Hate Speech Laws and Blasphemy Laws: Parallels Show Problems With the U.n. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech

• Citation: Vol. 35 No. 2
• Publication year: 2021

Hate Speech Laws and Blasphemy Laws: Parallels Show Problems with the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech

Meghan Fischer

HATE SPEECH LAWS AND BLASPHEMY LAWS: PARALLELS SHOW PROBLEMS WITH THE U.N. STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH

Meghan Fischer^*

Abstract

In May 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General introduced the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, an influential campaign that poses serious risks to religious and political minorities because its definition of hate speech parallels elements common to blasphemy laws. U.N. human rights entities have denounced blasphemy laws because they are vague, broad, and prone to arbitrary enforcement, enabling the authorities to use them to attack religious minorities, political opponents, and people who have minority viewpoints. Likewise, the Strategy and Plan of Action's definition of hate speech is ambiguous and relies entirely on subjective interpretation, opening the door to arbitrary and malicious accusations and prosecutions.

The campaign gives cover to countries that want to continue their blasphemy laws—under the guise of banning hate speech—with the endorsement of the United Nations. Indeed, examples of enforcement of hate speech laws in Indonesia, Russia, North Macedonia, and Denmark reveal that countries use these laws, just as they use blasphemy laws, to punish the expression of minority viewpoints.

This Article is the first to highlight the dangers posed to religious and political minorities by the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, which will only become more influential within the United Nations and across U.N. Member States the longer it is left unchecked. This Article shows human rights advocates and Member States that support minority rights why they must immediately denounce and call for the revocation of the campaign.

[Page 178]

Introduction

In May 2019, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced a U.N.-wide campaign called the Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech.¹ The Strategy and Plan of Action is significant because it presented the first-ever definition of hate speech at the international or U.N. level—one that is vague and overbroad and opens the door wide to abuse, just as blasphemy laws have done. Blasphemy laws are widely condemned at the United Nations and by the international human rights community because they ban criticism of religions, require subjective interpretation, and are prone to arbitrary enforcement.² These laws are used to punish religious minorities and anyone who questions or disagrees with the state-sponsored or majority religion, as well as to suppress political opposition and to silence those who hold minority views.³

The definition of hate speech in the Strategy and Plan of Action is vague, subjective, and vulnerable to manipulation in ways that parallel blasphemy laws. Indeed, hate speech laws are already being used to prosecute blasphemy and quash minority viewpoints.⁴ Further, some countries that have welcomed and encouraged the U.N.'s campaign to combat hate speech have made obvious their motivations to use hate speech laws similarly to protect religion and religious feelings.⁵ In the midst of the proliferation around the world of laws targeting hate speech, the Strategy and Plan of Action is likely to draw serious attention and impact the development of laws and policies on expression, especially in countries that look to the United Nations for guidance and funding or that use U.N. pronouncements as justification for their actions.

This Article serves as a call to U.N. Member States and others who care about the rights of minorities to oppose the Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, as well as to recognize that laws regulating speech require subjective interpretation and are therefore able to be used to target religious minorities, political opponents, and people who have minority viewpoints. The Article examines the application of blasphemy laws in three countries, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Russia, to illustrate how they restrict criticism of religion and are

[Page 179]

targeted at people with unpopular or minority viewpoints. To elaborate on these problems, the Article next presents U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (UScIRF) and U.N. human rights entities' criticism of blasphemy laws, including their ambiguous elements and their arbitrary enforcement. It then introduces the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech and evaluates its definition of hate speech, which has striking parallels to blasphemy laws due to its vague terms and vulnerability to abuse by biased authorities. The Article then shows that while U.N. human rights entities have criticized vague and subjective elements in restrictions on speech, their criticism is insufficient as they fail to understand that these restrictions by their very nature are open to abuse, in ways that parallel blasphemy laws. Examples of enforcement of hate speech laws in Indonesia, Russia, North Macedonia, and Denmark confirm that these laws are being used to punish the expression of minority viewpoints and to harm political opponents, in the same ways blasphemy laws are used. Finally, the Article evaluates the motives of those supporters of the Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech who are seeking tools comparable in outcome to blasphemy laws, that is, additional legislative means to squash minority viewpoints. Altogether, the U.N. Strategy and Plan of Action's definition of hate speech, the detailed hate speech cases, and the nefarious motives of certain proponents of the Strategy and Plan of Action demonstrate that hate speech laws are vulnerable to manipulation and are unlikely to protect religious, political, and other minorities. Therefore, the Article concludes that the Strategy and Plan of Action's stated intent to protect minorities is misguided and in fact will lead to further harm.

