IN GOD’SNAME
Miklos Haraszti
The growing trend for criminalising criticism of religion is a declaration of
war on freedom of speech, says Miklos Haraszti.
It should no longer be difficult to tackle illegitimate limits to free speech, particularly since so many
dictatorships have now made the transition todemocracy. The required standards are clear enough :
actual instigations toactual crimes must be seen as crimes, but otherwise offensive speech should be
handled by encouraging further dialogue– in the press, through media ethics bodies or in civil courts.
What we see instead, despite some progress internationally in decriminalising violations of honour
and dignity is agrowing, punitive trend that is introducing new speech bans into national criminal
codes.
One of theseà la mode speech crimes is defamation of history –committed in some countries by
questioning a nation’s historical narrativeand in others by defending it. While Turkey prosecutes
writers for using theword genocide to describe the massacre of Armenians in 1915, Switzerland has
prosecuted a Turkish politician for calling the use of the term genocide an ‘international lie’. Yet
defamation of religions is proving to be an evenmore insidious and restrictive pattern worldwide.
On 26 March, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning ‘defamation of
religions’ as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on
free speech. The Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic
states, with a vote of 23 states in favour and 11 against, with 13 abstentions. The resolution
‘Combating Defamation of Religions’ has been passed, revised and passed again every year since
1999, except in 2006, in the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and its predecessor, the UN Human
Rights Commission. It is promoted by the persistent sponsorship of the Organisation of the Islamic
Conference with the acknowledged objective of getting it codified as a crime in as many countries as
possible, or at least promoting it into a universal anathema. Alongside this campaign, there is a global
undercurrent of violence and ready-made self-censorship that has surrounded all secular and artistic
depictions of Islamic subjectssince the Rushdie fatwa.
It is a post-modern, Orwellian spin crusadeagainst
human dignity
This year’s resolution, unlike previous versions, no longer ignores Article 19, the right to free
expression. That crucial human right has now received a mention, albeit in a context which
misleadingly equates defamation of religions with incitement to hatred and violence against religious
people, and on that basis denies it the protection of free speech. It also attempts to bracket criticism
of religion with racism.
On the other hand, the vague parameters of possible defamation cases have now grown to include
the ‘targeting’ of symbols and venerated leadersof religion by the media and the Internet. What we
are witnessing may be an effort at diplomacy, but it is also a declaration of war on twenty-first century
media freedoms by a coalition of latter-day authoritarians.
There is nothing backward looking or historicising in the declaration. It adopts the language of human
rights so that the proposal sounds compatible with the advanced multiculturalism of liberal
democracies. It demands the right to be protected from ’insult’ not only for Islam, but for all religions.
All the signatories have acquiesced : the late-communist and the post-communist governments among
them, along with the post-colonial or predominantly Muslim nations. Yet only very few of the 23,
amongst them South Africa and Indonesia, are democracies equipped with a truly pluralistic media.
The consistently high number of abstentions, includingby nations with free speech guarantees, helps
ensure the proposition isofficially accepted every year.
Because of this contemporary strategy, I reject the often heard claim that the resolution’s backers
represent a culturally defined movement. That claim would only serve to offer another excuse to
patronise the endeavour, and leniently underestimate its impact. In fact, the drive to criminalise
defamation of religions is an entirely post-modern, Orwellian spin crusadeagainst human dignity,
ostensibly in its name.
Year after year, the Human Rights Council (HRC) vote lends a double domestic victory to the
supporting oppressive governments. It cements their control of speech through cultural taboos and
blasphemy laws, and at the same time glorifies and internationally acknowledges them in the
vanguard of promoting tolerance.
Of course, one can understand why many democracies condescendingly abstain from the fight and let
the game of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference prevail. After all, since the Iranian Revolution
and the global debut of al Qaeda, those willing to present the oppressive notion of defamation of
religions in human rights terms are by definition moderates, compared to the jihadists who openly
reject those rights. The HRC manœuvres also help the moderates to counter claims by domestic
radicals that their governments are not true guardians of the faith.
