On December 10, 1948, the general assembly of the newly formed United Nations adopted a groundbreaking declaration sanctioning the human rights of all people, regardless of culture or religion.  For 60 years, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has provided a sound framework for a number of international covenants protecting the civil, political, economic, social, religious and cultural rights of individuals worldwide.

While the UDHR was passed with the endorsement of many Islamic nations, the last four decades have seen an accelerated effort by a coalition of Islamic states to exempt their version of religiously guided human rights from the goal of extending universal human rights equally to all people, regardless of culture or religion.  Known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) this coalition has, since 1969, subtly but effectively, introduced and secured acceptance of a number of “defamation of religion resolutions” in various UN councils.  The goal of the OIC is to prohibit criticism of religion, particularly Islam, though all religious belief is ostensibly included.  Such changes have now tainted the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What is “defamation of religion” and why should we care about its inclusion in the UDHR?  The appeal to prevent “defamation of religion” is an appeal to limit free expression out of respect for religious belief.  It presumes that religious belief deserves protection, not the believers.  It is a prohibition on blasphemy, which protects the belief itself.  The right that needs to be protected is the right to hold and express any belief that one wishes.  The notion that religious beliefs, not individuals, need protection restricts human rights by limiting free speech where it treads on cultural or religious sensitivities.  Sanctioning resolutions against the "defamation of religion" is dangerous to the noble cause of enshrining universal human rights. Such restrictions invite abuses of power and suppression of dissent through blasphemy prohibitions. They stifle legitimate criticism of practices and laws that may be in violation of human rights and punish dissenters, religious minorities, and atheists.

Not only are efforts to prevent the defamation of religion dangerous, they are unnecessary.  Feeling that one’s cultural or religious beliefs have been slighted does not create a right not to be offended.  Still, it is unacceptable for the speech of religious criticism to incite hostility, violence, or discrimination against believers.  Such limitations on free expression are well established in healthy democracies, and existing human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize these limitations.  The purposes of limitations on free speech are to protect individuals, not ideas or religion in general.

While a UN resolution does not carry the force of a nation-state mandate, it does validate the nation-state laws that follow its accords.  Making an appeal to cultural and religious respect as a method of legitimatizing practices that violate human rights is perilous.  The UN is wrong to succumb to the pressure of the OIC as it tries to protect its own special class of “Islamized” human rights.  Western democracies need to stand firm against such attempts if they truly value free speech and universal human rights.  For more information visit www.centerforinquiry.net/UN.