Support for UN religious defamation rule drops

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference’s ongoing campaign to bring an international religious defamation resolution into effect suffered a decline in support for the 3rd year running.

Last year 85 countries in the UN’s Third Committee on Human Rights voted for the resolution, which a reduction in support from 95, in 2007. This year that number dropped to 81. Similarly, the number of countries voting against the proposal rose to 55 this year, from last year’s 50.

Perhaps the fact that the wording of the resolution is indefensible has something to do with the waning of support.

Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.

However, while support for these non-binding resolutions is dropping, a major maneuver to create a legally-binding blasphemy law has taken place in Geneva. On Oct 30th Pakistan moved to make a binding treaty amendment to the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which would include a ban on “defamation of religions”.

Belief groups have united with the International Humanist and Ethical Union to oppose the ban.

Matt Cherry, head of the IHEU delegation to the United Nations in New York:

Outlawing ‘defamation of religion’ will create a global law against blasphemy that takes rights from individuals and gives them to governments and religious leaders… The range of belief groups opposing this measure—including Humanist, Muslim, Christian and Hindu organizations—reveals that this proposal is opposed even by the believers it claims to protect


4 Responses to “Support for UN religious defamation rule drops”

  1. Dajjal says:

    The Ad Hoc Cmte. was scheduled to meet from Oct. 19 to Oct. 30. It appears that they did not reach agreement on procedural matters or substantive issues. I want to find out when they will meet for their next session.

    There is one way to counter attack. Islamic doctrine and practice violates ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG. We can tell the world about that fact by means of the International Qur’an Petition.

  2. Stuart says:

    Why the heck should anyone be free from defamation?

    Let’s face it, you only want this law if you’ve got something to hide.

  3. [...] for UN religious defamation rule drops” [Media Watch Watch] On the other hand? “Envoy’s Speech Signals Softening of U.S. Hostility to [...]

  4. Frank says:

    “Why the heck should anyone be free from defamation? Let’s face it, you only want this law if you’ve got something to hide.”

    So there should be no defamation or libel laws? Someone should be able to publish that your mother is a disease ridden prostitute? I mean, if she’s got nothing to hide…