- home
- about IHEU
- human rights
- conferences
- countries
- news
- contact us
IHEU speaks out at the UN on freedom of religion and freedom of expression
Submitted by admin on 13 October, 2007 - 04:00
Speaking at the United Nations Human Rights Council, IHEU has called for a clear distinction to be drawn between protection for the rights of believers and attempts to protect ideas, beliefs and practices from legitimate criticism.
International Humanist and Ethical Union
Human Rights Council, Sixth Session 10 – 28 September 2007
Agenda Item 3: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
Statement by IHEU main representative, Roy W. Brown, 13 September 2007
Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression
Mr President.
We welcome the report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, [A/HRC/6/5] and would like to comment on the somewhat fraught interrelationship between religious freedom and freedom of expression.
In her report to the Council [A/HRC/6/4] the High Commissioner for Human Rights rightly states that “Freedom of expression and freedom of religion walk together”. She reported that following a proposal from the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Contemporary forms of Racism, the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee had expressed himself to be “particularly interested” in drafting a revised comment on article 20 of the ICCPR.
Rightly understood, there is no conflict between freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. All must be able to follow their consciences, express their beliefs and practice their religion, subject only to the constraint that in so doing they do not impede the right of others to do the same.
When dealing with issues that are this politically sensitive it is vital that terms are clearly defined. But sadly, for example, none of the repeated resolutions on combating defamation of religions sponsored by the OIC and adopted by the old Commission, by the Council and recently by the UN General Assembly, define what is meant by “defamation of religion”. This is a serious omission because we note with dismay that this lack of clarity is already being used in some quarters to stifle criticism of human rights abuse carried out in the name of religion.
Mr President, a clear distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, protecting the rights of believers, and on the other, attempting to protect ideas, beliefs and practices from legitimate criticism.
We are making available copies of our oral presentation on this subject from the 4th session of the Human Rights Council in March this year.
Thank you sir.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.iheu.org/trackback/2815
»
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Printer-friendly version
contradictions
If humanism is based on logical reasoning, and the rejection of supernatural ideolgies, then it is automatic that religious ideology will be 'ridiculed"or "defamed"as a result of this very fundamental principle! So if we were to accept that a religious ideology 2500 years old is still to be respected and not "critïcised", then we are fooling ourselves as Humanists, by playing along as good guys. Is this okay?
In every field of human endeavour, including art, architecture, medicine, engineering the rate of growth of knowledge is rapid and large, and we discard the old rules and principles and adopt the new ones very quickly, this is what makes logical reasoning and science current and useful.
religion on the other hand has stagnated for centuries with speeches and ideas from people who lived hundred of years ago, who wore pieces of wood for footwear, had wood fire for cooking meals, travelled on the back of beasts of burden, lived in homes of wood and dung, at the best used metal blades for wars, used rock based technology for building, did not even understand anything outside their little civilization, used metaphors,stories and poetry to express their ideas, and these have come down through time as what we would consider totally unscientific and even illogical, and yet we have to agree with all this nonsense because we cannot defame religion! defamation of religion is thus a contradiction for Humanists.
We can only hope that logical persuasion, and the applicability of rational thought and science will change these "religious"nut crackers
If humanist were to argue that religion was the Humanism of the past and has served us well, by advancing civilization, then I would agree and accept it as a valid reason not to criticise them. religious wars and doctrines over the past few thousand years have only slowed down the progression of our civilization as Humans, and at one time for almost 500 years (the dark ages) it completely stopped all growth and advancement, this surely must be a reason to defame such atrocities that these "religious"people have heaped upon our collective civilization.