Ideological Viewpoints

In addition to disclosing the geopolitical struggle, the voting pattern on the Defamation Resolution is also ideological, which discloses conflicting views on free speech and criticisms of religious practices.

The Resolution does not define defamation. Traditionally, defamation applies to reputational injury to individuals. Group defamation is a problematic concept as it can stifle free speech and furnish undeserved protection to decadent customs and practices. The defamation of religions falls even beyond the concept of group defamation, since it may even prohibit the defamation of religious ideas and doctrines.

In the absence of a legally sustainable definition of defamation of religions, the Defamation Resolution will be taken in the West as an infringement upon free speech, a fundamental civil and political right deeply embedded in numerou human rights treaties and national constitutions. The United States Constitution tolerates very few constraints on the freedom of press, political speech, and academic freedom. The advocates of free speech will therefore have little use for a resolution that urges states to use the coercive power of law to prevent defamation of religions. In secular legal systems, the protection of religious sensibilities at the cost of sacrificing artistic liberty and political rhetoric is considered a bad bargain.

Furthermore, some critics argue that the Defamation Resolution fails to distinguish between the dignity of religion, which must be protected, and valid criticisms of certain religious practices. The right to adopt a religion without coercion is a fundamental human right recognized in numerous human rights treaties.9 Muslim countries do not actively proselytize but they welcome non-Muslims to embrace Islam. However, some Muslim countries impose harsh punishments, including death penalty, if a Muslim converts to another religion.

Many critics see these practices as a double standard. The International Humanist and Ethical Union, a non-governmental organization, while expressing its views before the UN Commission on Human Rights, was accused of attacking Islam when it “raised the issue of the treatment of those accused of apostasy in some Islamic countries.”10

The idea of combating the defamation of religions, though morally sound, is difficult from a legislative viewpoint and will pose serious drafting challenges. The idea, however, poses no greater problems than prohibiting hate speech against racial, ethnic, or religious groups---a law adopted in almost all countries of the world except the United States. 11 One key function of law is to make distinctions and draw balance between competing rights. In the complex realm of human affairs, no right is absolute, not even free speech or the dignity of religion. Accordingly, the law against defamation of religions may be constructed in a way that does not abridge legitimate speech including artistic freedom and yet protects the dignity of religion.

Conclusion

An overly broad interpretation of defamation would allow states to own a religion and persecute even their own citizens who challenge any aspect of this ownership. Valid criticisms of religious practices must not constitute actionable defamation. However, all nations must devote intellectual and moral resources to teach children and adults respect for the diversity of religions. A legal system in which religions are respected rather than trashed will not be a blemish on human civilization.

1 UN General Assembly Res. A/RES/61/164 (December, 2006).
2 UN General Assembly Res. A/RES/60/150 (December, 2005).
3 Ali Khan, The Essentialist Terrorist, 45 Washburn Law Journal 47 (2005); also available at http://works.bepress.com/abu_kashif/11
4 Zachary A. Goldfarb, Va. Lawmaker’s Remarks on Muslims Criticized, The Washington Post, A11 (December 21, 2006).
5 Jon Cohen, Poll: Americans Skeptical of Islam and Arabs, ABC News (March 8, 2006).
6 Karen Armstrong, We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam, The Guardian (September 18, 2006).
7 There are 113 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement. The NAM is not an inter-governmental organization and lacks a formal constitution and organizational structure. The NAM heads of states meet every three years to coordinate action at the world stage. The NAM was brought into existence in 1961 to prevent member states from engaging in the cold war rivalries of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The NAM has continued its mission even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The mission of the organization is to resist the domination of the West. See www.nam.gov.za
8 GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 46 THIRD COMMITTEE TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES, REFUGEES, SELF-DETERMINATION, RACISM, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, A/61/PV.81 (19 December 2006) GA/10562
9 See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 18.
10 Statement of Roy Brown, available online at www.iheu.org/node/1303 (2004)
11 Michael J. Polelle, Proposed Model Statute on Group Defamation, 110 Penn State Law Review 717 (2006).

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Comments (2)

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4