The United Nations aims to curtail speech that offends religion

source: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3630,n,n
February 25, 2009 on CNN's Lou Dobbs with Christopher Hitchens

The United Nations Anti-Blasphemy Resolution aims to curtail speech that offends religion, specifically Islam. Critics, religious groups and free speech advocates say the resolution is spreading Sharia law to the Western world.

Vote in the HASSNERS Poll (right): Do you believe the United Nations restriction of freedom of speech in the UK should be tolerated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-qdC5zYd4
http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/freedom-under-fire-un-anti-blasphemy.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/talk_fast_we_might_be_criminal.php

The United Nations aims to curtail speech that offends religion - USA view

HASSNERS.org comments

Report of the Secretary-General 21 October 2008

United States of America
35. According to the United States, the concept of “defamation of religions” is not supported by international law and efforts to combat “defamation of religions” typically result in restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion and expression. The United States asserted that from a legal perspective, the “defamation of religions” concept is deeply problematic since under existing human rights law, individuals — not religions, ideologies, or beliefs — are the holders of
human rights and are protected by the law. However, the concept of defamation of religions seeks to convey the idea that a religion itself can be a subject of protection under human rights law, thereby potentially undermining protection for individuals.
36. The United States stated in addition that a defamatory statement (or other communication) is more than just an offensive one. It is also a statement that is false. Because one defence to a charge of defamation is that the statement is in fact true, the concept does not properly apply to that which cannot be verified as either true or false, such as statements of belief or opinion. Even offensive opinions and beliefs are not defamatory. It is also unclear how defamation could be defined considering that one individual’s sincere belief that his or her creed alone is the
truth inevitably conflicts with another’s sincerely held view of the truth.
37. The United States further submitted that even if a defamation standard were to be legally enforceable, and even if it could be enforced in an equitable manner, it would lead to numerous legal claims and counterclaims between majority and minority religious communities or dissenting members of a faith. Instead of fostering tolerance, such a standard would almost certainly lead to greater conflict and intolerance. What is considered to be a sacred statement by one may be viewed as sacrilegious to another, and could therefore be legally actionable as a
“defamation of religion”.
38. Regarding freedom of expression, the United States expressed the view that government should not prohibit or punish speech, even offensive or hateful speech, because of an underlying confidence that in a free society such hateful ideas will fail because of their own intrinsic lack of merit. However, freedom of expression that threatens the public good is not absolute, prohibitions are restricted to forms of expression that threaten the public good by, for example, inciting imminent violence or other unlawful activity; expression is not restricted merely for being offensive.
39. The United States agreed that more must be done to promote inter-religious understanding and believes concrete action supporting tolerance and individual rights is the best way to combat abusive actions and hateful ideologies.

MPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION 7/19 ENTITLED "COMBATING DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS".

source: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/9session/A.HRC.9.7.doc

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

selected excerpts

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION 7/19 ENTITLED
"COMBATING DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS"*

The Council of Europe
32. The Council of Europe submits that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are among the foundations of democratic societies and are instrumental for pluralism. The Council refers to article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and article 10, which protects freedom of expression. The Council notes that, in this connection, article 10 does not protect hate speech, speech that incites hatred or violence and discrimination against a specific group of individuals on ethnic, national, religious, sexual orientation or other grounds.

Regarding the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs, the Council asserts that article 9 protects rights of individuals and cannot be construed as protecting a religion as such from verbal or visual attacks.

33. With respect to the scope of article 10 and its relationship to religion,

the Council cites a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which "those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion, irrespective of whether they do so as members of a religious majority or a minority, cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith."

The Council points out, however, that the European Court of Human Rights has accepted limitations to the freedom of expression under article 10 if such limitations are justified by a "pressing social need" and are designed to provide protection against offensive attacks on matters which are regarded as sacred by a religious group.
34. The Council also refers to recommendation 1805 of 2007 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which concerns religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of religion.

The recommendation further stipulates that blasphemy as an insult to a religion should not be deemed a criminal offence.

35. The Council also reports that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, an independent human rights monitoring mechanism, strongly condemns incitement to violence or hatred and discrimination against individuals or groups on several grounds, including religion, and works to counter religious intolerance. In this connection, Commission general policy recommendation no. 5 "strongly regrets that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately on the basis of hostile stereotyping, the effect of which is to make this religion seem a threat". Recommendation 5 rejects deterministic views of Islam and recommends against distorted interpretations of religious and cultural history in the curricula of schools and institutions of
higher learning, in particular the portrayal of Islam as hostile and a menace. It calls on Member States to "direct particular attention towards removing unnecessary legal or administrative obstacles to both the construction of sufficient numbers of appropriate places of worship for the practice of Islam and to its funeral rites". Recommendation 5 also calls on Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that the freedom to practice religion is fully guaranteed.

International Humanist and Ethical Union
46. The International Humanist and Ethical Union expressed concern over the impact of blasphemy legislation on freedom of expression and freedom of religion, including on those who do not practise the predominant religion in a Member State. In this connection, the Union recommends that the study requested by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 7/19 should include both an examination of existing blasphemy laws and an assessment of the implications for human rights of defamation of religion laws.

The Union also recommended that a resolution be tabled calling on States in which blasphemy constitutes a capital offence to remove the death sentence.

Additionally,

the Union suggested that United Nations bodies considering the question of defamation of religions adopt a similar position as the Council of Europe, where freedom of expression is given much greater weight.

Conclusions

67. Some countries have specific laws against the defamation of religion. Of the countries that reported on such laws, there does not appear to be a common understanding of what is considered defamation of religion.

The reported laws address somewhat different phenomena and apply various terms such as contempt, ridicule, outrage and disrespect to connote defamation.

The responses do not provide enough information for an analysis of how these terms are understood or applied. The relationship between these concepts to the international human rights framework related to freedom of religion is also not explicitly addressed.

CFI Pushes Back Against Religious Restrictions on Free Expression, Joins Debate at UN HRC

via http://richarddawkins.net/article,3262,n,n

October 22, 2008

A Special Report:

In September 2008, the Center for Inquiry went to Geneva for the ninth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Although a staunchly secularist organization, it was there to fight for the right to talk about religion.

For several years, a coalition of Islamic states--aided by Russia, China, Cuba, and a group of developing countries--has placed the "defamation of religions" high on the U.N. human rights agenda.

