Is the freedom of thought and expression at risk? (Part I)

The U.N. Human Rights Council recently undertook a discussion on racism and followed-up on the 2001 Durban anti-racism Declaration. All delegations that spoke condemned contemporary forms of racism and expressed commitment to a successful outcome of the ‘Durban Review Conference’, also known as ‘Durban II’.

In informal consultations at the U.N., South Africa for the African Group presented the revised text of its Human Rights Council resolution on the “Elaboration of complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.”

The purpose of the resolution was to advance the work of an Algerian-chaired committee, “The ad hoc committee on the elaboration of international complementary standards,” in which Islamic states and their African allies are attempting to add new legal prohibitions to existing international law that would define criticism of religion as a violation.

Pakistan as chair and sponsor of the resolution, opened by emphasizing that all religions should be protected from defamation, but there should also be a few references to Muslims and Islam. He said that there should not be treated as one single issue between the problem of terrorist acts of individuals and a particular religion.

In its recently concluded June 2008 session, the UN Human Rights Council ruled that any references to Islamic Shar’ia law are prohibited in the council chamber. Even outgoing UN rights chief Louise Arbour, who more than once sought to appease the UN’s anti-blasphemy squads, expressed her concern.

It all started when the David Littman, undaunted by malicious attempts to expel him from the UN, tried to deliver a speech on violence against women and what Islamic scholars can do to prevent it. The Egyptian representative interrupted repeatedly and challenged the council president. “Regardless of the result of the vote — I couldn’t care less if I will win or lose this vote — my point is that Islam will not be crucified in this council!”

The president gave in by saying: “Statements (made) should refrain from making judgments or evaluations of a particular religion. . . I can promise that at the next evaluation of a religious creed, law, or document, I will interrupt the speaker and we’ll go on to the next one.”

On March 28, 2008, the ‘UN Human Rights Council’ said that it would adopt a resolution on freedom of expression, renewing the mandate of the expert charged with investigating violations. The resolution was initiated by Canada, with the co-sponsorship of Uganda. Another 50 countries joined as co-sponsors, including the US, France, Israel, Germany, Slovenia, UK, Japan, Mexico, and Australia. Several countries sought to water down the text, including China, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Belarus and South Africa. After weeks of debate, including five informal consultations, the West finally conceded what it called a major compromise. The text raises a major concern. The Resolution weakened freedom of expression.

Pakistan for the Islamic group, Egypt, Algeria, Belarus and China demanded restrictions on freedom of expression. In what they described as a major concession, Western states agreed to add a preambular paragraph in which it said;

“Mindful also that article 19 of the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ provides that exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but that these shall be only such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or public health and morals, and that article 20 provides that any propaganda for war or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

The above concession is only a small part in the massive campaign by Islamic states at the UN to make “defamation of religion” — with Islam being the only religion specified — the primary concern of international human rights law. During the debates, supporters of this line — including Pakistan for the Islamic group, Singapore, Russia, Bangladesh, South Africa, Algeria and China — argued that freedom of expression is not absolute. National security, counter-terrorism and protection of religion were cited as grounds for restrictions.

In this session as before, the council adopted a resolution condemning ‘defamation of religion,’ where freedom of the press was specifically targeted, an apparent reference to the Danish cartoons. To those of my readers who are unaware of the Danish cartoons controversy, let me briefly state what they were.

Twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship. Some critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith. I should add that the Islamic faith forbids any pictures of Muhammad being displayed in any manner whatsoever.

During the informal meeting of March 19, 2008, Pakistan, China and others demanded even further concessions. Russia asked for the following amendment:

“Recognizing that exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression may not justify incitement to terrorism, violence, racial or religious hatred, and has to be conducted responsibly and with respect to cultural, civilizational and religious diversity and values.”

The US and the Czech Republic responded that the text had already made an enormous compromise, and that they were unwilling to make any further concessions.

Egypt offered the example of the “Da Vinci Code” film, which was deemed insulting “by the Christian Pope and by the 7-8 million Christians in Egypt.” Egypt did not allow this movie to be shown in any movie theater and even as a tourist, bringing it in could get you in trouble. Its representative said in part; “Christians are not a majority in Egypt and Sharia law is the pillar of Egyptian law, but respect for all religions is paramount. The devout Muslim members of parliament were the first to push for this legislation.”

Egypt accused the Europeans of lacking political will to combat racism but Egypt is not unlike the kettle calling the pot black. The Coptic Orthodox Christian Church is the largest in Egypt and the entire Middle East. It is approximately 7-10 million strong (10% of the population), but since the Egyptian Church in Egypt is not allowed to carry out an official census, accurate figures are difficult to ascertain. The Egyptian Church faces persecution and hardship in a number of spheres. Egypt’s Coptic community is poorly represented in the higher levels of government, in the military and in senior teaching positions. Out of 28 Egyptian governors, none are Christian and there are no Christian ambassadors, heads of universities or deans.