I. Blasphemy Laws and Their Condemnation By the United Nations

Blasphemy is commonly understood as insulting a religion, religious figure, deity, or holy book. In 2017, USCIRF surveyed the world's blasphemy laws, which it defined as "provisions that sanction insulting or defaming religion and seek to punish individuals for allegedly offending, insulting, or denigrating religious doctrines, deities, symbols or 'the sacred,' or for wounding or insulting religious feelings."⁶

The USCIRF survey found that as of July 2017, sixty-nine countries had blasphemy laws, spread throughout the world, with 25.7% in the Middle East and North Africa, 25.7% in Asia-Pacific, 20% in Europe, and 11.5% in the

[Page 180]

Americas.⁷ During coding for the project, Malta and Denmark repealed their blasphemy laws,⁸ and since publication, Greece,⁹ Ireland,¹⁰ Canada,¹¹ and New Zealand¹² have repealed their blasphemy laws, signifying a trend of rejection among liberal Western nations. Further, many Western nations that do have blasphemy laws rarely enforce them, if at all.¹³ Yet many governments do enforce their blasphemy laws, most commonly to the detriment of religious minorities, political opponents, and people with minority viewpoints.

Indonesia, Pakistan, and Russia each have enforced their blasphemy laws in ways that cause serious harm to minorities. Cases from these countries, presented next in Part I.A, exemplify the problems that the USCIRF survey identified as common to blasphemy laws, which are detailed in Part I.B. United Nations human rights entities, such as Special Rapporteurs and the Human Rights Committee, have strongly rejected blasphemy laws, and their criticisms are detailed in Part I.B alongside the corresponding USCIRF criticisms.

A. The Application of Blasphemy Laws

1. Indonesia

Indonesia's blasphemy law, Article 156(a) of the Criminal Code, provides for a punishment of up to five years' imprisonment for the deliberate public expression of feelings or commission of an act "a) which principally have the character of being at enmity with, abusing or staining a religion, adhered to in

[Page 181]

Indonesia; b) with the intention to prevent a person to adhere to any religion based on the belief of the almighty God."¹⁴ Indonesia recognizes six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.¹⁵ As radical Islamic groups have gained support and Indonesia's tradition of religious pluralism has waned, any teachings perceived as contrary to Islam expose religious minorities to prosecution.¹⁶ Human Rights Watch estimated in October 2018 that there had been twenty-three convictions for blasphemy since current President Joko Widodo took office in 2014, including six up to that point in 2018, and 125 during the 2004-2014 presidency of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.¹⁷ Only one person charged with blasphemy has ever been acquitted.¹⁸ Christians, Shiite Muslims, Ahmadi Muslims, and Gafatar followers are particularly vulnerable.¹⁹

One of the most prominent blasphemy cases in the world, given the political position of the defendant, the egregiousness of the charges, and the presence of doctored evidence, is that of the ethnic Chinese and Christian former governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known by the nickname Ahok. At a campaign rally in September 2016, Ahok said to his Muslim supporters that a verse in the Quran was being used to encourage Muslims not to vote for him.²⁰ Footage of the speech was heavily edited to make it look as if Ahok had been disparaging the Quran.²¹ Protests against Ahok drew hundreds of thousands of

[Page 182]

Muslims,²² and he was arrested for blasphemy and defaming Muslim leaders, which is prohibited by Article 156.²³

At trial, members of the hardline Islam Defenders Front and the Anti-blasphemy Forum spoke against Ahok.²⁴ Meanwhile, Ahok and several other witnesses testified about his positive relationships with Muslims, from his Muslim schooling to his Muslim friends to the pro-Muslim programs he implemented as governor.²⁵ The...