation. To avoid these negative consequences, he asks the West to, in essence, curb free speech: "Let me be clear. In a world faced with the menace of terrorism, the implications of not evolving are [sic] normative framework to respond to hate speech and other forms of incitement to hatred, discrimination, and violence, cannot and must not be ignored."
In other words, the “menace of terrorism” is here held up as being the consequence of not implementing this resolution—the “implication” being that “hate speech” leads to increased terrorism. This has the hallmark of intimidation: curb free speech in the West or face increased terrorism. It’s hard to see how this can be interpreted any differently. However, curbing “hate speech” is fraught with danger to the principle of free speech.
Further, Ihsanoglu goes on to state: "The Resolution 16/18 provides with [sic] a good basis for concerted action by states, at both the national and the international levels. It must be utilized accordingly. We would, otherwise, be faced with the unaffordable risk of the agenda hijacked and set by radicals and non-state actors."
Once again, Ihsanoglu uses “loaded” words. “Hijacked” and “radicals” are associated with attack and violence in modern discourse. Once again, he presents the “either/or” choice: implement this resolution or else face actions by radicals. He does not mention positive benefits to those who now suffer religious persecution and discrimination in the OIC's member states.
"Islamophobia" Observatory
Who then will benefit from Resolution 16/18? Since the OIC never mentions religious discrimination by Islamic states, it’s unlikely that reform there is the goal. However, it does have an extensive and active campaign aimed at disclosing incidents of alleged “Islamophobia” worldwide. It produces a lengthy yearly report from its Islamophobia Observatory. Few, if any, of the relatively minor incidents described there bear any resemblance to the ongoing murders of Christians, as in Iraq, Nigeria, and Egypt; or imprisonment for “blasphemy” as in Pakistan and Afghanistan; or the increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe. In fact, many of the "offences" there involve speech critical of Islam.
Rather than curbing religious discrimination in OIC states, the real implications of this resolution will reverberate in Western democracies. If all goes as Ihsanoglu plans, the West will find itself having agreed to curb speech according to parameters defined by the OIC. Although rejecting the explosive phrase “defamation of religion,” the West has now agreed to curb “hate speech.” Endless haggling about the definition of “hate speech” will be forthcoming, along with pleas about alleged Muslim victimization. The troublesome process, complete with the threat of legal penalties, would restrict, if not stop, valid and legitimate criticism of the ideology of Islam. This would be of benefit to the OIC and its aims.
"No Relgious Freedom in Saudi Arabia"
The hypocrisy of Saudi Arabia and the OIC has been noted: Human Rights Watch has urged world leaders to confront Saudi Arabia. According to Sarah Leah Whitson, the organization's Middle East director, "There is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, yet the kingdom asks the world to listen to its message of religious tolerance ... The dialogue should be about where religious intolerance runs deepest, and that includes Saudi Arabia."
Sources:
2010 Human Rights Report: Saudi Arabia
Akyol, Mustafa, Islam Without Extremes: a Muslim Case for Liberty W.W. Norton and Company, 2011.
Dershowitz, Alan, The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict can be Resolved, Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
Fatah, Tarek, The Jew is not my Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-semitism, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Ltd., 2010.
Hudson Institute "2008 Update: Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance."
IHEU, International Humanist and Ethical Union
Organization of Islamic Cooperation
Jen L. Jones - Based in Canada, Jones writes on human rights, history,and the natural world. She focuses also on Turkish and Scottish travel and ...
Join the Conversation