L. Bennett Graham, Defamation of Religions: the End of Pluralism?

• Publication year: 2009

DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS: THE END OF PLURALISM?

L. Bennett Graham^*

The movement to combat the "defamation of religions" has not only challenged the international framework for freedom of expression. It has also strategically employed language to confound traditional legal understandings of race, religion, and hate speech. For the past decade, the United Nations Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is made up of 57 Muslim countries from around the world, has sought to codify a right for religions, especially Islam, not to be offended.¹But who has ever heard of the right not to be offended? And since when do ideas, religions, and philosophies have rights of their own?

In the following presentation, I will first provide some historical context to show how this resolution has evolved at the United Nations. Then I will take a step back to address which core issues this resolution is seeking to address in the world today. I will show why the solution of a resolution against the "defamation of religions" is problematic for the protection of fundamental freedoms. Finally, I will outline how the debate is shifting and what I think the international community can do to provide an effective and appropriate solution.

I. HISTORY OF A U.N. RESOLUTION

In 1999-before Al-Qaeda's attacks on September 11, 2001, before the Danish Cartoon Crisis of 2005, and before the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh-Pakistan proposed a draft resolution entitled Defamation of Islam to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on behalf of the

OIC.²Despite the sponsor's appeal for protection against rising

"Islamophobia," other members expressed concern about the sole focus on

70 EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23

Islam.³The resolution that emerged was entitled Defamation of Religions.⁴

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted similar resolutions on Defamation of Religions each year from 1999 through 2005.⁵The first two years this resolution was proposed, it was adopted without a vote.⁶

In the wake of September 11, 2001, concern about the treatment of Islam increased around the world as Islam became the scapegoat of all acts of terrorism, not just those involving Muslim extremists.⁷With the rising concern came greater attention to the term "Islamophobia" and the treatment of Muslims in the public square.⁸Nonetheless, the media focus on Islam polarized participants in the debate, as some sought to place more of the blame on Islam, while others fought for the civil rights of Muslims to interact in the public square like any other citizens.⁹It was in 2001 that a vote was first called on the Defamations of Religions resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The resolution passed with an overwhelming majority.¹⁰

In 2004, Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch artist, added fuel to the debate with his short film, Submission, which portrayed Islam in a negative light and included the collaboration of former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has since moved away from the Netherlands for her safety.¹¹

2009] DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS 71

In 2005, the debate over religious sensitivity erupted on the world stage with the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammad in derogatory ways (for example, with a bomb nestled in his turban) in the Danish newspaper Jyllands- Posten.¹²Riots broke out in Europe and throughout the Muslim world when the Danish government failed to apologize for publishing images that many Muslims consider blasphemous.¹³Danish embassies were attacked, European products were boycotted, and formal diplomatic relations between Denmark and a number of Muslim countries were threatened.¹⁴Tensions were exacerbated as newspapers in Europe and North America reprinted the cartoons in an act of free speech solidarity, which showed little regard to the sensitivity of the Muslim population around the world.¹⁵

In the United Nations, the debate over defamation of religions took on new life, centered on the supposed choice between free speech and religious sensitivity. In 2005, a version of the defamation of religions resolution was debated in the General Assembly for the first time.¹⁶Nonetheless, the General Assembly vote was a landslide; the resolution passed easily.¹⁷The General Assembly has adopted resolutions on defamation of religions in 2006, 2007,

2008.¹⁸

The United States had consistently opposed the resolution.¹⁹But in 2006, it became more apparent that the resolution was not going to disappear and could threaten American legal interests by challenging First Amendment jurisprudence and lowering the threshold for acceptable public speech. The

72 EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23

United States thus began engaging the issue more seriously through diplomatic negotiations and bilateral conversations. These discussions (as well as efforts by other organizations and nations) brought about the first significant challenge to the resolution on defamation of religions at the U.N. Human Rights Council (formerly the UN Commission on Human rights) in 2006.

As the parsing of words and negotiations has evolved over the past decade, delegations have gradually become more educated on the concept of defamation of religions and its danger to the human rights structure.²⁰This education campaign significantly hurt support for the resolution. The Human Rights Council and the General Assembly have continued to pass the resolution,²¹but in 2008, both resolutions, one in the Human Rights Council and the other in the General Assembly, passed only by plurality.²²For the first time, there were more "no" votes and abstentions than there were "yes" votes.

However, this issue is not likely to disappear any time soon, despite the recent turn of events. The OIC will likely propose a similar resolution again in March 2009 at the Human Rights Council, and the issue has already begun to take a central role in the preparations for the Durban Review Conference.²³

2009] DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS 73

II. THE BURNING COALS OF THE DEBATE

A. The Clash of Civilizations

Throughout academia, the Huntington thesis concerning the "clash of civilizations" is considered a lightning rod of pessimism and millennialism.²⁴

However, the defamation of religions issue has fulfilled the late social scientist's prophecy. Indeed, the most challenging aspect of the Huntington thesis is the fear that the West and the Muslim world will not find a solution to reconcile their different worldviews.²⁵And unfortunately, neither party is innocent. In the past decade, there has been an abundance of closed-door meetings on the issue of defamation of religions. The OIC has only recently begun to engage Western governments in a more transparent manner.²⁶

Meanwhile, even though most Western governments have put protections in place against the discrimination of Muslims, the full body pat down of any Middle Eastern man at the airport is still the most stereotypical portrayal of Western treatment of Muslims.

B. Religious Discrimination

It is important for all parties to recognize that there is a serious problem of discrimination against people of all religions. In the modern world, the discrimination against Muslims is particularly apparent due to the prevalence of a form of terrorism that has sought to hijack the name of Islam. The term "Islamophobia" is misleading because it frames the problem as an issue of fear rather than hate. And yet, it is important for international bodies like the United Nations to address the very real problem of unreasonable hatred based on religion. The solution, however, must not inhibit intellectual disagreement with particular worldviews, for the world is full of truth claims that will always conflict with one another. It is important to protect the individuals who wish to express those truth claims in a peaceful manner, without undue burden or censorship.

74 EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23

C. Free Speech vs. Freedom of Religion?

As mentioned earlier, the Danish cartoon crisis was the crucible for the debate over religious sensitivity protection. Indeed, the way that the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons unfolded was unfortunate. The lack of respect shown by a few editors and cartoonists was interpreted as the intent of a continent.²⁷Meanwhile, the response from many of those who were offended by the cartoons was so violent and destructive that it only fostered a greater cycle of hatred.²⁸Out of this chaotic confusion emerged the claim of a dichotomy between free speech and freedom of religion-two principles that actually go hand in hand and will be discussed below in depth.

D. Politics at Play

The political climate following the Danish cartoon crisis and the death of Theo Van Gogh took on a polemical spirit-inciting xenophobic nationalist political parties like the National Front and the Northern League in Europe.²⁹

In 2008, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders released the fearmongering film Fitna, which means "strife" in Arabic.³⁰Simultaneously, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rising tensions in the Middle East, and negotiations regarding Turkey joining the European Union have continued to play into the geopolitical framework for the debate over the defamation of religions issue.

E. Muslim-Jewish Tensions

Finally, Muslim-Jewish tensions have also played an important role in the debate over religious sensitivity. Much of the debate harkens back to post- World War II era policies that first created the state of Israel but also enacted strict anti-Semitism...