Should religious belief be protected from “defamation”?

(From NEWSLINE of the National Secular Society)

Is respect for the sensibilities of religious believers compatible with freedom of speech? How should the EU respond to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that endorses restrictions on freedom of expression in the name of “respect for religions and beliefs”? These issues were discussed by MEPs and experts at a meeting of the EP Subcommittee on Human Rights yesterday (Thursday).

Hélène Flautre (Greens/EFA, FR), chair of the subcommittee, opened the meeting by citing Asma Jahangir, UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, who addressed Parliament’s plenary last week. Mrs Jahangir had argued against “protecting religions per se” and had said “criminalizing so-called defamation of religions can be counterproductive”.

Thursday’s guest speaker, Sara Whyatt (International PEN Writers in Prison Committee), took a critical view of the UNHRC resolution of 30 March 2007, which calls on UN member states to take steps against “defamation of religions”, focusing particularly on Islamophobia.

For her part, Ms Whyatt argued that “religions are systems of ideas and cannot therefore be seen as beyond criticism”. In any case, “what does ‘defamation’ mean?”

Moreover, “religious defamation laws have been used by governments to stifle dissent” and “can lead to violations of human rights”. Protests about the UNHRC resolution had come from many quarters, “over half from Islamic states!” Ultimately, it was crucial to see that “protection of religious freedom is compatible with freedom of expression”. She urged the EP to push for a review of the UNHRC resolution.

The representative of the European Commission stated that EU Member States had not supported the UNHRC resolution and that the EU “does not see ‘defamation of religion’ as appropriate to the human rights discourse”. The very concept poses problems, such as the right of diverse currents to exist within a religion and the freedom not to have a religion or to change one’s religion. The EU’s preferred approach was “to protect individuals not beliefs”.

Alexis Krikorian (International Publishers Association) described the lack of freedom of expression in Tunisia. He spoke about prisoners of opinion, book and internet censorship, restrictions on freedom of association and official harassment, and urged the European Union to link EU-Tunisia relations to freedom of speech and human rights. He also drew attention to Article 10 of the UNHRC resolution, which states that freedom of expression may “be subject to limitations as provided by law” on grounds of “respect for the rights and reputations of others…and respect for religions and beliefs”. “That says it all”, he concluded.

In her closing words, Mrs Flautre reiterated her view that it was best to stop using the expression “defamation of religion” as it was “not a legally consistent concept”. MEPs will return to this subject. A study is being commissioned by the subcommittee and the Euromediterranean Parliamentary Assembly is due to draft a report on it.

The National Secular Society  has been in contact with a number of MEPs about these issues.