United Nations Resolution 62/154 - Assignment Example

United Nations Resolution 62/154 - Should Australia Support this Resolution? The United Nations passed a resolution proposed on 6 March 2008 to condemn the concept of religious defamation and to encourage the world to unite under the agreement that respect, human rights, and fundamental freedoms should be due to all regardless of race, sex, language, or religion. The U.N. had already agreed to uphold these values, but what it intended with this resolution was that it should reaffirm its stand on defamation of religion in order to help combat this type of intolerance in the world (United). On the surface this seems like a worthy and admirable value, however, there are some underlying philosophies that need to be examined in order to fully understand to what the assembly has agreed. This puts into question whether or not Australia should support such a resolution or support those who oppose the philosophies behind the resolution. In 2001, Victoria, Australia adopted The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (RRTA) which would prohibit “behavior that incites or encourages hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against another person or group of people because of their race, and or religion” (Victorian). The purpose of the act was not to control the way people think, but to allow for the community to expect a certain level of behavior in public that would not impose discriminatory actions on people based on their religious Client Last Name 2 beliefs. In other words, the people were expected to treat one another with respect no matter what their personal beliefs. There are reports that the penalties for expressing such vilification can result in either or both up to six months in prison or 6,000 in fines (Eden). The implications of the Act are far reaching into the domain of behavior. It is against the law to make commentary on the Internet, in e-mail, at a meeting or public rally, or to write racist graffiti, put up posters, stickers or any communication that promotes an abusive attitude to those who read or view it (Victorian). As freedom of speech is limited to political communication, the dictation of behavior in concern to speech that has a racist angle is within the prerogative of the state. The concept is upheld as implied through the court case of Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 which held that while the Constitution did not give explicit rights to freedom of speech, it did give implicit rights in concerned to freedom of political communications (Saunders and Mason 25). Therefore, the established concept of freedom of speech has been shown to not exist in regard to ideas that are offensive to the state in the way that they incite vilification of individuals in reference to their chosen religious affiliation. However, an argument can be made that the U.N. Resolution was designed to uphold an entirely different matter. This resolution, according to Christopher Hitchens of The Australian, actually “seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being “offended” (Hitchens). In seeking to protect individuals from harm because of their believes, there is a suggestion that belief itself should be protected rather than the individuals. This is a fine line that has implications that can cross into territories Client Last Name 3 that states may not wish to bar themselves from exploring. By adopting this resolution, the concept of questioning whether or not the beliefs themselves are humane and hold up worldwide humanitarian beliefs cannot be examined. Critiques of this resolution, especially in regard to Islamic faith, law, and traditions, have lobbied for this very issue to be addressed in regard to the language of the Resolution. As written in the Israel Military Forum, the new resolution has forbidden discussion within the U.N. Human Rights Council on issues of human rights because they fall in line with the Resolution 62/154 as being critical of religious beliefs. When David Littman, a representative for the World Union of Progressive Judaism in Geneva and a speaker on human rights had the floor and began to discuss and denounce policies that supported “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”, (Israel Military), he was interrupted by 16 points of order that were supported by the Resolution. The discussion was no longer a viable direction of examination because it was a judgment against the actions of a religious entity. One must question the wisdom of a humanitarian resolution that no longer allows the denunciation of inhumane behaviors. While support for a religious community must be maintained for the respect that its members deserve on a humanitarian level for its beliefs, it has long been held that behaviors within a religious community that adversely affect their own group will not necessarily be tolerated. As an example, in the United States there are small communities of Pentecostal churches that embrace a practice known as ’snake handling’ where the members work themselves into a fervor and in Client Last Name 4 order to show their faith in God, handle venomous snakes, putting themselves and the members of the congregation in jeopardy. The states within the United States where this occurs have opted to make this against the law in order that the greater good and safety of the communities may be maintained (Kimbrough 136). In a country that declares freedoms of religion for