Tag: Istanbul Process

U.N. Tackles Religious Intolerance without Limiting Free Speech

12-20-2011

By Joëlle Fiss
Senior Associate, Fighting Discrimination Program

Myth vs. Reality on U.S. Engagement with Islamic States

Yesterday, in an historic vote, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on combating religious intolerance.

The novelty of this text is that it does not include the harmful concept of “defamation of religions.” Instead, the General Assembly resolution calls on governments to speak out and to condemn hatred, while encouraging open debate, human rights education, and interfaith and intercultural initiatives.

The resolution marks a welcome departure from previous U.N texts. For over a decade, efforts were made in several venues at the U.N. to promote the concept that was intended to prohibit “defamation of religions.” What it did, in fact, was provide cover for abusive national blasphemy laws. Human Rights First has long argued that this concept is inconsistent with universal human rights standards that protect individuals rather than abstract ideas or religions. Indeed, blasphemy laws promote a stifling atmosphere in which governments can restrict freedom of expression, thought and religion and persecute religious minorities. Such resolutions were sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Last week, the U.S. government organized a two-day Istanbul Process Conference inviting experts from around the world to share best practices on how to fight discrimination based on religion or belief. Some have criticized the United States’ engagement with the O.I.C. on these issues. Human Rights First has worked for years to reverse the tide of defamation of religions at the U.N. , and has welcomed HRC resolution 16/18 as well as this most recent General Assembly resolution. We believe it is important for governments to now implement the provisions of these resolutions.

Here are some commonly expressed concerns and our response to them:

Myth 1: The U.N. resolution opens the door to limiting freedom of speech.

Wrong. The resolution acknowledges the language of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), notably that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” It calls on states to take measures “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.”

The United States has a reservation to that provision, to the extent that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so it is not bound by the obligation. In fact, the U.S. has the highest threshold of free speech in the world, and the U.S. government has expressed no intention of lowering those standards. However, that does not exempt all other states from their legal obligations to fight “incitement, hostility or violence” according to article 20 of the ICCPR. After all, that is what they signed up to, so they have an obligation by law to honor their commitment.

In all respects though, the implementation of Article 20 must not infringe Article 19, which reasserts everyone’s right to freedom of expression. Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations. The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

Myth 2: “The Istanbul Process Conference is undermining U.S. standards on freedom of expression.”

Wrong. The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.

The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech. This is not only important to protecting human rights, but also key to keeping the defamation concept off the U.N. agenda.

The aim of the gathering on December 12-14 was to enhance international and technical expertise on challenges that law enforcement officials and other national experts face, when tackling conflict prevention and religious intolerance. The discussions focused on the difficulties that practitioners face on the ground, such as training officials, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and collecting data on violent hate crimes. The conference also plans to collect information on government’s best practices, which could provide a useful tool. A report will be shared and made public to states and U.N. bodies. The United States should make sure that the report remains true to its intentions, which is to highlight effective practices that do not restrict speech.

Myth 3: The O.I.C. has not abandoned the concept of defamation of religions, so why bother organizing a conference if its agenda hasn’t changed?

The concept of defamation of religions – most frequently seen in national legislation in the form of blasphemy laws – has not vanished into thin air. Blasphemy laws continue to abuse human rights and to inflict brutality on innocent victims. Human Rights First’s recently updated report documents over 100 incidents from 18 countries. It illustrates how blasphemy laws are frequently invoked to stifle dissent and harass rivals. The report also shows how blasphemy laws can provide state-sanction for discrimination against minority religions and faiths. Since the laws are discriminatory in their open-endedness they enable governments through their application to essentially determine which ideas are acceptable and which are not. As such, accusations of blasphemy have led to arbitrary arrests and detentions and restrictions in the practice and worship of minority religions.

