"International Human Rights Law and the Defamation of Religions: Can We Change the Subject ?" in: Human Rights Quarterly, 2021, 43/4, 759-780. (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Domestic Politics of International Religious Defamation
Georgetown University From 2005 to 2010, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation attempted to ban the defamation of religion internationally through a series of United Nations resolutions. Although many opposed the resolutions for their potential effects on political rights, numerous non-Muslim states supported them. What explains the dynamic of this support, especially the resolutions' religious nature and significant non-Muslim backing? I argue that non-democratic states that restrict religion have an incentive to take action on contentious international issues — such as the religious defamation resolutions — to gain support from religious groups and justify their restrictive policies, even though Muslim religious defamation concerns and developing country solidarity also contributed to support. I demonstrate this through a mixed-method study, with a quantitative analysis of states' votes on the resolutions and case studies of Belarus and Pakistan. The article contributes to the study of religion and politics, as well as studies on the dynamics of United Nations voting.
Protection against Religious Hatred under the UN ICCPR and the European Convention System
Center for Human Rights Studies, 2015
This paper will explore the exact relation between the right to freedom of expression and the prohibition of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. 3 Considering the precise formulations of the substantive human rights norms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Part III of the treaty: articles 6–27), one could argue that the prohibition of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is the 'odd-one-out' in as far as this norm: (i) does not provide the individual with a clear right (it does specify the duty bearer: the state; however, this clause does not identify a right holder); 4 (ii) if anything, actually constitutes a limit on another substantive human rights norm: the right to freedom of expression. The principal objective of this paper is to present a critical analysis of and to provide workable benchmarks and guidelines on the interplay between these two norms. In the context of the interrelatedness of the two norms it has been argued that the prohibition of advocacy of religious hatred should be interpreted as a restriction on the right to freedom of expression in a way that is consistent with the grounds for limitation that are listed by the provision on freedom of expression itself. 5 That is to say, the prohibition of advocacy of religious hatred as a possible limit on free expression needs to be prescribed by law and applying this restriction must be necessary to uphold the fundamental rights of others (i.e. religious minorities, in the present context). Though this sheds some light on the relation between the two rights, many related issues are still to be resolved. Questions that will be addressed in this paper include: What is the legal threshold for determining whether a discriminatory speech or a speech that advances certain stereotypes constitutes religious hate speech?; 6
Religion and Human Rights, vol. I, II, III, IV
2010
Hardly a week goes by without some world event relating to the burgeoning field of religion and human rights. Whether attacks carried out in the name of religion by individuals or states, violations of the rights of individuals or communities due to their religious or other beliefs, or clashes between religious and other competing rights (most notably, freedom of speech), matters relating to religion and human rights are not only an area of expert and academic interest, but also of increasing interest to policy-makers, governments, international organizations, and NGOs. This new four-volume Major Work collection from Routledge examines the background, history, and nature of human rights—both individual and collective—as well as economic, social, and cultural rights; and also civil and political rights. Standards, mechanisms, and jurisprudence at international and national levels are included, and form part of the discussion of the conflict of rights and freedom of religion or belief...
Freedom of religion has been in the limelight all over the world in the past few years. It grabbed our attention due to controversies regarding the content of different legal documents of various governments (democratic and non-democratic) around the world or due to the manner in which religious values and practices have been empirically treated by both State and non-State actors. Several issues are at the centre of global attention, including women's rights, heresy laws, transgender issues, ethnic cleansing, ill-treatment of religious minorities, ban on display of religious symbols, xenophobia, and so on. Freedom of Religion or Belief: An International Law Commentary is the first academic commentary which treats the issue of freedom of religion or belief as a human right (v). Freedom of religion or belief was included in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1966. Published in 2016, the Freedom of Religion or Belief marks fifty years after the adoption of ICCPR and sixty-eight years after the inclusion of religious freedom as a human right in UDHR. The authors, Heiner Bielefeldt, Nazila Ghanea, and Michael Wiener, rely on their academic expertise and practical experience to make a brilliant contribution to the scholarly discourse on freedom of religion or belief from an international legal perspective. The authors worked with the United Nations and conducted research on in human rights, international law, and freedom of religion. Their in-depth knowledge of the subject is reflected in this thoroughly researched book. Fifth Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, Kazakhstan. photo credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas The commentary offers a detailed analysis of interpretation and implementation of relative international standards, including ICCPR. It is structured according to the thematic categories of the Special Rapporteur's framework for communications. Freedom of Religion or Belief also discusses relevant jurisprudence from Treaty Bodies, which is evident from the table of cases and legislation given at the beginning of the commentary. The book is comprehensive because it includes relevant national cases and legislations and is not confined to the cases and legislation of these bodies. It is divided into five parts with further subdivisions. These parts comprise of discussion on freedom of religion or belief, discrimination, vulnerable groups, intersection of freedom of religion or belief with other human rights, and cross-cutting issues. Acknowledging the selective use of commentaries, the https://acuns.org/review-of-freedom-of-religion-or-belief-an-international-law-commentary/