This is what makes Egypt look like it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth especially when you consider that that country criticized racial profiling against individuals of a different religion.

Muslim-dominated nations at the United Nations have once again pushed a religious ‘anti-defamation’ plan that would bar worldwide all criticism of their founder Muhammad and his teaching.

Let me quote from Muhammad’s teachings in the Koran, specifically 17:16-17

“When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah?”

In 17:16-17, the Koran is saying, through the writings of Muhammad, that Allah, the God of the Muslims is clearly describing the exact method that he adopts when he commits genocide of an entire population. And why does Allah decide to destroy entire populations? The reason is simply because they don't believe in Allah so the Muslims will kill them all, in Allah's name.

If that is so, then Allah would be taking revenge on the majority of our planet’s human beings which would mean that all faithful Muslims would be justifiable in exterminating all non-believers. I am surprised that Hitler didn’t use that aspect of the Koran as his justification for killing so many Jews.

Are we to believe that it would be wrong to criticize such teachings? If so, would it be wrong then to say it was OK to murder millions of Jews after Hitler came to power? In actual fact, it would just as it is right to say that particular teaching of Muhammad was very wrong.

In the Koran, specifically 2:8-10, it says;

“In their (Non-Muslims) hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease and grievous is the penalty they will incur, because they are false.”

So according to Muhammad, Allah not only exhorts Muslims to kill all the non-believers, he also strikes down the surviving ones with disease and pain. He expected all good Muslims to carry out their beloved Allah's word. It would appear that Allah's word seems to be very much in effect in today's world. This is why we saw pious, Allah-loving Muslims like Saddam Hussain storing weapons of biological and chemical warfare in their countries.

In 1988, a scientist in Iraq admitted to UNSCOM inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin; 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver failure; Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor-bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniques as smallpox. It was because of the discovery of the scientist’s work with camel pox that the U.S. and British intelligence services feared Saddam Hussein may have been planning to weaponize the smallpox virus. After Hussain was hanged, did he secure a place in Islamic ‘Jannat’ (Paradise) for himself by following Allah's orders so religiously?

Is it wrong to be a critic of such teachings?

Muhammad wrote in the Koran, specifically, 58:5

“Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down clear signs and the unbelievers will have a humiliating penalty.”

What this is saying is that those who resist Allah and Muhammad, (which obviously refers to anyone who is not a Muslim) must be crushed to death by the holy edict of Allah. No doubt it was this very verse which must have served as a motivation for those so-called pious Muslims who bombed the World Trade Center. From that specific teaching of Mohammad, Allah must have been extremely pleased to watch all those innocent non-Muslims being crushed to death when the World Center crashed down on top of them.

Can we not find fault with that specific section of the Koran? The above verses are only the tip of the iceberg. Any deluded Non-Muslim who thinks that Islam is the religion of peace and that it is only misguided Muslims who commit terrorism and atrocities, can pick up an English translation of the Koran from any bookstore and refer to these verses

I don’t want to mislead my leaders by suggesting that the Koran only spouts evil because that is not so. There are many passages in the Koran that are beautiful and speak of justice and fairness for all. If many of the people of the world were to accept many of the passages of the Koran as their standard of conduct, the world would be a better place to live in.

The New Testament shows that some of the teachings of Jesus are equally not really acceptable in this day and age.

For example, Jesus strongly approved of the law as it was then. He didn't have the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament, such as stoning to death those who worked on the Sabbath or stoning women to death who had been unfaithful to their husbands although he did on one occasion, save the life of a prostitute who was about to be stoned to death.

Jesus even was disrespectful to the dead when he said in Mathew, verses 21 and 22;

“And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer (permit) me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.”

In Mathew, Chapter 10, verses, 34 and 35, Jesus said;

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Why did Jesus ignore the twelfth Commandment that says that we should honour our fathers and mothers?

Are Christians prepared to accept such teachings? I think not.

Hinduism does not support violence, especially when it is perpetrated for selfish or egoistic reasons. However, the intolerance of Hindu society and religion is pretty evident in the ever hanging sword of violence over the heads of ‘untouchables; under the eternal guidance of the pious lawmakers, the Brahmans.

Virtually all Hindus believe to some degree in the Caste System in which the untouchable are at the lower end of the Caste. This in my opinion is very wrong.

There are literally millions of Hindu gods and goddesses --- by some counts, as many as 330 million. Can I say that I think it is foolish to pray to so many gods? Am I being a bigot by saying that? Not really. I am merely expressing my view. In fact, I freely criticize many aspects of the teachings in various religions and not just those whom Hindus, Muslims or Christians believe in. I feel that I and everyone else have the right to express our views on any subject we wish, including religion.

