As predictable as the sun rising in the east, the United Nations
has voted to assault religious liberty. Islam, however, is to be
protected from criticism since Muslims are said to be under vicious
attack in the West.
The offending resolution, which denounces the “defamation of
religions,” had its genesis in the UN Human Rights Council, created
in 2006 to replace the long-discredited Commission on Human Rights.
The inmates again have taken over the asylum as human rights
violators joined the panel to insulate themselves from criticism.
The only country certain to be denounced is Israel.
Unfortunately, the Council is now busy distorting the concept of
religious liberty. Religious persecution is distressingly common
around the globe. The perpetrators are obvious: while persecuting
states vary greatly in their practices, most are either Communist
or Islamic.
There are a few outliers — Hindu India and Buddhist Burma, for
instance. But most Communist states — think China, Cuba, North
Korea, Laos, Vietnam — oppress believers. Similarly, most Muslim
states, from Saudi Arabia to Iran to Pakistan to Indonesia,
persecute or allow private persecution.
The Communist states generally use artful diplomacy to deflect
criticism. For instance, in 2007 the Council voted to drop its
special Rapporteur for Cuba, as if Fidel Castro had suddenly
converted to the cause of liberal democracy. (Not to worry, though:
the Council remained on the case regarding Israel, approving
numerous condemnatory resolutions and making that nation a
permanent agenda item.)
THE MUSLIM STATES have taken a more aggressive position, reflecting
the maxim that the best defense is a good offense. So Pakistan,
where religious minorities face legal discrimination and private
violence, led the battle against the “defamation” of religion.
The underlying philosophy is simple: people do not have a right
to practice their chosen faith. Only Islam is valid. Thus
Christians, Baha’i, Jews, Hindus, and others deserve whatever
treatment they receive in Islamic societies. For apostates the
penalty usually is death. Blasphemers risk lengthy prison terms.
Evangelism often is a criminal offense.
Even if the state extends minimal toleration, minority believers
should expect no protection from beatings, bombings, and murders
meted out by devout Muslims.
Not every Islamic nation is inhospitable. Several of the Gulf
sheikdoms, such as Kuwait, are generally tolerant. So is Turkey,
despite occasional violent attacks. The situation in Indonesia is
mixed, but not as bad as in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, while many
“Christian” states in the West avoid acknowledging their religious
heritage, most Muslim societies violently suppress other
faiths.
The Islamic states which lobbied so vigorously on behalf of the
resolution obviously did not mean to criticize persecution of
Christians, especially by their own governments. Rather, the
measure indulged in guilt-mongering over nonexistent Western crimes
against Islam.
There have been isolated assaults on Muslims in the West as well
as larger-scale reciprocal violence on occasion in Nigeria and
Indonesia, but even in the latter cases Muslims played the dominant
role. There has been no significant discrimination, and especially
persecution, against Muslims in a Western state for decades if not
centuries.
Thus, the real purpose of the UN defamation resolution (as well
as the introduction of religious intolerance in UN discussions and
forums involving xenophobia and racism) is to insulate Islam from
criticism.
Most nations already have laws against violence, fraud, and
defamation, but they apply to individuals, not religions. Muslim
activists want more.
The resolution technically covers all faiths and is filled with
the usual boilerplate about “mutual respect and understanding.” The
measure also criticizes “instances of intolerance, discrimination
and acts of violence based on religion or belief” as well as
“physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and
places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of
religious symbols.”
In fact, the UN measure mentioned only Islam by name: “Alarmed
at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September
2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim
countries, the negative projection of Islam in the media and the
introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate
against and target Muslims.”
Moreover, resolution supporters proclaimed themselves not just
alarmed, but “Deeply alarmed at the rising trends towards
discrimination based on religion and faith, including in some
national policies and laws that stigmatize groups of people
belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of
pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration, and noting
that the increased intellectual and media discourse is among the
factors exacerbating such discrimination.”
Finally, the resolution expresses “deep concern that Islam is
frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and
terrorism” and over “the intensification of the campaign of
defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of
Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11
September 2001.”
Undoubtedly, some Muslims in some nations have been treated
unfairly. However, the idea that Islam is under siege and Muslims
are being victimized is nonsense.
PERSECUTION RUNS almost entirely in the other direction.
Congressional staffer Tina Ramirez pointed out when the resolution
was before the Council that In Egypt, “Muslim bloggers are
sentenced to prison for criticizing the actions of adherents of
their own faith and Baha’i have been declared by the Supreme Court
as non-Muslims and as such are discriminated against.”