The topic of religious proselytism is rich with opportunity for research and reflection as it involves the complex interaction between various legal, social, cultural and religious issues and interests. As a matter of international human rights law, the topic of religious proselytism has been an important part of the debate regarding the freedom of religion since the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This project critically examines the ways in which religious proselytism is represented in various international and regional human rights instruments and organizational structures. The purpose of this examination is to identify the various issues involved in addressing religious proselytism, and to construct a global conception of religious proselytism as a matter of human rights. Although there is variance in the global conceptions regarding religious proselytism, there are some significant points of overlap. It is these points of overlap that enable a deeper understanding of the issues related to religious proselytism and for managing the ways in which the issues should be reflected in the relevant human rights standards. La question du prosélytisme religieux recèle un rich potentiel pour la recherche car elle implique l‘interaction complexe entre diverses questions et sujets juridiques, sociaux, culturels et religieux. Du point de vue du droit international des droits humains, la question du prosélytisme religieux fait partie intégrante du débat sur la liberté de religion depuis la rédaction de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l‘homme. Ce projet se donne pour but d‘envisager de manière critique les manières dont le prosélytisme est représenté à travers différents instruments et institutions régionaux et internationaux en matière de droits humains. Le but de cette analyse est de metre à jour les dilemmes en jeu dans la prise en compte du prosélytisme, et de construire une conception globale du prosélytisme religieux du point de vue des droits humains. Bien que les conceptions globales sur cette question variant, il existe des points communs importants. Ce sont ces points communs qui permettent une compréhension plus profonde des questions relatives au prosélytisme religieux et à la manière dont ces questions sont prises en comptes par les standards en matière de droits humains.
Religious Challenges to Human Rights: Bringing Muslims and Christians into Conversation
Questions about the nature of the human being, his or her moral standing in the world, and what sort of treatment human beings owe to each other have long been integral to diverse traditions of religious thought. Nevertheless, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations in 1948 inspired a flurry of discussion on the part of the world's religious intellectuals and organizations regarding the subject of human rights specifically. In this paper we focus on the Christian and Islamic traditions of religious thought and their reactions over the past several decades, both to the Universal Declaration itself and to human rights thinking generally. Religions remain powerful global influences, with Christians and Muslims comprising over one half of the global population. While it goes almost without saying that there is enormous diversity among adherents and scholars in each of these traditions, some significant portion of their members can, in certain respects, find standard human rights discourse unfamiliar and even hostile. We believe that attention to their critiques is a necessary and useful step in advancing human rights-that is, both the conversation around human rights ideals and the application of human rights in various contexts-globally. We take it that the primary objectives of those who support human rights include the establishment and maintenance of peace and justice across the international community, goals shared by the majority of adherents to religious traditions, though the ways in which diverse groups seek peace and justice may differ. We think these goals will be best promoted when human rights advocates pursue open dialogue with religious believers and understand fully the major points of agreement and critique in their conversations with religious traditions. In this way, human rights advocates and scholars and adherents within religious traditions both can seek intellectual and ethical 'bridges' that can be used to generate more 'authentic' modes of discourse for religious communities in order to achieve positive 'ground--level' results.
Fighting Religious Intolerance and Discrimination: The UN Account
The main United Nations (UN) global policy framework for combating religious intolerance , stigmatisation, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief is set down in UN Human Rights Council resolution 16/18. Adopted in March 2011, this resolution was hailed by stakeholders from all regions as a turning point in international efforts to confront religious intolerance. After more than five decades, UN member states had, it was hoped, at last come together to agree a common, consensus-based approach and practical plan of action. Some four years on, and against the backdrop of heightened religious hostility, UN consensus around the '16/18 framework' continues to be contested. Rather than working together to implement the 16/18 action plan, states have returned to pre-2011 arguments over the nature of the problem. These divisions have re-emerged in large part because of conceptual confusion among policymakers about what implementation of resolution 16/18 means and what it entails. Linked to (and indeed flowing from) this conceptual opacity, states—especially states from the Western Group (WEOG) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—contend over whether resolution 16/18 is being effectively implemented or not and, if not, why this is so. This article offers an assessment of levels of implementation of resolution 16/18 as well as recommendations for strengthened compliance in the future.