The chilling number of incidents cited in the report of angry mobs taking the law into their own hands provides a window into the violence that blasphemy or rumors of blasphemy can incite. The majority of cases of mob violence hail from Pakistan and Indonesia. Sometimes mobs target government officials for not being strict enough in their application of blasphemy laws. But the violence is most frequently directed toward religious minority communities where the practice of their religion has been deemed blasphemous or, where simply a misspoken word or alleged desecration of the Koran incites retaliation. Violence goes unpunished and sometimes it is rather the victims of the violence that are prosecuted for their role in protecting themselves, their homes, and their places of worship.

At the international level, too, certain leaders have not abandoned reference to defamation of religions. This requires continued vigilance on the part of the US and like-minded governments, as well as human rights and other civil society groups, to ensure that the momentum remains on the side of the new consensus approach.

In organizing this conference, the U.S. took the lead in demonstrating that all states can do more to combat hatred without restricting speech. Ultimately, the Istanbul process (and the U.N. resolutions that inspired it) should be judged not by the decision of the U.S. to engage other states to implement resolutions, but on the extent to which it contributes to improving the ways in which states fight religious intolerance while respecting freedom of speech.

December 22, 2011
Turkey and America

A Perverse Process
Nina Shea December 18th 2011
Hudson Institute

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday ended the “Istanbul Process,” a three-day, closed-door international conference hosted by the State Department on measures to combat religious “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization.”

The conference was intended to “implement” last March’s UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, on the same subject. Notwithstanding Clinton’s final speech defending freedoms of religion and speech, the gathering was folly. Resolution 16/18 was adopted in the place of one that endorsed the dangerous idea that “defamation of religion” should be punished criminally worldwide.

That call for a universal blasphemy law had been pushed relentlessly for 12 years by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an essentially religious body chartered to “combat defamation of Islam.” It issues fatwas and other directives to punish public expression of apostasy from Islam and “Islamophobia.” Leading OIC states behind this campaign – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Pakistan – imprison and/or sentence to death “blasphemers.”

Resolution 16/18 deplores religious intolerance but doesn’t limit speech – the result of a deft State Department maneuver. The administration should have let matters rest there. Instead, while co-chairing an OIC “High Level Meeting” addressing Islamophobia last July in Istanbul, Clinton invited the OIC to Washington to discuss how to “implement” resolution 16/18.

While the Washington conference ended inconclusively, it should not have been held because it offered a transnational venue for the OIC to reintroduce its anti-defamation push, just as the issue had been laid to rest at the United Nations. The administration erred in viewing resolution 16/18 as a meeting of minds between the OIC and America on freedoms of religion and speech. In Istanbul, Clinton asserted that the United States does not want to see speech restrictions — but her conference announcement immediately reignited OIC demands for the West to punish anti-Islamic speech.

As the OIC reported it: “The upcoming [Washington] meetings . . . [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.” It unfairly held up the American experience for special scrutiny and critique.

A legal official’s opening keynote address gave a one-sided historical depiction of American bigotry against religious minorities, including Muslims, without explaining our relatively exemplary achievement of upholding individual freedoms of religion and speech in an overwhelmingly tolerant and pluralistic society. He told the participants, some representing the world’s most repressive states, that America can learn to protect religious tolerance from them.

By standing “united” (as the OIC head put it in a Turkish Daily op-ed) with the OIC on these issues, America appears to validate the OIC agenda, thus demoralizing the legions of women’s rights and human-rights advocates, bloggers, journalists, minorities, converts, reformers and others in OIC states who look to the United States for support against oppression. It raises expectations that America can and will regulate speech on behalf of Islam, as has happened in Western Europe, Canada and Australia.

The European Union mandated religious-hate-speech codes after global riots and other similar violence erupted in 2006 over a Danish newspaper’s publication of caricatures of Mohammad. America is facing pressure to conform to this new global “best practice”; this will only intensify it.

Clinton on Wednesday naively importuned Islamist diplomats: “We have to get past the idea that we can suppress religious minorities, that we can restrict speech, that we are smart enough that we can substitute our judgment for God’s and determine who is or is not blaspheming.” Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi establishment isn’t likely to find such “infidel’” arguments persuasive.