I happen to remember these games from my time in the closed civilisation of the communist one-party
state, where pluralism consisted of factional fights inside the Politburo of the Party. Kremlinologists
also knewthe game, but they must have had more fun watching it than I had. The technique was
called ‘overtaking from the left’, and it meant the recurring scene whereby otherwise pragmatic
leaders of the Party started to emanate hardliner slogans, obviously in order to keep the Stalinists at
bay. It actually never simply meant just tough talk ; it always came with new measures against
free thinkers, such as house searches and indictments, ‘only’ to provide proofs of the leadership’s
fidelity to the cause. This tactic is a distant relative of the ‘taking the wind out of the sails’ policy of
western moderate parties, when they buy into anti-immigration measures in order to preclude a
growing popularity of xenophobic platforms that propose…anti-immigration measures.
The trouble is that ‘taking the wind out of the sails’ may help one stay on board, but never succeeds in
easing the restrictions. Let me tell you how it really works when the stipulations of the Human Rights
Council resolutionare applied.
In Azerbaijan, one of the supporters of the resolution, two journalists were given prison sentences in
2007. Rafiq Tagi, a journalist of the intellectual monthly Senet, and Samir Sadagatoglu, the
newspaper’s editor, were sentenced to three and four years respectively, for alleged ‘incitement to
religious hatred’ in a philosophical essay published in 2006. In fact, the essay compared European
and Islamic values in a somewhat self-critical vein. (The language was ‘them and us’.) Its thesis was
innocent, well-meaning and polite. It was a similar message about a similar subject, ‘reason and faith’,
to Pope Benedict XVI’s famous Regensburg speech thesame year. In my assessment, it was even
milder, as there were no Byzantine quotations ascribing violent proselytism to Mohammed. The
question of violence did not even turn up in the text.
Previously, an Iranian grand ayatollah, Fazel Lankarani, had issued a fatwa calling for the two
journalists to be killed. Domestic religious activists responded by starting an intimidation campaign
against the journalists. Reportedly, they were allowed to shout death threats in the courtroom. The
journalists’ crime was defamation of religion (their own, apparently) and incitement, by the same act,
to religious hatred (against themselves, one must conclude). Yet it was the journalists who sat in the
dock, not thosewho menaced them with violence.
And, most importantly, the Iranian ayatollah who called for their death was never accused of
incitement, neither in Azerbaijan nor in Iran–protected as he was by his status as a defender, rather
than a defamer, of the faith.
Similar abuses could be cited from several non-Muslim countries as well, all of them, by the way,
participating states of the OSCE, and some of them members of the Council of Europe. The
commitments of the former and the standards of the latter would forbid any persecution based on
‘defamation of religions’. But under the justifying umbrella of the HRC resolutions (and exploiting the
lack of resolute opposition to them in Europe) the crisis created around the Danish cartoons was used
to get tough on critically minded outlets and journalists.
In Russia, the Vologda newspaper Nash Region published a collage of the cartoons on 15 February
2006, as part of anarticle on the global controversy. The proprietor decided to close the newspaper
shortly afterwards in order to ease the legal consequences. Prosecutors had immediately opened a
case against the editor, Anna Smirnova, for ‘incitingreligious hatred’. In April 2006, she was fined
100,000 roubles (approximately US $3,000) and given a two-year suspended sentence. Happily, a
month later, the Vologda Oblast Court overturned the decision on appeal. It was clear no happy
ending would have been possible had the paper still existed.
Exactly the same scenario was played out in Volgograd : the publisher of Gorodskie Vesti decided to
close the newspaper after charges for defamation and incitement were brought by the regional branch
of the country’s ruling party, United Russia. Criminal proceedings were subsequently dropped. The
trigger for the prosecution was a sweet, truly peace-preaching caricature of the four venerated
personalities Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha. In the cartoon, the religious leaders are
watching television and concerned to see demonstrators from different religions hurling insults at each
other. ‘This is not what we have taught you to do,’ one of the prophets is saying.