In March of this year, the coalition went further to institute what amounts to a blasphemy prohibition at the Human Rights Council itself.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression was changed so that it now includes policing the world for "abuses" of expression that offend religion (this in the context of the release of the Dutch film, Fitna). These events can be seen in the context of a larger movement to promulgate a system of Islamically correct human rights that subordinates rights to a particular political interpretation of Sharia'h, or Islamic law.

In a final irony, when nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at the Council (or HRC, formerly the Human Rights Commission) tried to ask whether such a system was compatible with universal human rights, the Pakistani delegation objected that the mere discussion of the matter was an insult to the faith. Astonishingly, the president of the Council ruled that henceforth NGOs would not be permitted to make statements containing “judgments” about religion at all.

Alerted to the gravity of the situation by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)--represented ably by veteran U.N. activist Roy Brown--CFI sent representatives to the HRC for the first time since gaining U.N. affiliation. At the ninth session, the Center for Inquiry

• co-sponsored a mini-conference on freedom of expression and religion;
• released two CFI research papers on Islam, human rights, and the “clash of civilizations” to the international press;
• established contact with NGOs and governments concerned with freedom of expression and religion;
• publicly participated in the Council deliberations on women’s rights, “Islamophobia,” the “defamation of religions,” and the universality of human rights; and
• contributed to the international debate on the defamation of religions, which now appears to be turning in a favorable direction. A number of democratic countries are pushing to stop the resolution at the current General Assembly.

Contributing to the Debate

CFI issued five official statements to the HRC, jointly with the IHEU and the Association for World Education. Hugo Estrella, co-director of CFI’s international programs, drafted and read a statement (in Spanish) highlighting religious threats to women’s reproductive freedom, and Austin Dacey drafted and read a statement urging the Council to abandon the dangerous notion of the defamation of religions, asserting:

“Rights belong to individuals, not ideas. . . . Belief depends on the freedom to doubt, to dissent, to discover.”

On September 17, CFI co-sponsored, with IHEU, a panel discussion on recent restrictions to free inquiry into religious matters within the Council chambers themselves. The speakers, in addition to Dacey, were Naser Khader, member of the Danish Parliament and leader of the Liberal Alliance party; Walid Phares, the U.S.-based expert on terrorism and the Middle East; and Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Holy See and the European Union, among others.

At the meeting, and at an international press briefing that followed, CFI released two research papers: “Islam and Human Rights: Defending Universality at the United Nations, ” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/unitednations/articles_and_books/islam_and_human_rights/ and “Is There a Clash of Civilizations? The Failure of the United Nations Response,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/unitednations/articles_and_books/is_there_a_clash_of_civilizationsv2/.

Coalition Building

In Geneva, and at a preceding U.N. conference in Paris, CFI forged high-level contacts with government delegations, most notably the French and American, which are very concerned about the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) push to criminalize religiously offensive speech in international law. Additionally, CFI networked with a large number of NGOs with kindred concerns. They included the Cairo Center for Human Rights Studies, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, European Centre for Law and Justice, Freedom House, International Federation for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, UN Watch, Bahà’i International Community, Lutheran World Federation, and many others.

In connection with its activities in Geneva, the Center for Inquiry was asked to join the NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which meets in Geneva and New York.

The importance of CFI’s Voice at the Human Rights Council

It now looks likely that even the OIC will relinquish the notion of the defamation of religions and seek instead to work within the existing legal notion of hate speech that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence. Such notion falls within the limitations on freedom of expression provided for in Article 20 of the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Such an outcome represents progress but signals difficulties ahead. For in seeking guidance in interpreting the proper balance between protection of freedom of expression and protection of individuals against incitement, the discussion may now look to the existing jurisprudence of European human rights courts. These courts by and large have been much more eager than, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court to limit speech that they consider anti-Jewish or anti-Christian. This legal tradition invites the charge of hypocrisy from the Islamic states, which will demand equal protection for Islamic belief. On the other hand, some cultural conservatives may maintain that the heritage of Europe warrants a privileged place for the Jewish and Christian faiths.

Therefore, it will be critically important in the coming debates that there be a thoroughly secular, nonpolitical entity (one that is not compromised by being regarded as a partisan in the highly polarizing issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) to advocate the principled solution to this dilemma: no protection for any belief from criticism, ridicule, and even contempt, except when the speech presents a clear and present danger to some person. As a U.S.-based secular organization, CFI is the ideal representative of this position.

CFI has laid the groundwork for participation in the tenth session of Council, which will focus on issues of freedom of religion. This is to say nothing of the other pressing issues on which CFI’s perspective is needed, such as the restriction on women’s freedoms by religion, particularly in Latin America and Africa.

This December marks the sixtieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much remains to be done to fully realize its ideals. The Center for Inquiry has established itself as a major stakeholder in these ongoing struggles at the Human Rights Council and beyond.

IHEU News - summarised by Margaret Nelson

source: http://www.suffolkhands.org.uk/node/860

---

By Margaret Nelson - Posted on 06 October 2008

This is a monthly update of news from International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). You can find the full versions of these news stories on the IHEU web site. To receive the monthly news update, sign up here.

HUMAN RIGHTS SPECIAL
This issue includes reports from IHEU's delegation to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where real progress has been made, particularly on issues of freedom of expression and separation of religion and state. For other news, please scroll down.

Human Rights Council: The fight-back begins
In what was probably a first for the United Nations, delegates to the Human Rights Council heard two Muslims describe Islamism as "Racism" and tell their listeners that the OIC does not speak for the majority of the world's Muslims. Danish MP and leader of the Liberal Alliance Naser Khader, and Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress were eloquent in their denunciation of the OIC, its Saudi paymasters, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. The conference was widely reported, including in the Pakistan Daily Times. Read more

Egypt accuses IHEU of inciting hatred
An Egyptian delegate to the Human Rights Council has accused IHEU of inciting and promoting hatred. “Every statement is incitement to hatred. Every statement is promoting hatred” he said. The accusation was made during a point of order by Egypt’s Amr Roshdy Hassan, who objected to the statement being made by IHEU representative Roy Brown on the subject of Islamophobia. We have a transcript of the Egyptian intervention in full (below). Readers can decide for themselves whether the accusation was justified. We now have video of this intervention. Read more

Growing opposition to the concept of "defamation of religion"
The tide really does seem to be turning in the debate on combating defamation of religion -- even to the point where there are hopes among some delegates that the concept will soon be buried, at least in the Human Rights Council. Following attacks by France and Belgium last week on the notion of defamation of religion, several NGOs joined the attack on Tursday with several strong statements. The Cairo Center for Human Rights Studies with Article 19, the European Center for Law and Justice, and Center for Inquiry in a joint statement with IHEU were among those who weighed in. Read more

