Freedom of expression is not absolute: William Shakespeare said, “Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood.” Is the world going to be a better place if all speech or communication conforms to this standard? Freedom of expression is a fundamental international human right. It is intrinsically valuable and necessary for the healthy functioning of democracy and civil society. Although freedom of expression is fundamental, it is not absolute. Article 19 of the ICCPR allows for restrictions on freedom of expression that are necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health, or public morals. Any such restriction must be provided for by law and be proportionate. The literature on freedom of expression as an international human right tends to focus on cases and jurisprudence, with some attention paid to the roles of international human rights institutions. The past and the present Danish, Dutch and French crafted caricatures are patently an expression of hate against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and Islam. Intrinsically, these caricatures violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which outlaws dissemination of ideas of racial superiority, hate speech, and incitement to racial hatred. This convention makes it obligatory for states to punish those responsible. And yet, both the Venice Commission and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2007-2010 recommended abolishing the offences of blasphemy and of insult to religious feelings, in view of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR, which are also mirrored in Articles 11 and 10 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right, Article 20(2) of the ICCPR stipulates that ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law’. Islamophobia is the poster child of post-Cold War ideology. It is aimed at re-orienting a new Islamic threat to the western world as well as bringing about renewed purpose and the crafting of the European and American selves The Human Rights Committee (HRC) which monitors the implementation of ICCPR, has produced voluminous jurisprudence on the interpretation of the rules of law relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms under the Covenant. It has endorsed the judgment in Faurisson vs France that “restrictions may be permitted on statements which are of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-Semitic feelings in order to uphold the Jewish communities’ right to be protected from religious hatred. Such restrictions also derive support from principles reflected in Article 20(2) of the Covenant…” The exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities…’’ In the early 2010s, the OIC began revising the instrument and introduced the OIC Declaration on Human Rights (ODHR) almost a decade later. The document was scheduled to be approved at the organization’s Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) meeting in April 2020. However, this was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the ODHR better reflects principles rooted in international human rights law, it falls short on issues related to family values, freedom of speech, and political participation. EU states versus Blasphemy laws: A blasphemy law is a law prohibiting blasphemy, where blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. In 2019, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution, which declared that the Cairo Declaration and Sharia in general are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, the resolution asked three Council of Europe members (Albania, Azerbaijan, and Turkey) — all a part of the OIC — to distance themselves from the Muslim world’s instrument. In the proceeding vote, Turkey and Azerbaijan’s delegations rejected the resolution while Albania’s did not participate. In Western Europe, many countries retain blasphemy and related laws. While in some countries they are never enforced, there have been prosecutions in recent years in Austria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Switzerland, and Turkey. States also criminalize blasphemous acts through the enforcement of other criminal laws, such as apostasy laws, anti-conversion laws, incitement to religious hatred laws (also often referred to as “hate speech” laws), anti-Semitism laws, and even anti-witchcraft laws. Not counting repealed laws, researchers identified 84 countries across the globe with criminal blasphemy laws on the books as of 2020.16. ‘’Islamophobia as a form of racism against Muslim people is not only manifested in the labor market, education, public sphere, global war against terrorism, or the global economy, but also in the epistemological battleground about the definition of the priorities in the world today” (Grosfoguel and Mielants 2006). Obviously, Islamophobia is a poster child of the post-Cold War ideology to reorient a new Islamic threat posed to the western world and bring about a renewed purpose and crafting of the European and American self. Islamophobia, or the threat of Islam is a geopolitical ingredient postulated in “Clash of Civilizations” thesis—affirming the Western self-identify in the post -Cold War era. What the EU needs to do? European democracies have never needed a strong human rights institution more than now. At a time when the European parties using blatant islamophobic rhetoric have come to power in a number of EU member states, the Muslim world needs a clear signal from EU policy makers that they are committed to ensuring equality and inclusion for all members of European society. Given the exigencies entailed by the cultural, political, social and legal imperatives, it is incumbent upon the European Union to legally protect the rights and the religious sentiments of the Muslim community (which shares a major part in retranslating the European dream) beyond the rhetoric of any geopolitical propaganda against the Muslims. While religious freedom is the civilized world’s first freedom, it also is a core human right that international law and the European Treaty recognize; a necessary component of the European foreign policy is to defend democracy and freedom globally; and a vital element of Brussels’ external policy is to promote its soft power approach–ensuring a more peaceful and stable world without cultural ghettos. In this context, the EU policymakers should take drastic measures to curb Islamophobia in Europe. Pakistan’s current demand that the European Union should criminalise Islamophobia seems highly justified since the European community law seeks a pragmatic balance between the International Human Rights Law and itself. The very adoption of the resolution (on the OIC recommendation ) by the UNGA in December, 2020 is a part of Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts inter alia for raising awareness about Islamophobia and countering the defamation of sacred religious personalities and symbols”. Concluded The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan