Commission on Human Rights: 60th Session (15 March – 23 April 2004)

Statement by IHEU Representative Dr. M. Younus Sheikh

Item 14. Specific Groups and Individuals.

Pakistani Blasphemy Law

Sir,

Muslims are the first victims of Islamism. In a novel and unethical way, Pakistani mullahs are abusing the dreadful Islamic blasphemy laws to terrorise liberal and moderate Muslims.

There are over 100 persons in Pakistani jails accused of blasphemy, and either awaiting trial or under sentence of death. Most are Muslims, although a few are from minorities such as Ahmadis and Christians.

Blasphemy is a very serious crime in Islam, and no Muslim would willingly or knowingly blaspheme. The vast majority of people accused of blasphemy have been falsely accused. The Pakistani Islamic blasphemy law, Section 295/C of the Pakistan Penal Code, is vague and susceptible to abuse, but carries a mandatory death penalty, with practically no right to bail and is, therefore, inherently oppressive, unjust and unethical. It is widely abused as an instrument for terrorizing political opponents and members of religious minorities, and for settling political, sectarian and petty rivalries. This is nothing less than religious terrorism through the abuse of the state apparatus and the civil law.

I speak from personal experience. I spent more than three years in prison in Pakistan, two and half in solitary confinement under sentence of death for blasphemy, after having been falsely accused. After a show trial and two appeals where my lawyers were harassed and threatened, I finally had to plead my own case at my retrial and, mercifully, was finally acquitted and released. The judge at my retrial said that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and that the mullahs and Islamic students, my accusers, had lied on oath.

While in jail my life was constantly under threat from fundamentalist inmates and other criminals imprisoned for gang rapes and murders. Many persons accused of blasphemy have been murdered in jail while awaiting trial, or after having been acquitted and released. After my release in November 2003, I found myself under a fatwa of death and had to flee to Europe for my safety.

I praise the efforts of the Pakistani government under President Pervez Musharraf for his liberal and secular steps, and for his courageous fight against Islamic jihadi terrorism, but decry the abuse of the Islamic blasphemy laws for the purpose of imposing Islamic totalitarianism. I appeal to him to curb this blatant abuse of the law.

I also ask the UN Commission on Human Rights to press the Government of Pakistan to repeal these vague, unjust, and much-abused laws.

Thank you.

Statement by IHEU representative Roy Brown

Item 18. Effective Functioning of Human Rights Mechanisms

18 (c) Adaptation and Strengthening of the United Nations machinery for human rights.

Implementation of Resolution E/CN.4/2004/L.5

Combating defamation of religions

Mr Chairman,

In relation to the adaptation and strengthening of the United Nations machinery for human rights, the International Humanist and Ethical Union notes the additions made to the text of Resolution 2004/L.5, “Combating defamation of religions” and in particular to points 3 and 4, which urge states to commit themselves inter-alia to ensuring equal access to education for all in law and in practice; to refrain from measures leading to racial segregation in schooling, and to ensure access to free primary education for both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education, based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind.

We regret, however, that the resolution does not call upon states to refrain from measures leading to religious segregation in education. The IHEU has long held that un-segregated education for all children, based on our shared human values, regardless of race or religion, are the surest safeguard against sectarianism, hatred and violence in the future.

We also note with some concern that the word “defamation” is undefined in the text of the resolution [2004/L.5.] We urge the Commission and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, to accept the distinction between defamation of a religion and valid criticism of its practices, in particular when those practices are in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related instruments. In this regard we note with concern that when, under agenda item 11 at this 60th session of the Commission, we raised the issue of the treatment of those accused of apostasy in some Islamic countries, this was construed by one delegation [Pakistan] as an attack on Islam. We respectfully request all states to address honestly and openly concerns that may be expressed about genuine abuses of human rights. Accusations of defamation of religion should not be allowed to stifle legitimate criticism of the laws and practices of any country.

We would also urge the Commission and the Special Rapporteur to be mindful of the distinction between defamation of a religion, and the publication of academic research into its origins, history and practices. We all deplore defamation and falsehood. But it would be a tragedy if concerns about defamation were allowed to stifle honest inquiry and the publication and expression of factual data. We would also urge all states to recognise that with so many differing beliefs current in the world, genuine differences will arise. The honest belief of one man should not be treated as defamation of his religion by another.

Finally, we would urge those states whose laws are based on their understanding of God’s law, not to treat calls for the change or repeal of any law as defamation of their religion, or worse, as blasphemy, or as evidence of apostasy. Allow me to conclude, Mr Chairman, by quoting Mr Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, who said here on 2nd April: “There are two problems – when religion is the property of the state, and when the state is the property of religion.”

Thank you.