Criticism of religion is not blasphemy
The IHEU position on defamation of religion was strongly supported on 23 September 2008 in a statement to the Human Rights Council prepared by Rabbi Francois Garai of the World Union of Progressive Judaism. Egypt tried to have the statement ruled out of order on the grounds that "Nobody can discuss the basic tenets of any religion in this Council." In other words, a Jewish Rabbi (unlike the Holy See) was not qualified to discuss the basic tenets of Judaism! Read more

IHEU attacks concept of "Islamophobia"
IHEU has told the UN Human Rights Council that the concept of "Islamophobia" is unhelpful and misleading, wrongly implying that any criticism of Islam is based on “irrational fear” and must lead automatically to hatred of Muslims. Read more

New team attacks religious privilege at the UN
After ploughing our lonely furrow at the Human Rights Council for the past five years, often with only the colourful veteran Human Rights advocate David Littman for company, it was a pleasure to welcome three new additions to the team for the 9th session of the Human Rights Council: Austin Dacey and Hugo Estrella from CfI and our new intern Xavier Cornut. Read more

IHEU speaks out (cautiously) against OIC censorship at UN
Following the successful attempts by the Islamic States at the 7th and 8th sessions of the Human Rights Council in March and June to silence any criticism of Sharia Law and the linking of certain abuses of human rights, such as the stoning of women, to Islam, IHEU main representative, Roy Brown, struck back at the 9th session on 19 September with a statement on the human rights of women. He argued that "No State should be permitted to hide behind tradition, culture or religion in order to justify any abuse of women's human rights," adding "It must be possible here to freely exercise the right to freedom of expression in order to defend the human rights of all, including women, and to expose abuse, whatever the attempted justification." Read more

IHEU defends rights of women and attacks censorship at the UN
In a joint statement with Center for Inquiry, IHEU has condemned abuses of women's human rights, including child marriage and "honour" killings, especially in Pakistan and Iran. IHEU also attacked the culture of censorship that now prevails in the Human Rights Council. Read more

AWE addresses human rights violations experienced by women
In an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, the Association for World Education has supported IHEU in calling for concerted action to prevent female genital mutilation, "honour" killings, stoning, facial maiming with acid and child marriage. Read more

CFI supports humanity, equality and human rights for women
Center for Inquiry has delivered an oral statement at the UN Human Rights Council supporting IHEU in defending the rights of women. Read more

USA speaks out strongly against OIC manoeuvring on "defamation of religion"
The US Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, John V. Hanford III, has strongly supported freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and opposed the OIC's promotion of the concept of "defamation of religions" at the UN as incompatible with international human rights law. Read more

Defamation of religion is not a human rights concept - Belgium
In a statement to the UN Human Rights Council, Belgium has come out firmly on the side of individual human rights. Read more

IHEU calls on UN Human Rights Council to condemn Sudan
In a statement to the Human Rights Council, IHEU has called for Sudan to be condemned for its failure to safeguard the human rights of vast numbers of its citizens. Read more

Spinoza and secularism at the UN
Quoting Spinoza in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva delivered jointly with the Association for World Education, IHEU has urged the Council to prioritize freedom of expression over demands for laws of the state to yield to the laws of God. Read more

IHEU stands up for the primacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In a written statement to the UN Human Rights Council, Sixty years after the UDHR: threats to the universality of human rights, IHEU has highlighted the overriding, universal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the wide divergence between the UDHR and the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Read more

OTHER NEWS

Recognition for the Ainu
Japan's parliament has adopted a resolution that, for the first time, formally recognises the Ainu as "an indigenous people with a distinct language, religion and culture". In a nation that has always preferred to perceive itself as ethnically homogenous, it is a highly significant move. Traditionally the Ainu lived off the land, worshipping natural landmarks and Read more

Celebrating Darwin - February 2009
In February 2009, we shall be marking the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his great, seminal work, On the Origin of Species. Just as Copernicus and the many great scientists who followed him had upset the view that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, so Darwin upset the view that humans were privileged beings, specially created by divine will and totally distinct from the rest of life. It is no exaggeration to say that Darwin's discoveries have provided a basis for modern Humanism. Read more

HSS conference - Humanism in Scotland - North Queensferry, 25 October 2008
IHEU member organization Humanist Society Scotland will hold its annual conference in North Queensferry on 25 October 2008. The theme will be The impact of Humanism on Scotland in the 21st century. Read more

Humanist events for Europride 2008
On 30 July, as part of the programme of Europride 2008, the Swedish Humanist Association organised two very successful events. The first was a panel discussion, 'Religion: the hotbed of homophobia?' for which the 120-person auditorium in the main Pride Hall of Stockholm was packed to capacity, with many more would-be listeners turned away at the door. The second was a more informal pub evening allowing humanists from different countries to discuss the issues of the day over drinks and food. Read more

Continuum of Humanist Education
IHEU member organization the Institute for Humanist Studies has made its online e-learning materials on Humanism freely available to all. Starting now, anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world can learn about Humanism for free. Read more

National conference on Osu caste system and untouchability - 21-22 October, 2008
Join Humanists, Freethinkers, human rights activists, intellectuals from Nigeria and Overseas to discuss and debate on how to eradicate caste discrimination and untouchability in the world. Sponsorships are available for victims of caste discrimination and untouchability in Nigeria. Read more

---

International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world umbrella organisation for Humanist, ethical culture, rationalist, secularist and freethought groups. Based in London, it is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and it maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris).

Its mission is to build and represent the global Humanist movement, to defend human rights and to promote Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.

You can find out more about IHEU on the web site

Human Rights Council: The fight-back begins

source: http://www.iheu.org/node/3275
Submitted by admin on 30 September, 2008 - 07:16.

• UN Geneva
• Building blocks

In what was probably a first for the United Nations, delegates to the Human Rights Council heard two Muslims describe Islamism as "Racism" and tell their listeners that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) does not speak for the majority of the world's Muslims. Danish MP and leader of the Liberal Alliance Naser Khader, and Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress were eloquent in their denunciation of the OIC, its Saudi paymasters, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. The conference was widely reported, including in the Pakistan Daily Times

The conference speeches are available here:

• Introduction - Roy Brown
• The OIC's ideological agenda for Durban II: a modern-day Inquisition - Walid Phares
• World War III is here - Naser Khader
• The OIC does not speak for Muslims - Tarek Fatah
• What is going on here? - Austin Dacey

The Conference, billed as "An analysis and Discussion of Religion and Freedom of Expression at the Human Rights Council" was held on 17 September 2008 and chaired by Roy Brown, IHEU main representative, UN Geneva.

