In August 2016, Former Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt wrote, in a report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, “No one can be genuinely free to do something unless he or she is also free not to do it, and vice versa”.
In this regard, “freedom of religion or belief is a multifaceted right”: it encompasses the right to believe in and profess a religion but also to not believe in or profess any religion. The right clearly aspires to protect the right to manifest one’s religion, in private and in public; to practice faith in community with others; and to engage in free communication with believers and others about one’s convictions. Further, it includes the freedom to reconsider your faith, express doubts about that faith, or even adopt a new faith.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has been trying, for over ten years now, to push the UN into criminalizing “defamation of religion” under an international convention. Contrary to the assertions of the Muslim world that they are seeking to uphold the spirit of tolerance, the entire conception of an international resolution on defamation of religion is based on creating an international blasphemy law, much like those that exist in Muslim-majority States today.
In order to assess what Muslim-majority states are aspiring to achieve at the international stage with such a convention, it is pertinent to understand the effects of the blasphemy laws in Muslim-majority States. But even before we do that, let us simply examine the wording of anti-blasphemy provisions in Pakistan and Egypt, as two illustrations of the dangers associated with such laws.
Recently, Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani representative of our Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York, conveyed Prime Minister Imran Khan’s decision to pursue a campaign to protect against defamation of religions at the international level
Articles 298B and 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) effectively prohibit Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslims or even using Muslim greetings or partaking in the Muslim call to prayer. Whether they are “Muslim” or not is not for me or the State to decide and is therefore, not going to be discussed here. Nonetheless, the religious activities of the Ahmadi community in Pakistan are severely restricted – and as if these restrictions were not bad enough, these provisions legitimize violence against members of the Ahmadi community for no reason other than their identity as Ahmadis. A tad ironic then that Pakistan’s Prime Minister proudly voices his desire to push for a “defamation of religion” resolution at the international level when Pakistan has not only failed to protect freedom of religion within its own territory, but has actively promulgated limitations on this right for the Ahmadi community.
In Egypt, another Muslim-majority State, Article 98(F) of the Egyptian penal code lays out a fine or imprisonment (for a period of 6 months to 5 years) for acts deemed exploitative of religion, for the purposes of promoting extremist ideologies, advocating for sedition or impeding national unity or social harmony. Sharing with its Pakistani counterpart ambiguous language subject to abuse, this provision has allowed Egypt to harass and imprison individuals who have never even advocated the use of violence.
Without further delving into commentary on how dangerous blasphemy laws can be, and in reality are, it is pertinent to unequivocally state that no state or group of people has a right to trademark religion in the manner that Muslim-majority States with blasphemy laws have done so. Not only are such provisions inherently discriminatory and susceptible to rampant abuse, but they often also allow authoritarian or repressive regimes to curtail criticism against them under the guise of protecting the sanctity of religion.
Religions, ultimately, whether fortunate or unfortunate, cannot be, and do not require to be, protected by laws: faith is personal to each individual. It is human beings that need laws to provide protection to them: to their lives, property, liberty and security
Recently, Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani representative of our Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York, conveyed Prime Minister Imran Khan’s decision to pursue a campaign protecting against defamation of religions at the international level. For the sake of argument, let us concede that the intended objective of this campaign may indeed be the promotion of genuine dialogue to safeguard inter-faith understanding and cooperation. Those seemingly sincere intentions need to be re-evaluated taking into consideration the extremely negative connotations and consequences (discussed above) of such a policy blunder.
In the former Special Rapporteur’s report (referenced above), it was highlighted that several governments around the world actively endorse and encourage “intolerant interpretations of religion”, which in turn result in gross failure to “adequately protect religious minorities from hate crimes by intolerant groups”. If Pakistan wishes to encourage inter-faith dialogue, understanding and cooperation, there are already international legal provisions in place safeguarding against hate speech and advocacy of religious hatred, whether in the ICCPR or in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, that it can direct its efforts towards ensuring are respected in letter and spirit.
What an international “defamation of religion” resolution or convention does is punish non-violent individuals exercising their right to freedom of expression in a peaceful way, even if this expression is offensive at times, while placating blood-thirsty, violent and intolerant bigots ready to pull out a knife or a gun against anyone they feel has offended their beliefs. After our own bloody and tragic experiences with misuses of our blasphemy law, I am beyond puzzled as to why our Government feels it is a priority to impose on the rest of the world the suffering we continue to go through, instead of trying to bridge divides and foster understanding on the basis of already existing, and very powerfully worded, international legal provisions protecting against discrimination and violence on the basis of religion.
Religions, ultimately, whether fortunate or unfortunate, cannot be, and do not require to be, protected by laws: faith is personal to each individual. It is human beings that need laws to provide protection to them: to their lives, property, liberty and security. The proposal to design an international “defamation of religion” convention endangers the safety and lives of the very subjects international human rights law was designed to protect. If someone is willing to kill for their beliefs, that is what the international community should come together to address and formulate resolutions and conventions against, rather than paving the way for further intolerance.
The writer is a lawyer
Published in Daily Times, December 4th 2018.