In Belarus, Alexander Zdvizhkov, editor of the Zhoda opposition newspaper, was sentenced to three
years in prison on 18 January 2008 for incitement of religious hatred. His newspaper was shut down
in March 2006 for merely planning to publish the cartoons, and remains closed today. Zdvizhkov went
into hiding abroad, was then arrested upon return, and finally released after the Supreme Court
reduced his sentence from three years to three months, the term he had already served.
I do not see any moral difference between
orderingthe killing of reporters andissuing fatwas
against writers
But these were only opportunistic blitzes. Since the cartoons crisis, another new punitive fashion has
emerged, also inspired by the HRC resolutions : the extremism package. In Russia (which came up
with the idea), Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Tajikistan, legislators have bundled the
defamation of religions provisions with otherwise legitimate incitement laws, adding also the ban of
‘offensive criticism’ (yes, defamation) of government bodies or officials. This cocktail of legislation is
presented as a heightened form of combating a never precisely defined attitude–extremism.
There is an echo here of the West’s promotion of terrorism provisions, which is helpful in defusing
possible criticism. But while western legislation was criticised domestically as being possibly
conducive to illegitimate prosecution of political thought, the eastern extremism packages areactually
created for that purpose. And they are used, too, especially inretaliation for unwanted coverage of the
human rights situation in theNorthern Caucasus.
At the time of writing, Slovakia is planning to introduce its own ‘extremism’ package, ostensibly to fight
radicalism. Ireland– while otherwise decriminalising libel – is about to introduce a new crime,
‘blasphemous libel’, described as an act of compliance with a constitutional tenet dating from the
1930s. Is it far-fetched to see here an implicit, perhaps even unconscious, influence of the HRC
campaign ?
When I referred earlier to the surrounding threat of violence, I meant the disturbing, but untold,
connection between the recurring legal drive at the UN Human Rights Council and the fatwas,
murders and violent demonstrations against secular or critical depictions of Islamic issues. The
grievances expressed by the fatwa authors and the HRC diplomats are in fact indistinguishable. What
is missing here is the realisation that combating defamation of religions is not just harmful : it is the
wrong fight, the wrong criminalisation.
I do not see any moral difference between ordering a contracted killingof investigative reporters like
Anna Politkovskaya and issuing fatwas that call for murdering writers or journalists. Both punish
writers for doing their job. And, by the way, the fatwas also offer financial rewards, just like the
zakazchiki in Russia.
In Pakistan, the main country sponsor of this year’s HRC resolution, Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi,
prayer leader at the historic Mohabat Khan mosque in Peshawar, announced in 2006 that the mosque
and his religious school would give US$25,000 and a car, while a local jewellers association offered
another US$1m, for the murder of any Danish cartoonist. In India, Uttar Pradesh Minister for Haj and
Minority Welfare Haji Yaqoob Qureishi placed a 510m Indian rupee (US$11m) bounty on the head of
a cartoonist, plus the murderer’s weight in gold. I am listing here examples only from inside
democracies that signed the HRC resolutions or abstained.
At this point, the resolution is no longer an exercise at taking the wind out of the sails of the radicals. It
is turning out to be a cover-up for the murderous instigators of religious tension and reactionary
self-censorship.
I find it a scandal that authors of edicts calling for the murder of writers or journalists can still continue
to be respected and do not have to face the consequences of their hateful acts, while many journalists
have to live anonymously under police protection. So far, none of the names of the instigators of
these fatwas has appeared on wanted lists, not even in the countries which, I am sure, would
extradite the masterminds of Politkovskaya’s murder, if found. That is the HRC resolution’s longest
shadow.
Caution is somewhat understandable in a country such as tiny Denmark, stricken by calls for a
commercial boycott, or in any single nation. But what about the European Union ? Has it not been
designed to be stronger than its components ? What about Interpol and other international law
enforcement agencies ? Since when have they dropped soliciting murder from their list of crimes ?