---

Introduction by Roy Brown

Two years ago, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, famously stated that: "Rightly understood, there is no conflict between freedom expression and freedom of religion". In the past two years, however, events both outside and within the United Nations have led us to question just how widely that truth is understood.

A resolution "combating defamation of religions" was first introduced by the OIC in 1999 in the old Commission for Human Rights and has been adopted every year since - by the Commission and now by the Human Rights Council.

Then in December last year the resolution was adopted by the UN General Assembly by a two to one majority. Now while the resolution is not binding on member states, it has created a framework in which it becomes legitimate for States to introduce (or where they have them already – to keep) laws combating defamation of religion: that is, blasphemy laws - laws which, I need not to remind you, some states apply with deadly effect. Rather than moving to eliminate such laws the UN is now complicit in creating an environment in which such laws can thrive.

In March this year, the Council adopted a resolution which modified the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression to require him (or her) not only to report on violations of that right but to report on abuse of that freedom. In the words of one commentator, "it has turned the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on its head".

These recent moves are by no means novel. Attempts to cater for Islamic exceptionalism in human rights go back a long way - at least as far back as the Iranian revolution of 1979. The first really successful attempt to codify this exceptionalism came in 1990 with the adoption by the foreign ministers of the OIC of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2007, the Pakistani Ambassador, speaking in the Council on behalf of the OIC, claimed that this document did not represent an alternative world view but was complementary to the UDHR. In March this year, at the 7th session of the Council, we called that claim into question, pointing out that the Cairo Declaration makes no reference to the UDHR but states quite clearly that Sharia law shall be the only source of reference to the rights contained therein. We issued a written statement to the Council, copies of which are available here, which explains this point. But when we attempted to point this out during a general debate, we were stopped on a point of order by the Pakistani delegate who said, and I quote: "It is insulting to our faith to discuss the Sharia in this forum". The implication being that the OIC could promote the Cairo Declaration but that no one could be permitted to criticize its basis in the Sharia as the source of its incompatibility with the Universal Declaration.

In June this year, during the 8th session of the Council, we attempted to make an oral statement on violence against women. Our statement was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order,

the majority of which were from the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates. They objected before were able to present the statement, that a) it had been heard before (it had not) and that it linked Egypt, Sudan and Pakistan to Sharia law. It did not. Canada and Slovenia (speaking for the European Union) argued that the issue was whether an NGO should be allowed to speak on the agenda item, and saw no reason why it should not. The Egyptian delegate responded, saying

"What we are talking now is not about the right of NGOs to speak but about the Sharia law and whether it is admissible to discuss it in this Council. I appeal to my colleague from Slovenia not to accept any discussion of the Sharia law in this Council because it will not happen. And we will not take this lightly"

He then attempted to force a vote on the issue. The president, H.E. Doru Costea of Romania, then adjourned the meeting for half an hour for "consultations". When he returned he gave his ruling that "this Council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth. Consequently we should not do it". Furthermore, "As long as a statement is made with restraint from making a judgement, or an evaluation, of a particular set of legislation, which is not in the point of our discussion, the speaker may continue".

Now, the subject of our statement was not religion but human rights abuse justified by reference to Sharia law. Nevertheless, given the president's ruling, we felt unable to make any further reference to Sharia in our statement.

The problem we were faced with is that many human rights abuses are permitted - or are even required punishments – under the religiously-based laws of the States concerned. Does this mean, as the States in question claim, that these laws must be beyond criticism in the Council? It would seem that this point was in fact conceded by the President of the Council. What is going on here?

To help us answer that question we have with us today, four distinguished speakers:
Naser Khader is the founder of Democratic Muslims of Denmark, Member of the Danish Parliament, and leader of the Liberal Alliance;
Walid Phares is an advisor to the Trans Atlantic Legislative Group on Jihadism and a visiting fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is author of The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and a number of other books.
Tarek Fatah is the founder and former chair of the Muslim Canadian Congress. He is a , writer and broadcaster, and author of Chasing a Mirage: the Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State.
Austin Dacey is ther main representative of the Center for Inquiry at the UN New York, and author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.

Discussion of religious questions now banned at UN Human Rights Council by Roy Brown

emphasis by Crabsallover

by Roy Brown, former president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union

The UN Human Rights Council is not allowed to judge religions, according to president Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Criticism of Sharia law or fatwas is now forbidden.

This ruling follows attempts by the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates at the Council to silence criticism of human rights abuse in the Islamic world.

The representative of the Association for World Education, in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, had denounced the stoning to death of women accused of adultery and of girls being married at the age of nine years old in countries where Sharia law applies.

The speaker, David Littman, was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order and the proceedings of the Council were suspended for forty minutes when the Egyptian delegate said that “Islam will not be crucified in this Council” and attempted to force a vote on whether the speaker should be allowed to continue.

On giving his ruling after the break Council President Costea said that the Council

"is not prepared to discuss religious questions and we don’t have to do so". "Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion. … I promise that next time a speaker judges a religion or a religious law or document, I will interrupt him and pass on to the next speaker".

Litmann, who is also a representative for the World Union of Progressive Judaism, had been threatened before following a statement he made in January in which he had criticized the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, a matter deemed irrelevant by the Council in the debate condemning Israeli incursions into Gaza. When stopped, Litmann had opined that “there is something rotten in the state of this Council”. For this, the WUPJ had been threatened with expulsion form the UN and its president summoned to appear before the NGO Committee in New York and forced to apologise.

In commenting on Monday’s events at a press conference on Wednesday 18 June, outgoing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, said:

"It is very concerning in a Council which should be... the guardian of freedom of expression, to see constraints or taboos, or subjects that become taboo for discussion.”

She did not refer specifically to the incident in the Council on Monday but she pointed to treatment of homosexuals in many countries -- prosecuted as criminals in a number of Islamic and some other states -- as "fundamental" to debate on sexual discrimination around the world.

"It is difficult for me to accept that a Council that is the guardian of legality, prevents the presentation of serious analysis or discussion on questions of the evolution of the concept of non-discrimination,"

The affair has resulted in UN agency stories from AFP and ATS on 17 June, and again on 18 June from AFP, ATS, AP, Reuters, with quotes from President Costea, Louise Arbour. American Ambassador Warren Tichenor and Amnesty International.

