The 53rd Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council has voted by 28 to 12 (with seven states abstaining), to adopt Resolution A/HRC/53/L.23 ‘Countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ more commonly being reported as the Qur’an burning resolution due to the events that preceded its introduction to the UN.
In June, an Iraqi protestor tore pages from the Qur’an outside of a mosque in Stockholm before wiping his shoes with some and burning others. The act caused outrage in several countries and was a leading cause behind Turkey vetoing Sweden’s application to join NATO. The outrage came due to Sweden holding this act was lawful under grounds of free speech, along with several previous protests including a formally permitted protest where a Qur’an was burned.
The Resolution notes:
“…with deep concern the rising incidents of desecration of sacred books and places of worship as well as religious symbols, which constitutes incitement to violence, echoing the strong rejection and condemnation of recurring acts of public burning of the Holy Qur’an in some European and other countries…”
The Resolution calls for specific action, including calling upon state parties to examine their national laws to identify any gaps which may “impede the prevention and prosecution” of such acts, and urges the High Commissioner for Human Rights to speak out against such forms of protest. The Resolution also, having been adopted, will result in a special panel discussion at the 54th regular session to identify drivers and manifestations of religious hatred and to propose deterrence to these drivers, a report on this panel will be presented at the 55th regular session along with the High Commissioner delivering an oral update on the matter.
Whilst several organisations and states have supported the resolution, numerous western countries, including the United Kingdom, United States, and EU, voted against the resolution citing the deep impact that this could have on the right to free speech and right to protest. The UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN, Simon Manley CMG, released a statement against the resolution stating:
“In combatting religious intolerance, there is a difficult balance to strike and in different societies, this balance is struck in different ways. It can be hard to determine at what point freedom of expression becomes unacceptable, and when unacceptable speech or action should be legally prohibited […] However, international human rights law provides us with narrowly defined parameters in which freedom of expression can be limited. And we do not accept that, by definition, attacks on religion, including on religious texts or symbols, constitute advocacy for hatred.”
With the passed Resolution specifically calling for banning of holy books, many free speech and human rights organisations are calling against such actions, citing the slippery impact that this could have. The chief executive of the National Secular Society has said:
“Equating the desecration of religious books and symbols with incitement to violence is a pernicious attempt to impose blasphemy laws by stealth. The Islamic nations behind this resolution have long been more interested in protecting religion than protecting individuals. Speech and expression must be viewed in context. Crude attempts to impose blanket prohibitions clearly risk capturing and silencing legitimate expression and dissent.”
It is vital that we seek to prevent religious hatred and to combat intolerance and violence against others based on any protected grounds, however, we must do so without the further restriction of the right to free expression and we certainly must do so without being pressured by states who do not promote the same democratic ideals and rights to freedom of religion as the states in which we live.
Any interferences with the right to free speech, including physical acts which constitute ‘speech’ must be necessary in a democratic society. These principles were restated by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Stoll v Switzerland [2007], where the Court held that:
“Freedom of expression… is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.”
Further, the defence of speech which does shock and offend is much more important than the defence of speech with which the majority agree. It is the absolute cusp of acceptable speech which must be defended even where it is not agreed with by the defender, a failure to do so results in the curtailing of speech for all, even where the expressed ideals are vastly different. Moving the bar away, even when it is away from speech, we all wish to distance ourselves from, is still a move away and closer to ‘acceptable’ speech becoming the new taboo speech. In defending hateful, reprehensible, vile and sick actions and ideals, we are defending the right of EVERYBODY to hold their views – The world of human rights does not exist in an easy to manage one, we cannot pick and choose each individual idea and hold it lawful or not, we must accept some negative to hold the positive and breaking it down any further results in vast interferences with the rights of millions.
The NRI believes in freedom of religion but also believes in freedom of expression, these rights co-exist and must be balanced against each other, neither one is more ‘right’ than the other and it is important that one is not used to destroy the other. The burning of religious texts, whilst a vile act, cannot, unless coupled with specific speech, be deemed to be incitement to religious hatred, in the same way that the burning of a flag should not be deemed to be hatred on the grounds of race or sexuality.
The same right that affords people the ability to publicly destroy copies of Mein Kampf, is the same right that affords people the ability to burn holy books.
Avaia Williams – Founder
This blog was published on 13 July 2023
Nightingale Rights Initiative 