What about at least a travel ban against the well-known zakazchiki of religious hate crimes ?
The Human Rights Council must be told : if incitement to religious hatred is what you are concerned
about, call immediately for the punishment of those who issue fatwas inciting violence. There can be
no stronger protection against defamation of Islam or any faith. Promote tolerance by relieving the
fear factor from the minds of the world’s editors.
©Miklos Haraszti . Miklos Haraszti is a Hungarian writer, journalist and academic. He was appointed OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in 2004. His
books include The Velvet Prison (IB Tauris). He took part in a joint statement last December with fellow freedom of expression rapporteurs from
the United Nations, the Organisation of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), calling for
international organisations to abstain from adopting statements supporting criminalisation of ‘defamation of religions’
* From : http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2...
Global free speech rapporteurs concerned about ’defamation of religion’ and ’anti-extremism’ laws
Press release
GENEVA/PRETORIA/VIENNA/WASHINGTON DC, 15 December 2008 - The freedom of expression rapporteurs of the United Nations, the OSCE, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) released a joint declaration today on defamation of religions, and anti-terrorism and anti-extremism legislation.
After meting on 9 December in Athens, the four media freedom ’watchdogs’ adopted their annual international mechanism for promoting freedom of expression. Toby Mendel, Senior Director for Law at ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, co-ordinated the drafting process.
« The four global mandates’ annual joint declarations for promoting freedom of expression are an excellent example of international co-operation in the field of human rights advocacy, » said Miklos Haraszti, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. « Just like the OSCE media freedom commitments, these documents are directed at updating international mechanisms on freedom of opinion, expression and the media. »
This year’s document coincides with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and covers the dangers to freedom of speech inherent in national legislation regulating the fight against ’defamation of religions’ and ’blasphemy’ laws, as well as against ’extremism’ or other terrorism-related speech offences.
The signatories agreed that the concept of ’defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards accepted by pluralistic and free societies. They said that international organizations should abstain from adopting statements supporting criminalization of ’defamation of religions’.
They also stressed that restrictions on freedom of expression should never be used to protect institutions, abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones, and that such restrictions should be limited in scope to advocacy of hatred.
The four freedom of expression rapporteurs also advised that the definition of terrorism should be restricted to violent crimes which inflict terror on the public, and that vague notions such as ’providing communications support’ or ’promoting’ extremism or terrorism should not be criminalized unless they constitute incitement. They said that the role of the media should be respected in anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation.
While the vast majority of OSCE participating States have anti-terrorism laws, some of them extend to regulation of public speech. Six participating States - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia and Tajikistan - have adopted anti-extremism laws since 2002.
« This year’s joint declaration may be of important assistance to the authorities of Belarus and Russia which have used their anti-extremism legislation to punish independent journalists and dissenters, » said Haraszti.
Along with Miklos Haraszti, the signatories of the joint declaration are Frank LaRue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Catalina Botero, OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and Faith Pansy Tlakula, ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information.
From : http://www.osce.org/fom/item_1_35706.html
See below the full text of the declaration.
