United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme
By AUSTIN DACEY - RELIGIONDISPATCHES.ORG
Added: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:54:23 UTC
Having followed the debates on religion and freedom of expression at the United Nations over the last several years, I have become accustomed to passing on bad news, such as a decade of resolutions by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly “combating the defamation of religions.” Now that there is some good news, almost no one has noticed.

...but the UN will protect our right to freedom of conscience.
Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of freedom of speech under international law. It says that laws restricting blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights standards.
The statement came from the Human Rights Committee, the body of eighteen “independent experts” mandated to monitor compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, the 1966 human rights treaty that provides for freedom of opinion and expression and other fundamental rights. The Committee’s general comments represent authoritative interpretations of the provisions of the ICCPR. Unlike the highly-publicized resolutions produced by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the provisions of the ICCPR are legally binding to its more than 165 parties.
The detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34, is the outcome of two years of intense debate among representatives of governments and civil society organizations. The Committee’s previous comment on freedom of opinion and expression, in 1983, was only four paragraphs long. In addition to taking up such matters as treason, defamation of heads of state, “memory laws” enforcing an official version of history, and the rights of bloggers, Comment 34 comes down strongly against religious limitations on speech. It does so not only by asserting that the right to free speech is foundational to a free and democratic society as well as to the protection and promotion of other rights. It also appeals explicitly to the values of freedom of conscience and equality before the law.
According to paragraph 48, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Comment is careful to require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions’ guarantees of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18).
Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.
Tweet
RELATED CONTENT
Indian skeptic charged with "blasphemy"...
Cory Doctorow - Boing Boing 75 Comments
Sanal Edamaruku, an Indian skeptic, went to Mumbai and revealed that a "miraculous" weeping cross was really just a bit of statuary located near a leaky drain whose liquid reached it by way of capillary action.
Malaysia deports Saudi journalist Hamza...
- - BBC News -Asia 70 Comments
Police confirmed to the BBC that Hamza Kashgari was sent back to Saudi Arabia on Sunday despite protests from human rights groups.
Mr Kashgari's controversial tweet last week sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats.
Dawkins made it to my Sociology class
Omer Kamal Bin Farooq - The Express... 17 Comments
[That documentary] allows us to think out of the comfortable narrative that has been concocted for us by the state and its right-wing allies. Watching it allows us to digest opinions wildly diverse from ours and still give them their due consideration and appreciation. This is what made me happy.
Kenan Malik - Pandaemonium 15 Comments
But in the real world where societies are plural, then it is both inevitable and important that people offend the sensibilities of others. Inevitable, because where different beliefs are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable. And we should deal with those clashes rather than suppress them. Important because any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply held sensibilities. The right to ‘subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism’ is the bedrock of an open, diverse society.
Saudis sentence Australian man to 500...
James Massola - The Australian 59 Comments

The family of Mansor Almaribe, who is facing
a year in jail and 500 lashes in Saudi Arabia.
Picture are Mohammad, 16, Jamal, 24, Wafaa,
Isaam, 21, and Wally, 2.
Picture: Fiona Hamilton Source: Herald Sun
MORE BY AUSTIN DACEY
Austin Dacey - CSI 25 Comments
The secularist case against...
Austin Dacey - The Washington Post 28 Comments
'Framing Science' and The...
Austin Dacey 52 Comments
Austin Dacey 92 Comments




















Comments
Comment RSS Feed
Please sign in or register to comment
View Comments Page