[Reader-list] Why freedom of speech must include the right to “defame” religions

[Rana Dasgupta]

Religion and human rights
The meaning of freedom

Apr 2nd 2009

Why freedom of speech must include the right to “defame” religions

 From The Economist print edition

AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the 
UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic 
countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by 
a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the 
resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of 
September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the 
context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, 
Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger 
issues are at stake.

The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to 
human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are 
defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is 
an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you 
compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion 
over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in 
ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the 
practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in 
freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or 
none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by 
any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the 
tenets of any religion.

In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set 
of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible 
systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence 
without infringing the right of individuals.

What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to 
outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the 
vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word 
“defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is 
in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. 
In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic 
Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both 
non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of 
Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of 
persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real 
human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against 
blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries 
should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of 
violence should be outlawed.

Good manners, please; not censorship

In much of the Muslim world, the West’s reaction to the attacks of 
September 2001, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has 
been misread as an attack on Islam itself. This is more than 
regrettable; it is dangerous. Western governments, and decent people 
everywhere, should try to ensure that the things they say do not 
entrench religious prejudice or incite acts of violence; being free to 
give offence does not mean you are wise to give offence. But no state, 
and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should 
trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal 
Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone 
persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the 
protection of free speech than sincere religious believers.

The United States, with its tradition of combining strong religious 
beliefs and religious freedom, is well placed to make that case. Having 
taken a politically risky decision (see article) to re-engage with the 
Human Rights Council and seek election as one of its 47 members, America 
should now make the defence of real religious liberty one of its highest 
priorities.