The following comments on the events of June 16 at have been prepared by David G. Littman, NGO Representative of Association for World Education (AWE) and Roy W. Brown, Representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU).

Shipwreck of the Human Rights Council

At 4:40 pm on June 16, David G. Littman was given the floor by the president of the UN Human Rights Council, to deliver a joint statement for the AWE and IHEU under agenda item 8: Integrating the Human Rights of Women throughout the United nations system.

Within 22 seconds, he was stopped – on a ‘point of order’ – by the delegate of Egypt. The verbatim transcript lasting has been left exactly as it was spoken (less the 40 minute break) and it can be seen and heard on the UN webcast archive
by scrolling down to item 8 and the presentation by AWE..

Analysis

At the Islamic summit in Mecca in December 2006,

the OIC decided to adopt a policy of zero tolerance against any perceived insults to Islam as part of their overall strategy of advancing the cause of Islam worldwide.

The measures agreed upon included creating an “Observatory” to monitor all reports of “Islamophobia”. Muslims throughout the world were to be encouraged to report any cases of perceived Islamophobia, however trivial. Cases submitted so far, for example, have included Muslims who have received “hostile glances”.

At that summit, two imams from Denmark presented the Danish cartoons (including some they had added themselves) and protests were then organised throughout the Middle East and elsewhere leading to a number of deaths and the burning of the Danish embassy in Beirut.

Plans were also put in place to seek changes in national and international law to provide additional “protection” for Islam. The battlegrounds were to include the European and national parliaments, and the UN, including the Human Rights Council. It was also proposed to move towards the creation of a new Charter of Human Rights in Islam, and the setting up of an Islamic Council of Human Rights to be based not on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but on Sharia law.

Fast forward 16 June 2008.

The Egyptian delegate to the Human Rights Council, Amr Roshdy Hassan, saw an opportunity to wrong-foot the Council by attacking the statement by AWE/IHEU. Egypt had prepared their ground carefully, breaking protocol by arranging to receive advance copies of our statements, and finding in our statement on violence against women exactly what they were looking for. David Littman with whom they had quarrelled in the past was to be the speaker, the statement made explicit reference to Sharia law, whilst the Egyptian complaint was likely to be seen by Western delegates as a further attempt to silence a particularly vocal critic. The OIC however would present the statement as a clear attack on Islam, and by forcing a vote would, in the eyes of the Islamic world, have exposed those who voted in favour of the statement being allowed to continue, as being “anti-Islamic”. In the words of Amr Roshdy Hassan, they “will have to face the consequences”.

In making his case however, Hassan stretched the truth almost beyond breaking point. He claimed that the first paragraph speaks about Egypt and Sharia law. In fact it makes no mention of the Sharia. He claimed that the second paragraph talks about Sudan, Pakistan and Sharia law. It too makes no mention of Sharia.

Unfortunately, none of the other delegates had copies of the statement and were therefore unable to give the lie to these claims.

The implication of the Egyptian complaint is that it is not necessary for Sharia law to be mentioned explicitly.

It is enough that a speaker criticises any human rights abuse sanctioned by the Sharia to be accused of insulting Islam and being forced to stop.

The third and fourth paragraphs of the statement do however mention the Sharia specifically, in connection with the marriage of girls as young as nine years of age, and the stoning of women to death for adultery, in States that apply Sharia law. This was what clearly part of what Egypt had hoped to suppress.

The temperature was raised even further when the Pakistani delegate Imran Ahmed Siddiqui speaking for Pakistan said in another point of order that

the statement “will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council”.

When Hassan, called for a vote, saying he would not see “Islam crucified in the Council”, the President wisely called for a five minute adjournment “in order to seek a better judgement”.

But forty minutes later when proceedings resumed the President’s final ruling was seen to be a complete capitulation to the Egyptian demands. He said: “The Council is not prepared to discuss religious questions and we don’t have to do so. Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion”.

Egypt and the OIC had achieved a major objective. But their secondary objective - to be able to present Canada, the EU and other Western States as anti-Islamic – that will have to wait for another day.

The full transcript together with the full text of the AWE/IHEU statement is is given below.

Verbatim transcript

United Nations Human Rights Council
8th Session (2 to 18 June 2008). Agenda item 8:
Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action: Integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system (§141)

Proceedings from 16:40 to 18:05, Monday, 16 June 2008

Joint statement by the Association for World Education and the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Speaker: AWE representative David G. Littman.

AWE / IHEU: Mr. President. In the context of integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system, we wish to draw attention to four examples of widespread violence against women that we believe merits far greater attention from the Council.
1. Regarding FGM, we are making available our detailed written statement. [gavel]

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm1-eng.rm?start=01:37:43&end=01:38:09

President (Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea of Romania): We have a point of order. Egypt, you have the floor Sir.

Egypt:[Amr Roshdy Hassan] Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have a copy of this statement by the speaker1. It is identical to the one made in December2, to which I made five points of order, to which you ruled…that you warned the speaker in December that this would be the last warning. The first paragraph, you talk about Egypt and the Sharia law3. In the second paragraph you talk about Sudan, Pakistan and the Sharia law4. The third and fourth paragraphs are on the Sharia law. So I don’t know what is the point of making him continue his statement while we know it will be objective [sic] and while we know that the president made a ruling on the same statement in December5. If we have no time to come on something new, then we shouldn’t speak. Thank you”

President: Thank you. I have a… Do I see any other requests from the floor on this matter? Pakistan, you have the floor.

Pakistan: [Imran Ahmed Siddiqui] Thank you very much Mr. President. Mr. President, the voices which we hear in this Council and the issues they raise are not unfamiliar. There is an agenda behind it and you have already given a ruling on the discussion of Sharia law in this Council6. We have strong objections on any discussion, any direct or indirect discussion, any out of context, selective discussion on the Sharia law in this Council. I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgement and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council. Thank you very much, Sir.

President: The distinguished representative of Slovenia

Slovenia: Thank you Mr. President. I would remind both colleagues from Egypt and from Pakistan, this is a separate Council session. Any NGO representative has the right to make a statement within the merits of the agenda item under discussion. We see the statement being made pertaining within the purview of the agenda item and we don’t see grounds for any restricting censorship in that respect. I thank you Mr. President.

