“Defaming Islam” could soon be violation of international law
"Canada’s Maclean’s magazine (involved in another controversial human rights case that I wrote about here and here) has published an extensive article detailing the “remarkably successful” campaign to make “defamation of religions” a violation of international law. (H/t: Volokh Conspiracy)
Led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a Saudi-funded international body made up of 56 Islamic states from around the globe, the push seeks to empower all governments to punish citizens who “defame” any religion — particularly Islam. What’s more:
Critics say it is an attempt to globalize laws against blasphemy that exist in some Muslim countries — and that the movement has already succeeded in suppressing open discussion in international forums of issues such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and gay rights.
The article also describes the tactics used to “create” this new international norm, which center around Islamic nations bringing resolutions condemning the “defamation of religions” before the UN Human Rights Council. These resolutions have been passed by landslide votes every single year for nearly 10 years.
It all sounds very well-meaning, of course. But as Maclean’s notes, the UN already has established laws protecting individuals from religious discrimination. This is a much broader effort.
This new definition of “defamation of religion” is radically different from what “defamation” has traditionally meant. While defamation laws used to protect individuals who were “materially harmed” by false statements, “defamation of religion” is
"…rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of the followers. While a traditional defence in a defamation lawsuit is that the accused was merely telling the truth, religions by definition present competing claims on the truth, and one person’s religious truth is easily another’s apostasy. “Truth” is no defence in such cases. The subjective perception of insult is what matters…"
As the article goes on to note, laws against “defamation of religions” seek to protect from “damages” not individuals who hold certain beliefs or ideas, but the ideas themselves. There could hardly be a notion more starkly antithetical to the foundations of freedom of speech and liberal democratic societies....."
Please read the full article - www.stltoday.com/blogzone/...ional-law/
Enjoy the comments too - this comment seemed to sum it up nicely:
"What does defaming means? Do I defame islam when I cite quran, sira and the sahih hadiths, arguing that islam is a bloody awful and murderous religion?"
-- Alf Janszoon
"Canada’s Maclean’s magazine (involved in another controversial human rights case that I wrote about here and here) has published an extensive article detailing the “remarkably successful” campaign to make “defamation of religions” a violation of international law. (H/t: Volokh Conspiracy)
Led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a Saudi-funded international body made up of 56 Islamic states from around the globe, the push seeks to empower all governments to punish citizens who “defame” any religion — particularly Islam. What’s more:
Critics say it is an attempt to globalize laws against blasphemy that exist in some Muslim countries — and that the movement has already succeeded in suppressing open discussion in international forums of issues such as female genital mutilation, honour killings and gay rights.
The article also describes the tactics used to “create” this new international norm, which center around Islamic nations bringing resolutions condemning the “defamation of religions” before the UN Human Rights Council. These resolutions have been passed by landslide votes every single year for nearly 10 years.
It all sounds very well-meaning, of course. But as Maclean’s notes, the UN already has established laws protecting individuals from religious discrimination. This is a much broader effort.
This new definition of “defamation of religion” is radically different from what “defamation” has traditionally meant. While defamation laws used to protect individuals who were “materially harmed” by false statements, “defamation of religion” is
"…rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of the followers. While a traditional defence in a defamation lawsuit is that the accused was merely telling the truth, religions by definition present competing claims on the truth, and one person’s religious truth is easily another’s apostasy. “Truth” is no defence in such cases. The subjective perception of insult is what matters…"
As the article goes on to note, laws against “defamation of religions” seek to protect from “damages” not individuals who hold certain beliefs or ideas, but the ideas themselves. There could hardly be a notion more starkly antithetical to the foundations of freedom of speech and liberal democratic societies....."
Please read the full article - www.stltoday.com/blogzone/...ional-law/
Enjoy the comments too - this comment seemed to sum it up nicely:
"What does defaming means? Do I defame islam when I cite quran, sira and the sahih hadiths, arguing that islam is a bloody awful and murderous religion?"
-- Alf Janszoon
posted by:
|