US diplomats should stop the “Istanbul Process” and begin to energetically and confidently promote the virtues of our First Amendment freedoms. They should be thoroughly briefed about the OIC’s intractable position on blasphemy laws and the extent of atrocities associated with them. They must end signaling that there is common ground on these issues between us and the OIC.

Nina Shea writes for Hudson Institute, from where this article is adapted.

via The Cutting Edge News.

December 19, 2011
Remarks at the Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

December 14, 2011

Well, good afternoon, everyone, and I want to thank you all for participating in this conference where we are working together to protect two fundamental freedoms – the right to practice one’s religion freely and the right to express one’s opinion without fear.I’m delighted to see so many members of the diplomatic corps. I welcome all of you here to the State Department. I especially wish to acknowledge Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, who has been leading our efforts, and also Ambassador Eileen Donahoe, the U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council, who has also been tireless in pursuit of America’s fundamental and the world’s universal values.

Now this year, the international community in the Human Rights Council made an important commitment. And it was really historic, because before then, we had seen the international community pit against one another freedom of religion and freedom of expression. And there were those in the international community who vigorously and passionately defended one but not the other. And our goal in the work that so many nations represented here have been doing, with the adoption of Resolution 1618 and then again last month in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, was to say we all can do better. And this resolution marks a step forward in creating a safe global environment for practicing and expressing one’s beliefs. In it, we pledge to protect the freedom of religion for all while also protecting freedom of expression. And we enshrined our commitment to tolerance and inclusivity by agreeing to certain concrete steps to combat violence and discrimination based on religion or belief. These steps, we hope, will help foster a climate that respects the human rights of all.

Now, the United States is hosting this conference because religious freedom and freedom of expression are among our highest values. They are enshrined in our Constitution. For people everywhere, faith and religious practice is a central source of our identity. It provides our lives with meaning and context. It is fundamental to who we are. And as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear, each of us is born free to practice any religion, to change our religion, or to have none at all. No state may grant these freedoms as a privilege or take them away as a punishment if you believe, as I do and as our country does, that they are not rights bestowed by any government. They are rights endowed by our Creator within each of us. And therefore, we have a special obligation to protect these God-given rights.

And if a government does try to deny them or take them away, it amounts to a rejection of that universal right. And it also amounts to a repudiation of that fundamental conviction that we are all created equal before God. Therefore, restricting the practice of anyone’s faith is a threat to the human rights of all individuals. Communities of faith are not confined by geopolitical borders. Wherever you are in the world, there will certainly be people whose religious beliefs differ from your own, maybe by just a little bit or maybe by a lot. And my ability to practice my religious faith freely does not, and indeed cannot, diminish yours.

Religion can be such a powerful bond, but we also recognize that it can be misused to create conflict. There are those who, for reasons actually having little to do with religion, seek to instill fear or contempt for those of another creed. So we believe that it is the duty of every government to ensure that individuals are not subject to violence, discrimination, or intimidation because of their faith or their lack of faith. That is the commitment that the world made to religious freedom more than 60 years ago when we adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the same time, as we strive to protect individuals from violence and discrimination because of their religion or their beliefs, we must also express the freedom of expression. Now, in the United States, we take that especially seriously because many of those who came to our country came for religious reasons. They came because they were being discriminated against or their religion was being outlawed. They started coming in the 17^th century, and they still come all the way through the 21^st century.

Well, how would one know that you were being discriminated against if you didn’t have the right to freedom of expression? Your neighbor knows, well, that person is different from me because he or she believes differently. So the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression are absolutely bound up together.

Now, there are those who have always seen a tension between these two freedoms, especially when one person’s speech seems to question someone else’s religious beliefs, or maybe even offends that person’s beliefs. But the truth we have learned, through a lot of trial and error over more than 235 years in our country, is that we defend our beliefs best by defending free expression for everyone, and it lowers the temperature. It creates an environment in which you are free to exercise and to speak about your religion, whether your neighbor or someone across the town agrees with you or not. In fact, the appropriate answer to speech that offends is more speech.