President: Thank you. Distinguished representative of Egypt

Egypt: Mr. President, through you Sir, please Sir, I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider. What we are talking now about is not about the right of NGOs to speak but about the Sharia law and whether it is admissible to discuss it in this Council. I appeal to my colleague from Slovenia not to accept any discussion of the Sharia law in this Council because it will not happen. And we will not take this lightly. This is not about NGOs participation in the Council. Before the speaker… before that, one spoke as freely as we want on sexual orientation, gays and lesbians, yes, because they see it under the VDPA (Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action) and they have been touching on the VDPA and nobody objected. This is not about NGOs and their participation in the Council. This is about the Sharia law. So I appeal to our colleagues not to get us there because we will stay there and it’s a good omen that we have these beautiful machines with us here because we will need them. [While concluding, he waves the small ‘voting’ machine in the air, triumphantly.] Thank you.

President: Thank you. I don’t see requests. [He looks up and sees a delegate signalling for the floor. We cannot see who it is on the video – perhaps Iran, which is not a member]. You do not have the right of point of order Sir, you are not a member of the Council, with all due respect… Pakistan.

Pakistan: Mr. President, very respectfully I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity. It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonise a particular group. So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council. Thank you very much.

President: I think that we are going downwards on quite a slippery slope here. Personally, I see two issues. One is whether we should or not discuss religious issue in a debate under the Vienna Declaration. Two is whether we shall exercise a sort of pre-emptive move against statements that may be, or may not be heard in this room… Canada.

Canada: Thank you Mr. President. We are having a general debate on the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The issues that are being raised here fall entirely within the scope of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. They concern rights. We consider it entirely appropriate that the NGO in question be permitted to continue. If we were, all of us, to not repeat anything that we had said before in a Council session, the sessions would be an awful lot shorter than they actually are. Thank you, Mr. President.

President: Egypt and then Slovenia.

Egypt: Mr. President, I am not speculating. I have a copy of this statement. I have listened carefully to the first paragraph. I did not interrupt. I tell you it was clear that the copy that I have in my hand. I am telling my colleagues from Canada and Slovenia so that everyone will bear the consequences, that this statement is about the Sharia law. I don’t want anybody to say that they didn’t know in advance. I have a copy here. If anybody doesn’t believe me they can take a look at the statement. This statement will not be read in this Council without a vote. Thank you.

President: I would very kindly suggest that we sort of take a break. And come back in five minutes, in order to seek a better judgement. This meeting is suspended. [gavel].

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm1-eng.rm?start=01:38:15&end=01:45:04

[About 40 minutes later the meeting continued.]

President: Thank you for your understanding. We will resume and I will…there was also another request for the right of a…for a point of order that I have inadvertently missed. The delegation of Iran, you have the floor, Sir. [Iran is not a member of the Council]

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:00:00&end=00:00:19

Iran: Thank you Mr President. Actually I requested the floor for raising the point of order in support of what has been said by Egypt and by Pakistan, but apparently it was not acceptable so that was all. Thank you.

President: Thank you. Well, I hereby say that it was accepted and this is why I said I inadvertently missed it. I apologise to you for this procedural faux pas. Ladies and gentlemen, no need to hide behind whatever, so I will just ask your attention. Let me recall that before we suspended this meeting I made a remark and that remark has two points. One of the points was a warning on what the debate in this Council should not – repeat, should not – slip into. I warned, and I think I am in agreement with all of you here, that this Council is not prepared to discuss matters…religious matters in depth. Consequently we should not do it. I would like to recall what I said in a previous session, and it is in our record, on the 13th of March. “As long as a statement…made with restraint from making a judgement, or evaluation of a particular set of legislation, which is not in the point of our discussion, the speaker may continue.” It was among… within a circumstance that was quite similar as the same in which we are today. Having said that, I will give back the floor to the representative of the NGO in question, with the understanding that as long as the statement will restrain from making a judgement or evaluation of any particular set of legislation which is, indeed, not the point of our discussion, this statement may continue. Distinguished representative of Egypt, you have the floor.

Egypt: Thank you, Mr. President. Now you have made your ruling we will listen attentively to the statement. At the first attempt to link any bad practices to a certain religion, in any way, we will reply to your ruling. Thank you.

President [showing indignation]: Thank you… May I say for the record as well, that I was in much more comfortable positions …in this chair … than this position … when … a statement of mine is challenged point blank…Thank you. You have the floor, Sir.

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:00:21&end=00:04:18

AWE / IHEU: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Regarding FGM, our detailed written statement discusses the reasons why 96% of Egyptian women are still subjected to FGM despite State legislation in 1997 outlawing the practice. “Almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practised in its most extreme form known as infibulation” – we are quoting from the Report by the Special Rapporteur Halima Warzazi. UNICEF figures indicate that over 3 million young girls are mutilated each year in 32 countries, 29 of which are Member States of the OIC. We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyad Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe. [Gavel – the president then gives the floor to Egypt for a point of order]

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:04:19&end=00:05:28

Egypt: Mr President, with all due respect I would like to challenge your ruling and according to rule 115 we should proceed to a vote now. This is an attempt to raise a bad traditional practice to Islam. Sheikh [of] Al-Azar is the president of the largest and the biggest and the oldest Islamic university in the world. This is not the understanding we had when you allowed this speaker to continue. I am afraid I will have no other option but to challenge your ruling regardless of the result of the challenge…of the rule [jabbing right forefinger on the desk].

President: I am sorry. I didn’t understand the last part.

Egypt: My last part, Sir, is that is regardless of the result of the vote, I couldn’t care less if I will win or lose this vote. My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council. That’s why we are challenging this ruling, and the result of the vote will be indicative to what all delegations think on this issue and it will be a matter of discussion later between the OIC and the other… our colleagues from other groups. Thank you.

President: All right. Let me have a look at what I have said and also have a look at what the speaker has just read.

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:05:33&end=00:06:56

[Meeting halted briefly and then resumed. The floor then given to Germany for a point of order.]

Germany: Mr. President, I would kindly, through you, ask the Egyptian delegation and its representative if I did understand in his last intervention…he seemed to have said, and I quote, and I apologise if I did not understand this correctly – my understanding was, quote: “Islam will not be crucified in this Council”. And I would like this statement confirmed and if it is confirmed I would ask you, Mr. President, whether you consider this appropriate with regard to the question of mentioning religion and its symbols?

President: Thank you. Before giving the floor to the Egyptian… distinguished…Egyptian delegate, I would kindly ask everybody … to take a deep breath. [light laughter]. Let’s try and get back to our normal mode, to our decent and reasonable approach of topics that are sensitive, sure [?]. Distinguished delegate of Egypt, you have the floor, Sir.