all, limitations are still placed so that members of the community and of society are not put into harms way. Therefore, tolerance of religious belief does not suggest that all behavior of that belief should necessarily be tolerated. However, in a document that was submitted to the United Nations that further supports the Resolution in question, the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) issued the “OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia” in order to plead its case for tolerance of the laws and actions under the umbrella of Islam. According to Vahid, “While Islam, as the religion of peace and tolerance, affirms moderation and balance and rejects all forms of extremism and terrorism, the proponents of Islamophobia continue their campaign in defaming Islam and Muslims“. One of the chief complaints is in the incident that created an uproar when cartoons appeared in Jyllands-Posten in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed in defamatory fashion. The world-wide backlash of insult felt by the followers of Islam was a painful and xenophobic reminder that the world does not respect what it does not understand. In creating this report, Vahid wishes to charge the U.N. to create “effective legal instruments to fight this menace and affirms that the right to freedom of expression should be concomitantly exercised with its inherent responsibilities”. It is his hope that the world leaders will raise up the power of their governments in order to put an end to Client Last Name 5 discrimination and provocation that is based on insulting and diminishing them through their religious symbols. This cause has an ethically responsible foundation in that the proliferation of discrimination will only lead to crime, hostility and misunderstandings between people of differing nations and religious platforms. However, the resulting conditions of acceptance is based on the idea that in order to accept Islam in a non-judgmental fashion, it is necessary to accept all of the actions and behaviors of those who practice the faith as long as they come under the guise of religious association. Therefore, the stoning of a woman for having committed adultery is acceptable because it is done through the laws established within their faith. The Center for Inquiry has supported a paper written by Austin Dacey and Colin Kaproske that charges Islam with seeking exception to participation in the human rights that have been agreed upon within the United Nations on the grounds that it is within their rights as a religious entity to ignore these principles if they do not agree with the belief systems developed within the religion. An alternative human rights document, The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, was created in 1990, “arguing that the “Western” human rights language in the UN document did not adequately accommodate the Muslim worldview“ (Dacey and Kaproske 4). An example of the differences in the language that is used can be seen in the following excerpts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and the Islamic version: English: Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports that Client Last Name 6 may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo, or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons. Arabic: Everyone may think, believe and express his ideas and beliefs without interference or opposition from anyone as long as he obeys the limits [hudud] set by the shari’ah. It is not permitted to spread falsehood [al-batil] or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination [al-fahisha] or forsaking the Islamic community [takhdhil li’l-umma] (Dacey and Kaproske 6-7). The implication is clear. The rights of the individual only extend as far as Islamic Law will allow them to be extended. Dacey and Kaproske also mention the incident with David Littman when the Resolution was put to the test and in 22 seconds the Egyptian representative had interrupted with a point of order which led to the eventual dismissal of discussing the topic of stoning to death women who have committed adultery and, in this report, the executions of apostates (7). According to Dacey and Kaproske, a congressional panel in the United States on religious freedom found former U.S. State Department human rights expert Susan Bunn Livingstone suggesting that in creating such limitations they “are trying to internationalize the concept of blasphemy . . . . They are using this discourse of ‘defamation’ to carve out any attention we would bring to a country. Abstractions like states and ideologies are seen as more important than individuals. This is a moral failure” (7). The universality of a religious right to freedom to express belief must be tempered with the universal need to declare that people are deserved of a core of rights that should not interfere with belief. The original Human Rights Declaration was universal and was valid across cultures, as it should be valid. To make exceptions to this to the point that Client Last Name 7 discussing whether or not deaths have fallen outside of the boundaries of that declaration has created a situation where belief and ideology have overrun the security of humanitarian rights. Examining past habits of other religions in light of the UDHR might shed some clarity on the subject. It is easy to understand the desire to protect the rights of a community that shares a belief system. It is admirable to share the common belief