A draft resolution scheduled for consideration by a committee of the United Nations General Assembly threatens to criminalize criticism of religion.
In its current form, the resolution would declare defamation of religion to be a violation of international law. The resolution’s drafters hope to circumvent free-speech statutes in other countries, including the United States’ own First Amendment.
The resolution is the culmination of many years of quiet work by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing more than 50 Muslim nations. The OIC has set as a goal the criminalization of any “defamation of religion, especially Islam” — and is perversely advancing the resolution under the guise of protecting human rights.
By making “defamation of religion” a crime under international law, nations would be able to seek extradition and trial abroad of persons who make statements critical or offensive to one or all faiths anywhere in the world.
This is not merely a hypothetical.
A private group in Jordan (where private parties may initiate criminal prosecutions) is seeking extradition of the Danish cartoonist and publishers of the “Muhammad” cartoons to stand trial in Jordan for defaming Islam. As a result, Denmark’s foreign minister has begun telling OIC members that if a ban on “defamation of religion” is part of the antiracism agenda at the UN conference against racism to be held in Geneva next spring, his country and other European nations will not participate.
Defamation is defined in law as the making of a false statement about a person. Finding that a statement about religion is defamatory means finding that it is false. Like now- discredited blasphemy laws, requiring judges to decide the truth of competing religious claims is to ask them to decide something well beyond their ken. Of course, offensive things about specific religions are said. Some of these are gratuitously offensive — even demonstrably false — and many are simply rude. Civility and the need to get along would often dictate that such speech be condemned — thankfully the freedom of speech guarantees the right to criticize.
It is also no surprise that religious people take offense at the mocking of their sacred ideas and values. For example, a recent meeting of Catholic and Muslim leaders issued a declaration that “founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subjected to any form of mockery or ridicule.” European rabbis were uniformly critical of the decision of Danish newspapers to print the Muhammad cartoons. At an interfaith meeting in Madrid earlier this year, religious leaders echoed the OIC’s call for an end to defamation of religion.
This sensitivity is understandable. But imposing civility by force of law is incompatible with a free society. Rules of etiquette are one thing, criminal sanctions quite another. It is a mistake to confuse sensitivity with criminality.
Is it — should it be — criminally defamatory to say that Judaism has been superseded by Christianity, or is devoid of spirit, being dominated by law, or that the belief in an incarnate God is idolatry? Was Martin Luther a criminal because of his attacks on the papacy? What of reciprocal Catholic attacks on Protestantism — in this country, as late as the last century, prior to Vatican II? Should it be criminal to say that some African faiths (and perhaps Hinduism) are pagan? That belief in God is a delusion? What of best-selling books by Christopher Hitchens and others insisting that over time religion has given rise to much violence and done little good? Are these books all to be banned?
The draft resolution suggests that any hint that “terrorism [is] associated with any religion…" should be made illegal. Why? It is simply an unpleasant fact that in too many places terror is committed in the name of specific religions. This is true of a small minority of West Bank settlers invoking the Bible, and it is surely true of terrorists in Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, India, and Pakistan who invoke the Koran. Some antiabortion bombers are motivated by Christian teaching. Those who engage in religiously based terrorism cite traditional texts to support their activity. It should not be illegal to criticize those claims.
No one would think of shielding secular political ideals (say, nationalism or communism) from charges that they foment violence. Religion is not entitled to a special immunity. Contrary to what the resolution suggests, the right to freedom of religious practice and of equal treatment is not offended by such speech. Its targets are free to respond in kind, to call attention to the disruptive effect of false charges, or for that matter, to reaffirm their beliefs.
Efforts are being made by experts on the UN staff to limit the ban on “defamation of religion” to such speech that directly and predictably incites to religious violence or discrimination. That effort raises almost as many questions as it resolves, and the current draft does not even come close to resolving them. The OIC has benefited from a lack of attention to, and debate about, its proposals, outside of opposition from a few governments (including our own). That needs to change.