JOINT DECLARATION ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS, AND ANTI-TERRORISM AND ANTI-EXTREMISM LEGISLATION
International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on
Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the ACHPR
(African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
and Access to Information,
Having met in Athens on 9 December 2008, under the auspices of ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free
Expression ;
Recalling and reaffirming our Joint Declarations of 26 November 1999, 30 November 2000, 20 November
2001, 10 December 2002, 18 December 2003, 6 December 2004, 21 December 2005, 19 December 2006 and
12 December 2007 ;
Recognising the importance to democracy, as well as to holding social institutions accountable, of open
debate about all ideas and social phenomena in society and the right of all to be able to manifest their culture,
religion and beliefs in practice ;
Emphasising that there is an important difference between criticism of a religion, belief or school of thought
and attacks on individuals because of their adherence to that religion or belief ;
Noting that success in promoting equality in society is integrally linked to respect for freedom of expression,
including the right of different communities to have access to the media both to articulate their views and
perspectives, and to satisfy their information needs ;
Aware of the fact that negative social stereotyping leads to discrimination and limits the ability of those
subject to it to be heard and to participate in public debate ;
Stressing that the primary means to address underlying social problems of prejudice is through open dialogue
that exposes the harm prejudice causes and that combats negative stereotypes, although at the same time it is
appropriate to prohibit incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence ;
Welcoming the fact that a growing number of countries have abolished limitations on freedom of expression
to protect religion (blasphemy laws) and noting that such laws are often used to prevent legitimate criticism
of powerful religious leaders and to suppress the views of religious minorities, dissenting believers and non-
believers, and are applied in a discriminatory fashion ;
Concerned about the resolutions on “defamation of religions” adopted by the UN Commission on Human
Rights and its successor, the Human Rights Council, since 1999, and the UN General Assembly since 2005
(see General Assembly Res. 60/150, 61/164, 62/154 ; Commission on Human Rights Res. 1999/82, 2000/84,
2001/4, 2002/9, 2003/4, 2004/6, 2005/3 ; Human Rights Council Res. 4/9, 7/19) ;
Concerned also about the proliferation of anti-terrorism and anti-extremism laws in the 21st Century, in
particular following the atrocious attacks of September 2001, which unduly restrict freedom of expression
and access to information ;
Cognisant of the important contribution of respect for freedom of expression to combating terrorism, and of
the need to find effective ways to counter terrorism which do not undermine democracy and human rights,
the preservation of which is a key reason to fight terrorism in the first place ;
Aware of the abuse of anti-terrorism and extremism legislation to suppress political and critical speech which
has nothing to do with terrorism or security ;
Stressing the importance of the role of the media in informing the public about all matters of public concern,
including those relating to terrorism and efforts to combat it, as well as the right of the public to be informed
about such matters ;
Adopt, on 10 December 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
following Declaration on Defamation of Religions, and Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Extremism Legislation :
Defamation of Religions
– The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding
defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs,
cannot be said to have a reputation of their own.
– Restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding
individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular institutions, or
abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones.
– Restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent intolerance should be limited in scope to advocacy
of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence.
– International organisations, including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights
Council, should desist from the further adoption of statements supporting the idea of ‘defamation of
religions’.
Anti-Terrorism Legislation
– The definition of terrorism, at least as it applies in the context of restrictions on freedom of
expression, should be restricted to violent crimes that are designed to advance an ideological,
religious, political or organised criminal cause and to influence public authorities by inflicting terror
on the public.
– The criminalisation of speech relating to terrorism should be restricted to instances of intentional
incitement to terrorism, understood as a direct call to engage in terrorism which is directly
responsible for increasing the likelihood of a terrorist act occurring, or to actual participation in
terrorist acts (for example by directing them). Vague notions such as providing communications
support to terrorism or extremism, the ‘glorification’ or ‘promotion’ of terrorism or extremism, and
the mere repetition of statements by terrorists, which does not itself constitute incitement, should not
be criminalised.
– The role of the media as a key vehicle for realising freedom of expression and for informing the
public should be respected in anti-terrorism and anti-extremism laws. The public has a right to know
about the perpetration of acts of terrorism, or attempts thereat, and the media should not be penalised
for providing such information.
– Normal rules on the protection of confidentiality of journalists’ sources of information – including
that this should be overridden only by court order on the basis that access to the source is necessary
to protect an overriding public interest or private right that cannot be protected by other means –
should apply in the context of anti-terrorist actions as at other times.
Frank LaRue
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression
Miklos Haraszti
OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
Catalina Botero
OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Faith Pansy Tlakula
ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information
* From : http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2008/12/35705_en.pdf