Egypt: Mr. President, abiding by the first and the second rulings you’ve made which are not different, in my opinion, I would ask to delete any references to the fatwa of Sheikh Al-Azhar [Grand Sheikh Sayyad Tantawi] and to delete all references to Sheikh Al-Azhar from this paragraph and from the official records of the meeting. Thank you.

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:13:09&end=00:14:55

[The president again gives the floor to the NGO speaker]

AWE / IHEU: “The Government of Pakistan vigorously condemns the practice of so-called ‘Honour Killings’ and that such actions do not find any place in our religion or law.” – this is a quotation from President Mussharaf on 28 April 2000. Yet this murderous practice seems to be on the increase in Pakistan and elsewhere – even in Europe in certain communities. It must be criminalised and the law strictly applied.
The stoning of women for alleged adultery still occurs regularly in Iran, Sudan and other countries. In Iran, they are buried up to their waists in pits and blunt stones are used thereby increasing their agony in death.
The marriage age for girls in Iran remains at 9 years old. In the year 2000, the Iranian Parliament attempted to increase the age to 14 but the law was overturned by the Council of Guardians. Last week … [The President recognized a point of order]

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:15:11&end=00:16:16

Iran: Thank you Mr President. With all respect to your rule and to yourself, Mr. President, the statement and the references made by this speaker in this statement is false and has nothing to do with the realities in my country. I just wanted, for the record… he said that…“the stoning of women for adultery still occurs regularly in Iran” – it’s not true, it is completely false, and is out of the question. Thank you.

President: Thank you. I thought you were asking the floor for a point of order, Sir, and it would have been granted to you. I think that what you said amounts to a right of reply – which is still a right you can exercise, if you request it, at the end of the consideration of this item. So I just wanted to highlight this situation to you. Cuba raises a point of order.

Cuba: Point of order in Spanish. [No translation on the webcast of this point of order.This is an unofficial translation.]
I’m not going to refer to the contents of what this gentleman said. In the first place, we are exposed to bad practices, which lead to stopping the procedures of the Commission [Council].
Also to the suspension of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action by this NGO, and
the introduction of item 4 issues of the Agenda [“country situations.”] I think he is off the agenda item [8] and its subject. He must stop his intervention. Please interrupt him and make him utilise item 4 which will come up in the September session [of the Council].
suggested that the matters under discussion should have been raised under item 4 of the agenda, and referred to the AWE speaker as having caused another NGO (meaning WUPJ) to lose its accreditation to the UN. In fact, although Cuba, representing the Non-Aligned Movement, had attempted to have WUPJ’s accreditation revoked, they had failed 10 days before]

President: Thank you. Before going on with the list of points of order, may I recall that a similar debate occurred in this Council some time ago and then we emphasised that in approaching item 8 which is the implementation of the Vienna Declaration and its programme of Action, we may refer to the way in which various rights in these documents are implemented – because this is what we are doing. Having said that, we cannot refer to these implementations in abstract. We agreed that it may be exemplified. So from this point of view, we have heard in this statement so far, two or three examples which would – to my reading – not qualify this statement as an item 4 statement. It is not a country situation. We have two requests of rights of…of points of order, Slovenia and Jordan. Slovenia.

Slovenia: Thank you very much, Mr. President. First I would like to clarify that the EU agrees with your ruling, that you have made, and I would also like to make clear that the EU is not linking in any way FGM with any religion or for that matter with Islam. Just for clarification, I would like to say this very clearly in this Council with regard to the last point of order we have heard, we again agree with the explanation you have just provided that, indeed, statements can be exemplified as long as they are linked to the agenda item at hand, and I would also like to reiterate that we are going to listen very carefully, with attention and with respect to any explanation that any delegation may wish to offer in replying to the statement being made or any other statements being made in the form of right of reply. I thank you very much.

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:16:26&end=00:21:29

(The webcast gives no intervention by Jordan, although Jordan did speak, but continues with the NGO speaker).

AWE / IHEU: Thank you Mr. President. Integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations System is part of item 8 under paragraph 140 [141]. I will conclude Sir.
Last week, Nobel Peace prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, speaking in Geneva, denounced the fact that in Iran a girl is considered an adult and liable to punishment, even execution at 9 and a boy at 15. She rejects the concept of cultural relativism, as does the French Secretary of State for Urban Affairs, Fadela Amara, who recently strongly criticised the ruling of a French judge in Lille for annulling a marriage between two Muslims because the girl lied about her virginity in the marriage contract. Ms. Amara rightly called this aberration – and I quote – “a real fatwa against the emancipation [first gavel] and the liberty of women. [second gavel]. Thank you Mr. President. I was quoting a Minister in France.

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:21:37&end=00:22:48

President: Your time is up, Sir.

rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/eighth/hrc080616pm2-orig.rm?start=00:22:54&end=00:23:44

[The meeting closed at 18:05. Duration: 85 minutes, including 40 minute suspension]
------------

Footnotes:

1. This text should not have been made available to any delegate before being presented. Speakers are asked to provides 25 copies for the secretariat (interpreters, etc.), which are not intended for delegates.
2 It is not. None of the statements delivered by the speaker in December 2007 were on this subject.
3 He may have confused the dates. Perhaps on January 24 when speaking for the WUPJ on Hamas and advised to stop by the president; or on March 26 when speaking for the AWE when he was interrupted on a ‘point of order’ five times (3 times by Egypt, once by Palestine, once by Iran) when speaking on a different subject.
4 Sharia law is not mentioned in this paragraph. (See below)
5 Nor in this paragraph.
6 The ruling that he is referring to was made on 13 March when the same Pakistani representative raised a point of order in a statement on behalf of IHEU by Roy Brown. He said: “It is an insult to our faith to discuss Sharia law in this forum”. The President on that occasion did not prohibit discussion of the Sharia, but said that as long as the speaker refrains from making evaluative judgements of any system of law, he may continue”..

Below is the text handed to the Council Secretariat prior to the speech, which was delivered more or less entirely by the speaker
[Passages in bold italics and brackets were ‘deleted’ after the warning from the president]

Mr President

In the context of integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations System, we wish to draw attention to four examples of widespread violence against women that we believe merit far greater attention from the Council.

