In order to evaluate UN resolution 16/18 some context is important.
For over a decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has been pushing the UN to create blasphemy resolutions. You might ask yourself why they're so focused on this goal?
In practice what we see in the world is an asymmetric situation in which:
1 - OIC countries are systematically "cleansing" their countries of other religions. I understand that "cleansing" is a charged and often understood term. "Cleansing" does not mean bloodshed. A "cleansing" initiative often does involve violence, but it doesn't have to. So in practice, OIC countries are systematically INTOLERANT of other religions.
2 - At the same time, the OIC complains endlessly of intolerance towards Islam in "the West", and in other regions experiencing significant Muslim immigration.
== Who will brandish a blasphemy law?
It's fair to ask, "If blasphemy resolutions are passed, who is likely to use them effectively?".
For decades, the countries represented by the OIC have fought against the UN's original human rights declaration, which was first adopted in 1948. In 1990, the OIC established the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam". This document clearly puts the needs of Islam before individual human rights.
In a nutshell, any UN resolution that ratifies the very idea of blasphemy is a club that will be used by Islam against the non-Islamic world, and it will not be used in the opposite direction.
== Who judges speech for "blasphemy" ?
Quite famously in 2006, a handful of Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad sparked riots, violence and deaths across the world. (As a bit of history, initially these cartoons were published and largely went unnoticed. Months later Islamists found and re-surfaced these cartoons to stir controversy. In addition, a group of Muslim authorities petitioned the Danish Prime Minister to censor these cartoons. They were - in effect - asking another country to attack "blasphemy".)
Several decades ago Salman Rushdie published a novel critical of Islam. The head of Iran issued a fatwa putting a price on the author's head, again blasphemy.
So who will judge whether a given bit of speech or expression is blasphemous?
Who will judge whether a cartoon might "incite violence"?
== UN 16/18 chips away at freedom of expression
I claim (and I'm not alone), that UN resolution 16/18 was a victory for the OIC and represents a threat to freedom of expression. Taking the previous context in mind, here are a few passages from the resolution:
Paragraph 5(f) paves the way to criminalizing speech that some "authority" deems to be blasphemous.
Without the historic context, this resolution reads as if it's "reasonable". But with the context I've laid out, it's more reasonable to extrapolate that the OIC can and will use this resolution to limit criticism of Islam and to attempt to impinge on free of expression.
Freedom of expression is a linchpin of human rights, modernity and secularism. We must not allow even the slightest of erosions to our hard fought freedoms of expression.
For over a decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has been pushing the UN to create blasphemy resolutions. You might ask yourself why they're so focused on this goal?
In practice what we see in the world is an asymmetric situation in which:
1 - OIC countries are systematically "cleansing" their countries of other religions. I understand that "cleansing" is a charged and often understood term. "Cleansing" does not mean bloodshed. A "cleansing" initiative often does involve violence, but it doesn't have to. So in practice, OIC countries are systematically INTOLERANT of other religions.
2 - At the same time, the OIC complains endlessly of intolerance towards Islam in "the West", and in other regions experiencing significant Muslim immigration.
== Who will brandish a blasphemy law?
It's fair to ask, "If blasphemy resolutions are passed, who is likely to use them effectively?".
For decades, the countries represented by the OIC have fought against the UN's original human rights declaration, which was first adopted in 1948. In 1990, the OIC established the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam". This document clearly puts the needs of Islam before individual human rights.
In a nutshell, any UN resolution that ratifies the very idea of blasphemy is a club that will be used by Islam against the non-Islamic world, and it will not be used in the opposite direction.
== Who judges speech for "blasphemy" ?
Quite famously in 2006, a handful of Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad sparked riots, violence and deaths across the world. (As a bit of history, initially these cartoons were published and largely went unnoticed. Months later Islamists found and re-surfaced these cartoons to stir controversy. In addition, a group of Muslim authorities petitioned the Danish Prime Minister to censor these cartoons. They were - in effect - asking another country to attack "blasphemy".)
Several decades ago Salman Rushdie published a novel critical of Islam. The head of Iran issued a fatwa putting a price on the author's head, again blasphemy.
So who will judge whether a given bit of speech or expression is blasphemous?
Who will judge whether a cartoon might "incite violence"?
== UN 16/18 chips away at freedom of expression
I claim (and I'm not alone), that UN resolution 16/18 was a victory for the OIC and represents a threat to freedom of expression. Taking the previous context in mind, here are a few passages from the resolution:
Paragraph 5(f) paves the way to criminalizing speech that some "authority" deems to be blasphemous.
Without the historic context, this resolution reads as if it's "reasonable". But with the context I've laid out, it's more reasonable to extrapolate that the OIC can and will use this resolution to limit criticism of Islam and to attempt to impinge on free of expression.
Freedom of expression is a linchpin of human rights, modernity and secularism. We must not allow even the slightest of erosions to our hard fought freedoms of expression.
