INTERNATIONAL HUMANIST AND ETHICAL UNION
UNION INTERNATIONALE HUMANISTE ET LAIQUE

Statement by Main Representative: Roy Brown, Thursday 15th April 2004
UN Commission on Human Rights: 60th session. (15 March - 23 April 2004)

Item 18. Effective Functioning of Human Rights Mechanisms

[The words in square brackets [] were not spoken]

Implementation of Resolution E/CN.4/2004/L.5 Combating defamation of religions

Thank you sir.

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” [compared to the earlier version of this resolution from the 59th session,] 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 [access to] 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 [the] 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 [at a parallel session] 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