1. Regarding FGM, we are making available our detailed written statement (*) The 1st interruption by the delegate of Egypt occurred here; 15 points of order followed, 7 by Egypt, and 11 replies from the president. [E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/NGO/27: Background on “Traditional or Customary Practices” /Female Genital Mutilation and the Arabic text (& translations), certified by Al-Azhar University, the authoritative source for the Shafi’i school of Sunni law, widely adhered to in Egypt] which discusses the reasons why 96% of Egyptian women are still subjected to FGM despite State legislation in 1997 outlawing the practice [Sara Corbett, “A Cutting Tradition”, NYT, Sunday Magazine, 20 Jan. 2008].

“Almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practised in its most extreme form known as infibulation” – we are quoting from the Report of Special Rapporteur Halima Warzazi [E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/41, §24]. UNICEF figures indicate that over 3 million young girls are mutilated each year in 32 countries, 29 of which are Member States of the OIC. We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyad Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe.

2. The number of “honour killings” is on the increase, worldwide. Ten years ago in 1998, there were a reported 300 cases of honour killings in one province of Pakistan alone [Mufti Ziauddin “Status of Court Cases for Murdered Women; and BBC film, Home programme, 8 April 2000.] On 28 April 2000, President Musharraf declared that “The Government of Pakistan vigorously condemns the practice of so-called ‘Honour Killings’ and that such actions do not find any place in our religion or law.” Yet this murderous practice seems to be on the increase in Pakistan and elsewhere – even in Europe in certain communities. It must be criminalised and the law strictly applied.

3. The stoning of women for alleged adultery still occurs regularly in Iran, Sudan and other [Muslim] countries [that apply Shari’a law]. In Iran, they are buried up to their waists in pits and [by law] blunt stones are used thereby increasing their agony in death.

4. The marriage age for girls in Iran remains at 9 years [based on Shari’a law]. In the year 2000, the Iranian Parliament attempted to increase the age to 14 but the law was overturned by the Council of Guardians, [claiming Quaranic justification] [“Islamic scholars have put a lot of efforts into these laws.”– “Iran Bill to End Marriage at 9. Guardian Consent Still Needed”, IHT, 10 August 2000] Last week, Noble Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi, speaking in Geneva, denounced the fact that in Iran a girl is considered an adult and liable to punishment, even execution at 9, and a boy at 15. [Le Temps, 10 June 2008]. She rejects the concept of cultural relativism, as does the French Secretary of State for Urban Affairs, Fadela Amara, who recently strongly criticised the ruling of a French judge in Lille for annulling a marriage between two Muslims because the girl lied about her virginity in the marriage contract. Ms. Amara rightly called this aberration “a real fatwa against the emancipation and liberty of women.” [Steven Erlanger, “Muslim minister tackles French suburbs: Blunt talker refuses to accept ‘injustices’”, Int. Herald Tribune, 14-15 June 2008]

Thank you Mr. President.

19 June 2008

Jihad against free speech at United Nations human rights body

Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates by UN human rights body

Originally Reported by Daily Times of Pakistan. via http://richarddawkins.net/article,2743,n,n

HASSERS Source: International Herald Tribune.

HASSERS Source: UN webcast: http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080616#pm

Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement)

[English] 1 minute

	Points of order
	Egypt Pakistan Slovenia Egypt Pakistan President Canada Egypt President [English] 7 minutes

Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement)

[English] 1 minute

Meeting is suspended
	Mr. Doru Costea President of the Human Rights Council [English] 1 minute
	Points of order
	Iran (Islamic Republic of) President Egypt President [English] 4 minutes
	Non-governemental Organizations (Continued)
	Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement) [English] 1 minute
	Points of order
	Egypt President Egypt President [English] 1 minute
	Meeting is suspended
	Mr. Doru Costea President of the Human Rights Council [English] 1 minute
	Points of order
	Germany President Egypt [English] 2 minutes
	Non-governemental Organizations (Continued)
	Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement) [English] 1 minute
	Rights of reply / Points of order
	Iran (Islamic Republic of) President Cuba President Slovenia [English / Spanish] 5 minutes
	Non-governemental Organizations (Continued)
	Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement) [English] 1 minute
	Mr. Doru Costea President of the Human Rights Council [English] 1 minute

Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

* UN body says only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss
matters of faith

GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticized during debates by the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be "very complex, very sensitive and very intense," council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.

Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.

While Costea's ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.

Costea issued his "presidential ruling" Monday (16th June 2008) during the eighth meeting of the council's 47 members, which do not include the United States. The ruling will not affect findings by the council's experts, just its chamber debates.

On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honor killings of women.

The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting ahead of important votes on the future of the council's work.

The council was created two years ago to replace the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission. Its resolutions carry no legal weight but are intended to throw a spotlight on governments that abuse their citizens.

"This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it," Costea ruled after an emergency break to calm the situation.

"To continue a debate on this in the Human Rights Council will mean to open the door to purely political approaches," Costea later told journalists on Wednesday.

Discussing the religious reasons for human rights abuses would be "unhelpful, to say the least, for both the human rights in question and for a true, genuine dialogue among followers of various religions," he added.

A spokesman for human rights group Amnesty International said the move was consistent with attempts by some governments to create no-go zones in the council.

"If Pakistan can come and say that the murder of women for some perverse sense of honor has nothing to do with universally recognized human rights, we're in trouble," Peter Splinter told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Egypt, too, has repeatedly tried to stop Islamic law — or sharia — from being discussed, he said.

In March, the council resolved to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and news media for negative comments about Islam.

The American ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Warren Tichenor, cited that decision as one reason why the U.S. is pulling back from the council, where Western countries are in a minority.

The United States, which is not a council member but can speak during debates, announced earlier this month that it would only participate in the forum when absolutely necessary.

Washington has vocally complained that the council focuses too much on Israel, while treating autocratic governments such as Cuba and Myanmar with a light touch.

Meanwhile, the council also decided Wednesday to allow countries to call for the sacking of the council's independent rights experts after three years.

"Good mandate holders who do their job right upset governments," said Splinter of Amnesty.

"Any government which feels upset can now complicate the reappointment of an expert. This is going to have a stifling effect, potentially a serious one," he said.

___

From www.un.org/webcast

Video of U.N. rights council debate webcast, part 1: http://tinyurl.com/4kn6ym (7 mins)
http://tinyurl.com/3qgvgg (22 mins)
Recommended

Fascinating insight into how the UN debates these issues with great dignity. Also shows how proponents of Sharia Law fight their corner for Sharia Law.

The President said "statement should refrain from making judgements and evaluations of ...

Roy Brown, former president of IHEU reports in full.

Wikipedia UN Human Rights Council