The Muslim nations have sought to have member states enact laws banning such "blasphemy." The plan was to include a recommendation to the UN Human Rights Council that the ban be made binding on member nations.

The need for a mandatory rule was cited by Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan, who also cited the apparent implementation of the plan already. He reported in India, that police arrested the editor of an English-language newspaper after it reprinted a British article titled, "Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?"
Newspaper officials were accused of "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims.

The US, publisher Random House in 2008 canceled publication plans for a novel, ‘The Jewel of Medina’, because executives feared the book might offend Muslims.

The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied for a plan, which is based on the ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam’, since 1999. The Cairo declaration states "that all rights are subject to Sharia law, and makes Sharia law the only source of reference for human rights."

Sharia law deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. Islamic law is now the most widely used religious law, and one of the three most common legal systems of the world alongside common law and civil law.

In the field of human rights, early Islamic jurists introduced a number of advanced legal concepts before the 12th century which anticipated similar modern concepts in the field. These included the notions of the charitable trust and the trusteeship of property; the notion of brotherhood and social solidarity; the notions of human dignity and the dignity of labour; the notion of an ideal law; the condemnation of antisocial behavior; the presumption of innocence; the notion of "bidding unto good" (assistance to those in distress); and the notions of sharing, caring, universalism, fair industrial relations, fair contract, commercial integrity, freedom from usury, women's rights, privacy, abuse of rights, juristic personality, individual freedom, equality before the law, legal representation, non-retroactivity, supremacy of the law, judicial independence, judicial impartiality, limited sovereignty, tolerance, and democratic participation.

These are ideal laws, of that, there can be no doubt. With respect to sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Sharia law, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

Islam however allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives. The justification for this can be found in the Koran when it states in 4:34;

“If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.”

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed.

For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive cars or act as salespersons in stores, even stores that cater only to women. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men; and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye. For example, in 2003, in Saudi Arabia, a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation. In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancé. In 2005, an Iranian court ordered a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

The Koran says in 5:45:

“And we ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers).”

If we were all subjected to the ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam’ then we could expect the kinds of punishments meted out in Mid-Eastern countries. Thank you but no thank you.

The proposal, while purportedly to protect against 'defamation of religions,' is frequently used as a weapon to silence religious minorities, including Christians in many countries. The resolution actually targets anyone who speaks negatively in any way about Islam. Sharing your faith would become an international crime punishable by imprisonment – or death.

Christians and other minority religions in predominantly Islamic areas or countries are being persecuted to barbaric levels. Reports from Nairobi, Kenya, say that one aid worker was beheaded in September for converting from Islam to Christianity; the Iranian government has already passed a bill calling for execution on the basis of apostasy (anyone converting from Islam to another religion)

In Islamic countries, blasphemy laws are used as a shield to protect the dominant religion, but even more dangerously, they are used to silence minority religious believers and prevent Muslims from converting to other faiths, which is still a capital crime in many Islamic countries."

The US State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable. A statement from the US said,

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions. We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."

Despite that reasoning, the U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said. "Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers."

I don’t have a problem with the passage of such a declaration providing that it gives protection to all persons of any religion against abuses by their governments.

On March 12, 2009, the U.N. resolution circulated by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law.

This concerns me. If this were to come into effect, it would mean that no one could comment on any aspect of a religious belief if the commentary appeared to be any form of criticism.

While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states --- at the ‘local, national, regional and international levels --- to erode free speech guarantees in their legal and constitutional systems.’

It's an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.

The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths.

Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the "deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons." The Islamic leaders will then issue a Fatwa against anyone they think insults Islam and base their decisions on edicts of the ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam’.

Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.

The resolution's core premise --- that ‘defamation of religion’ exists as legal concept --- is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks --- a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.

Unfortunately, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion.

In Canada, one can be charged with the crime of blasphemous libel but that particular libel is not actually defined. The offence of defamatory libel is of ancient lineage. Blasphemy, in its meaning which in my opinion is the profane speaking of God or sacred things as written in ‘The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary’.

I know of no case heard in Canada where someone has been convicted in this or the last century with defaming God or sacred things. Even if the United Nations were to propose that it would be a crime to defame God or sacred things or for that matter, any religion, Canada would not sign such a covenant and for a very good reason.

The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. According to that Constitution, everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

What this means is that no one in Canada can be convicted of blasphemous libel if he or she expresses an opinion or establishes an argument in good faith and in decent language on any religious topic.

Aside from countries that comprise mostly of Muslims, I doubt that the rest of the nations in the world will sanction any restrictions on free speech as it relates to religious topics. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that exercise of the right to freedom of expression and no amount of positing by the Islamic members of the UN Human Rights Council is going to negate those rights.

People living beyond the jurisdiction of Sharia law are not going to accept the proposal of that Council. They will exercise their right to speak freely about their views on any and all religious topics. As you can readily see from reading this blog, that is my intention also.