Richelle Wiseman

Freedom of speech is a core value of democracies around the world. The debate in Canada has surfaced around such questions as:

• Should buses carry ads promoting atheism or any religious belief, for that matter? If not, why not?
• Should students on University campuses be allowed to espouse views which are not mainstream?
• Should limits to freedom of expression be arbitrarily assigned by human rights commissions?

A look at some free-speech first principles would benefit all of   us, but especially those making decisions regarding this   cherished Canadian value.

Freedom of speech is actually referred to in a number of ways in   the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and   Freedoms. Article 18 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom   of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom   to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or   in community with others and in public or private, to manifest   his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and   observance.”

Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion   and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions   without interference and to seek, receive and impart information   and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

There are now efforts at the United Nations, however, to curb   freedom of speech about religion, though it is disguised as an effort to preserve religion. It is ironic that the very   organization to enshrine freedom of speech and religion is   playing a dangerous game.

In April, the UN will hold its Durban II Conference which has as its purpose the promotion of anti-racism. In its first   conference of this nature, Durban I, which took place in 2001, delegates singled out Israel as a nation guilty of promoting racism toward Palestinians. Representatives from Israel and the United States walked out of the meetings.

Canada, Israel and the U.S. have stated they will not be sending  delegates to Durban II because they fear the meeting will be a repeat of the first one, with a focused attack on Israeli policies to the exclusion of dealing with other human rights violations by other member countries, particularly the ones criticizing Israel.

But in addition to what will likely be an impassioned discussion   of the recent events in Gaza, there is another item on the   agenda of Durban II that should concern us - an effort to have the UN enshrine the condemnation of the defamation of religion.

The UN General Assembly has approved the nonbinding resolution -   put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a group of 57 Muslim member states - which urges member states to provide: “adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

Several western nations and groups, including the Organization of American States and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have opposed the resolution as contrary to freedom of expression.

One concern is the definition. Just what is defamation of   religion? Who gets to decide what constitutes “defamation?” and will it be defined the same way in say, Iran, as it is in   Canada? There are a whole range of definitions of defamation,   within common law, and outside of it.

It is not hard to connect the dots between this initiative by   the OIC and the worldwide protest to the publication of the   Danish cartoons.  But other religious groups have also marshalled substantial global protests to material deemed offensive to their religion.

For example, the Hindu community mounted a vast and concerted effort to ban the Hollywood film The Love Guru because of its offensive nature to Hindus. Christians protested the movie The Da Vinci Code because of its blasphemous portrayal of Jesus Christ.

The danger of pitting freedoms of speech and expression against the prevention of defamation of religion is that practitioners of one faith may no longer be able to express any concerns or critique or even dissent with the tenets of another faith in certain countries.

This could clearly exacerbate the existing blight of persecution of people of one faith by people of another or no faith on the grounds that their beliefs amount to “defamation.” In many countries, religious persecution is already a major problem.

Unless it provides more clarity on “defamation,” the UN Human   Rights Council is in a compromised position.  Instead of protecting the rights of individuals who espouse unpopular or controversial viewpoints and beliefs, the UN might actually be limiting those very freedoms.