Now, in the United States, we continue to combat intolerance because it is – unfortunately, seems to be part of human nature. It is hurtful when bigotry pollutes the public sphere, but the state does not silence ideas, no matter how disagreeable they might be, because we believe that in the end, the best way to treat offensive speech is by people either ignoring it or combating it with good arguments and good speech that overwhelms it.

So we do speak out and condemn hateful speech. In fact, we think it is our duty to do so, but we don’t ban it or criminalize it. And over the centuries, what we have found is that the rough edges get rubbed off, and people are free to believe and speak, even though they may hold diametrically opposing views.

Now, with Resolution 1618, we have clarified these dual objectives. We embrace the role that free expression plays in bolstering religious tolerance. We have agreed to build a culture of understanding and acceptance through concrete measures to combat discrimination and violence, such as education and outreach, and we are working together to achieve those objectives.

Now, I know that in the world today, intolerance is not confined to any part of the world or any group of people. We all continue to deal with different forms of religious intolerance. That’s true here, that’s true in Europe, that’s true among countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, everywhere in the world. It’s true where people, if they are discriminating or intimidating, they’re doing it against Muslims or Jews or Christians or Buddhists or Baha’is or you name it. There has been discrimination of every kind against every religion known to man.

And yet at the same time, it’s one thing if people are just disagreeing. That is fair game. That’s free speech. But if it results in sectarian clashes, if it results in the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization of religious sites, if it even results in imprisonment or death, then government must held those – hold those who are responsible accountable. Government must stand up for the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression. And it’s a situation which is troubling to us, because a recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70 percent of the world’s population lives in countries with a high number of restrictions on religious freedom.

In America, we are proud of our long and distinctive record of championing both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and we have worked to share our best practices. But I have to say we have one difficulty in understanding all of the problems that we see around the world, and that is that because religion is so personal and because it is something that we highly value in ourselves, it strikes us as troubling that people are not confident in their religious beliefs to the point where they do not fear speech that raises questions about religion.

I mean, every one of us who is a religious person knows that there are some who may not support or approve of our religion. But is our religion so weak that statements of disapproval will cause us to lose our faiths? That would be most unfortunate. In fact, what we have found, in study after study, is that the United States is one of the most religious countries in the world. And yet anybody can believe anything and go anywhere. And so there is no contradiction between having strong religious beliefs and having the freedom to exercise them and to speak about them and to even have good debates with others.

And so the United States has made a commitment to support the 1618 implementation efforts, but we also would hope that we can take practical steps to engage with members of religious minority groups. We know that antidiscrimination laws are no good if they’re not enforced, and if they’re not enforced equally, we know that governments which fear religion can be quite oppressive, but we know that societies which think there’s only one religion can be equally oppressive.

Now, the fact is that no matter how strongly each of us believes, none of us has the benefit of knowing all the truth that God holds in his hands. And therefore, we are doing the best we can here on earth to reflect and to give honor to our creator in a way that is manifest in our religious values. Because truly, at the root of every major religion, is a connection with the divinity, is an acceptance, and is a recognition that we all are walking a path together.

Now I know that some in my country and elsewhere have criticized this meeting and our work with all of you. But I want to make clear that I am proud of this work, and I am proud to be working with every one of you. And I believe that this work is an affirmation of America’s values, but equally important an affirmation of universal values. Because we nor – no country individually has a monopoly on the truth, and we will do better when we live in peace with each other, when we live with respect and humility, and listen to each other. And it is important that we recognize what we accomplished when this resolution ended 10 years of divisive debate where people were not listening to each other anymore.

Now we are. We’re talking. We have to get past the idea that we can suppress religious minorities, that we can restrict speech, that we are smart enough that we can substitute our judgment for God’s and determine who is or is not blaspheming. And by bringing countries from around the world here, we are affirming our common humanity and our common commitment to defend and promote fundamental rights.