She had more:
*”In Saudi Arabia and Palestine, textbooks teach religious
intolerance towards the Jews and Christians.”
*”In Iraq, the ancient Mandaean and Chaldo-Assyrian communities
have fled due to specifically being targeted for their religious
beliefs.”
*”In India, several states have passed anti-conversion laws that
threaten religious freedom and allowed violence to be carried out
against the Muslim and Dalit communities.”
*”In Sudan, individuals practicing indigenous beliefs were
enslaved and forced to convert to Islam.”
Indeed, the offenses against Muslims pale compared to the role
that Islamists have played in committing terrorism against the
U.S., Israel, and other states. Mistreatment of Muslims is
infinitesimal compared to the abuse of Christians before, during,
and after September 11 across the Islamic world.
Irrespective of the resolution’s claims, Islam is intimately
associated with “human rights violations and terrorism,” even
though there are other factors at play as well.
The real target of the resolution is anyone, especially
journalists, who criticizes a certain religion. In practice, the
resolution means: “Thou shalt not speak ill of Islam.”
Pakistan led the campaign on behalf of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference [OIC], which routinely denounces “Islamophobia.”
Indeed, Pakistan first introduced the issue in 1999 in a resolution
entitled “Defamation of Islam.”
In 2006 the OIC sought to enlist the Human Rights Council in
suppressing “actions against religions, prophets and beliefs” and
declaring that “defamation of religions and prophets is
inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression.”
Pakistani UN Ambassador Masood Khan complained that Islamophobia
“is an alarming and growing phenomenon in several countries,
threatening social harmony and integration in their societies.”
Supporters of the resolution cited negative depictions of Islam
and Muslims. For instance, Egypt, which jails moderate Muslims and
tolerates violence against Coptic Christians, cited “offensive
publication of portraits of the Prophet Mohamed” which “highlighted
the damage that freedom of speech if left unchecked may lead to,
not only hurting the religious feelings of more than a billion
people, but also their freedom of religion and their right for
respect of their religion.”
Thus, the resolution deplores “the use of the print,
audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any
other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related
intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion,
as well as targeting of religious symbols.”
The measure stresses “the need to effectively combat defamation
of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular.”
THE RESOLUTION allows that “everyone has the right to freedom of
expression,” but warns that that freedom “should be exercised with
responsibility and may therefore” — you knew this was coming —
“be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for
respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of
national security or of public order, public health or morals and
respect for religions and beliefs.”
Of course, Muslim nations, which generally range from
authoritarian to totalitarian, have a lot of experience in limiting
freedom of expression on any number of pretexts.
The resolution goes on to urge states to “prohibit the
dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at
any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence.”
Who could be in favor of such materials? Alas, as President Bill
Clinton taught us, everything depends on what is is. To
fundamentalist Muslims, factual criticism of their faith and the
prophet is incitement to violence — just ask those Christians
beaten and murdered by Muslim mobs after publication of the Danish
anti-Mohamed cartoons.
The UN also instructed governments to provide adequate legal and
constitutional “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination,
intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions,
to take all possible measure to promote tolerance and respect for
all religions and their value systems.”
This from governments which persecute and tolerate persecution
of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Baha’is, and others within their own
nations. Indeed, what Islamic state does not, by definition, defame
other faiths — claiming that Jesus is not the son of God, for
instance, could be construed as grievous insult against all
Christians.
That the UN is controlled by irresponsible, despotic Third World
states comes as no surprise. Newly worrisome is the growing
influence of Muslim nations, which have come to dominate the Asian
and African regional groups.
To listen to the OIC, one would think the West is rife with
religious discrimination and persecution, as raging Christian mobs
bomb mosques, loot Muslim businesses, and assault faithful Muslims.
Thus, only the UN can protect Muslims at risk in Western lands.
In reality, of course, Muslims are largely protected in
Christian and secular lands. Discrimination, though unfortunate, is
limited; Islamic pressure groups lobby and litigate in response to
the barest threat.
In contrast, in most Muslim countries religious minorities are
not just defamed, but brutalized, as persecution ranges from modest
to severe.
But reality does not matter to the United Nations, which has
affirmed the OIC’s alternative universe. The Islamic nations
sacrifice individual liberties to enforce the supremacy of Islam.
They expect Western nations to follow suit.