that it is intolerable for any person or group to be treated unfairly due to their religious beliefs. However, what if the Catholic Church decided to reinstitute the burning of heretics? What if the Thuggee cult were to reappear in India and again begin the practice of human sacrifice? What if the ritual sacrifice of children became a central belief to a religion? As a world community, there are certain behaviors, that while they have existed, have been deemed unacceptable. If the example of stoning the adulterer is undertaken, it is clear that world human rights must declare that this is not acceptable and that the Islamic laws must find another solution for their condemnation of one who violates this law. Ejection from the community, as an example, would be a harsh punishment that would still fit within the rule of conduct within the human rights declaration. Discussing these possibilities gives importance to the inclusion of Islamic nations, rather than excluding them due to a lack of cooperation with world expectations of behavior. The Islamic traditions can fit into the expectations of the world in regard to behavior without violating the sanctity of their traditions. The value of the religion is not based on the harsh penalties that the communities can deliver, but on the peace it gives its followers. Client Last Name 8 It is understandable that in light of the events on September 11, 2001 that a backlash of anti-Islamic behavior became prevalent in the world community. As well, it is also understandable that a swing in the opposite direction created an atmosphere that sought to be sensitive to the Islamic world as it struggles to regain its reputable place in the world that was shattered by a group of radicals that did not represent the entire population of members of the faith. It must also be understood that the Islamic laws that allow behaviors that are contrary to the UDHR do not necessarily represent the believers, but represent those in power over the ideology. To believe that one should not speak against the shari’ah is a viable agreement that the Islamic people can decide upon amongst themselves and choose to follow - this is part of the overall human rights. As the struggle to understand the way in which law must represent the people has continued since the beginning of organized civilization, the way in which society must handle the contradictions of rights versus respect will always be in play. An understanding that there is an overall expectation of behavior can encompass all belief systems and can be agreed upon. To fully allow addressing infractions upon those expectations is a crucial right that must not be denied to speakers at the United Nations as they struggle to bring a humane and righteous sense of oversight on the ills of the world. To not allow a speaker to approach the topic of death within a religious group for fear that this might insult their beliefs puts too much power into the realm of the concept of ideology, without the ability to temper actions through reason. In doing the research for this paper, it was expected that the outcome would be in support of Resolution 62/154, for what could be more pure and wholesome than to agree Client Last Name 9 that intolerance and discrimination based on religious belief is not acceptable? However, in understanding the implications of the Resolution and the eventual outcomes that have occurred in regard to the language in the document, it is clear that the UDHR has suffered from a terrible infringement that has created an atmosphere of tolerance for basic human rights violations. In as much as the United States will not allow its citizens to casually handle venomous snakes to prove their faith, the United Nations must not allow other cultures and ideologies to violate the basic sanctity of human rights in order to support belief. Therefore, it is with great regret that it must be made clear that it is not wise for Australia to support United Nations Resolution 62/154. In supporting this resolution, the loss to the rights of groups and individuals to challenge the behaviors of each other is too great a price. Client Last Name 10 Works Cited Dacey, Austin and Colin Kaproske. “Islam and Human Rights: Defending Universality at the United Nations.” September 2008. 28 May 2009 Eden, John. “There Can Be No Privileged Perch” 1 April 2009. Partnership for a Secured America. 28 May 2009 Hitchens, Christopher. “Push to Criminalize Criticism of Islam.” 9 March 2009 The Australian. 28 May 2009 Israel Military Forum “U.N.: New Resolution Would Define any Questioning of Islam as a Human Rights Violation.” 27 May 2009. 19 June 2008 Kimbrough, David L. Taking Up Serpents: Snake Handlers of Eastern Kentucky. [Macon, Ga.]: Mercer University Press, 2002. Saunders, Cheryl, and Anthony Mason. Courts of Final Jurisdiction: The Mason Court in Australia. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press, 1996. United Nations General Assembly. “Resolution adopted by the General Assembly[on the report of the Third Committee (A/62/439/Add.2)] 62/154. Combating Defamation of Religions” 6 March 2008. U.N. Democracy. 26 May 2009 Client Last Name 11 Vahid, Mojtaba Amiri. “OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia.” 24 July 2008. United Nations Follow Up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. 28 May 2009 Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission. “RRTA Act Explained.” 1 December 2007. 27 May 2009 Read More