Now these will not be easy conversations. When I was growing up, my parents said, “You should never talk about religion, because you will always spark a fight.” And that was even amongst people of the same faith. We have – there’s lots of funny stories about different kinds of Christians that won’t talk to other kinds of Christians, because another kind of Christian is not as good as the first kind of Christian. Well, we know that those kind of divisions exist in every major religion, where people claim that your particular version of religion is the only one that can be followed.

But people of all faiths have so much to gain by working together. And I was so moved by the images that we saw coming out of Tahrir Square back in February – January and February, where you saw Coptic Egyptians joining hands to form a protective circle around their Muslim brothers and sisters so they could pray safely in the midst of these huge crowds. And then you saw Muslims doing the same for their Christian brothers and sisters. That is, to me, the highest expression of religious tolerance and free expression that one could possibly find. Those were defining moments in 2011 and those are images that inspire me as we move into 2012.

So thank you. And I think interfaith dialogue, reaching out to those with whom you disagree, even agreeing to disagree, so to speak, is a part of the work we are struggling to do. And we can make progress where we have a new attitude in our world where we can believe strongly what we believe. We can think others are wrong, but we don’t feel so insecure and so fearful of their wrong views that we try to suppress them, imprison them, or even kill them. Instead, we trust that over time, if they are wrong, they will come to see the error of their ways. But we continue the conversation as fellow human beings and as people of faith.

So I thank you very much for being with us, and I wish you well as you continue this absolutely important work. I think if we do our work right, in years to come, people will look back and say this was a great step forward on behalf of both freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and our common humanity. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

PRN: 2011/2144

December 17, 2011
Clinton hosts summit on religious intolerance

By Josef Kuhn| Religion News Service, Published: December 15

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrapped up a summit of international leaders this week to explore specific steps to combat intolerance, discrimination and violence on the basis of religion or belief.

The closed-door meeting on Wednesday (Dec. 14) was the first of an ongoing series called “The Istanbul Process.” Representatives came from 30 countries and international organizations, including Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

“We are working together to protect two fundamental freedoms — the right to practice one’s religion freely, and the right to express one’s opinion without fear,” Clinton said in her closing remarks.

The goal of the Istanbul Process is to produce a list of best practices for preventing religious discrimination and violence. Ambassador Michael Kozak, a deputy assistant secretary of state, acknowledged that the list would be helpful primarily for countries that already have the political will to protect religious freedom but need practical guidance to do so.

Nevertheless, Kozak said, it could also put pressure on repressive regimes to loosen up.

“By itself, this isn’t going to change their minds. But … the more countries you get starting to do things in a good way, the more isolated the others become, and then movements develop in their own countries,” Kozak said.

The Istanbul Process grew out of a resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council in March and then by the U.N. General Assembly in November.

Resolutions in the previous 10 years had supported legal measures restricting the “defamation of religions.” The more recent Resolution 16/18, however, broke with that tradition by calling for concrete, positive measures to combat religious intolerance rather than legal measures that restrict speech.

“It is important that we recognize what we accomplished when this resolution ended 10 years of divisive debate where people were not listening to each other anymore. Now we are. We’re talking,” said Clinton.

The new resolution has faced criticism from conservatives who think it amounts to a concession to Islamic countries, and will result in the curtailing of any speech that is critical of Islam.

After Clinton’s speech, Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, said her organization has been denied entrance to conferences and hotels for fear of “incitement to violence,” a phrase used in Resolution 16/18.

“We remain concerned about the use of that language,” Lafferty said.

Kozak tried to dispel her fears.

“That whole issue of incitement got debated a lot, and we were clear all along that what we meant by incitement was when … the speech is part of an act,” he said. “It’s a very narrow concept.”

via Clinton hosts summit on religious intolerance – The Washington Post.

December 16, 2011