Below is my column today in The Los Angeles Times on the conference this week in Washington on religious speech. I have previously written about the Obama Administration’s break with past policies to support Muslim countries in cracking down on speech deemed “defamatory” to religion. While the latest resolution does not repeat the defamation language, the purpose remains unchanged and the dangers for free speech are obvious. The non-binding resolution was passed in March, largely in response to the assassinations of two Pakistani officials who had spoken out against the nation’s blasphemy law. Ironically, however, the resolution will likely reinforce the right of countries to criminalize anti-religious speech and blasphemy laws.
This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to “deter” some speech in the name of human rights.
Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.
This year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited nations to come to implement the resolution and “to build those muscles” needed “to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.” Those “old patterns” include instances in which writers and cartoonists became the targets of protests by religious groups. The most famous such incident occurred in 2005 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The result were worldwide protests in which Muslims reportedly killed more than 100 people — a curious way to demonstrate religious tolerance. While Western governments reaffirmed the right of people to free speech after the riots, they quietly moved toward greater prosecution of anti-religious speech under laws prohibiting hate speech and discrimination.
The OIC members have long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with “the principles of the sharia,” or Islamic law. The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing “negative racial and religious stereotyping” and asked states to “take effective measures” to combat incidents, including those of “religious intolerance.” Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18’s call for states to “criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” It also “condemns” statements that advocate “hostility” toward religion. Although the latest resolution refers to “incitement” rather than “defamation” of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.
The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of “intolerance.” Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of “respect and empathy and tolerance.” One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet’s name.
The core countries behind this effort show little tolerance or “empathy” themselves for opposing religions or viewpoints. Saudi Arabia will not allow the construction of a church in the kingdom, let alone allow public observance of other faiths. This year, the Saudi interior minister declared free speech to be an offense against God, declaring the kingdom “categorically [bans] all sorts of demonstrations, marches and sit-ins … as they contradict Islamic sharia law and the values and traditions of Saudi society.” Last week, Saudi courts sentenced an Australian Muslim to be flogged 500 times and sent to jail for “insulting” Muhammad.
What is more alarming, however, is the advancement of this agenda in Western countries. This year, Dutch legislator Geert Wilders secured a hard-fought acquittal from criminal charges after years of investigation and litigation for saying disrespectful things about Muslims. In Britain, a 15-year-old girl was arrested in November 2010 for burning a Koran. Other religions are now following suit and calling for the arrest of those who utter criticisms of their faiths. French fashion designer John Galliano was convicted in September of uttering anti-Semitic remarks in an outburst in a restaurant. In Russia, two prominent art curators in Moscow who faced up to three years in prison for showing art that insulted the Russian Orthodox Church were fined in 2010. In Britain, a 15-year-old boy was given a criminal summons for holding up a sign declaring “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.”
Although the OIC and the Obama administration claim fealty to free speech, the very premise of the meeting reveals a desire to limit it. Many delegates presuppose that speech threatens faith, when it has been religious orthodoxy that has long been the enemy of free speech. Conversely, free speech is the ultimate guarantee of religious freedom.
History has shown that once you yield to the temptation to regulate speech, you quickly find yourself on a slippery slope as other divisive subjects are added to the list. This year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared ominously that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.”
It seems that some have grown weary of free speech. After all, less speech means less division and discord. When the alternative is violent protests, silence is golden for governments. Of course, denying the right to speak does not create real tranquillity, only the illusion. But for these governments, including our own, an illusion may be as good as reality.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Los Angeles Times December 13, 2011
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
http://warisacrime.org/content/police-houston-put-giant-tent-over-protesters-whatever-they-did-them-next
This is coordinated with the Federal Govt.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/13/388345/the-dangers-of-gingrichs-war-against-islam/
How about criminalizing intolerance of non-believers?
“raff, Don’t ya know anybody is better than Obama?”
SwM,
Right, once we get rid of this creator of all evil in the world, then we can get some real change. Maybe Ron Paul? Anyone would be better than Obama,
even John McCain!
OS,
Heinlein had some great quotes. I particularly liked this fragment from above:
“The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery.”
This has struck me from childhood as being the ultimate blasphemy, by trivializing the whole concept of God. It is an irony lost on the faithful.
Blouise,
A very good point about religions losing ground. To support themselves in the style to which they became accustomed “religious” officialdom has always in the end used threats and violence to maintain their power.
JT,
Totally agree with you on this. Almost all such legislation nationally or internationally is authoritarian folly.
raff, Don’t ya know anybody is better than Obama?
Swarthmore,
great video clip of the Newster. I am sure he will stop this assault on free speech.
I agree with Mr.Turley’s position 100% .
This action should be seen in its fully context. This govt. and other govts. around the world, to include so called first world nations are in the process of brutally suppressing their citizens’ rights. In order to accomplish this goal they need both overt brutality (see OWS, the Arab Spring revolts for justice etc.) Then they need their propaganda, the soft sell.
Tolerance is relative just as JT described. How is jailing people for blasphemy an example of “tolerance”. “Tolerance is a jingo word aimed at well educated people. It is a thought stopper. Oh, I am so tolerant and I don’t want to criticize something as important as someone else’s religion. This type of propaganda works by taking people’s rightful disgust at the abuse of Muslims say, at the hands of the administration and mixing that up with a lack of critical thought about the Muslim religion itself.
Obama has ordered the CIA, FBI and the JTTF (among only a few) to infiltrate and spy on the Muslim community. This is repulsive and illegal. We should criticize this action both for the massive hypocrisy it shows on Obama’s part but further because it is unlawful and wrong. However, this abusive action by Obama and Company should not shut down our thinking and asking real questions about the Muslim religion.
Neither should our rightful disgust at hate speech concerning Jews shut down critical thought about that religion (and so on). Banning speech is banning thought. Some people’s thoughts are ugly and cruel. There is a way to confront that cruelty, by speaking out.
This is the soft sell, crackdowns are the hard sell. They are all of a piece and all most be resisted.
“Wouldn’t it be easier just to make it illegal to be a jackass?”
Wouldn’t be easier for religious people to grow up and realize that 1) not everyone shares their beliefs and 2) everything is a suitable subject for criticism or humor although not all criticism and humor are created equal. Mandating respect for religions is going to fail. Respect is earned, not due just because it’s someone’s belief. They are, after all, just beliefs. They have no foundation in fact and faith is their only requirement. That doesn’t make them special or even true. Besides, if your God can’t handle criticism and humor, he/she/it isn’t much of a God now, are they? They created a universe/multiverse but can’t take a joke or being critiqued? Please.
Criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”
—-
Wouldn’t it be easier just to make it illegal to be a jackass?
1. You say “Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18′s call for states to “criminalize incitement to imminent violence ”
Isn’t that the formulation that replaced the “clear and present danger” [Wikipedia] test for speech in the USA?
I am guessing that you suspect that the formulation can be abused, if one takes into consideration the immanent lawless action of those who reject the speech, who hear it as “fighting words”. Is it “hate speech” if it arouses hate in those who disagree? One thinks not, but ….
2. The problem is compounded where there is a state religion. Then religious talk can be viewed as both anti-church and anti-state; treason. This is an unfortunate complication. Neither state nor church is likely to be calm about effective dissent, but one imagines that the forces of the church would take longer to mobilize, and more open to calls for mercy.
(also, what Frankly said.)
Robert Heinlein had a few thoughts on the subject.
“Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing – with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place.”
“God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent – it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.”
“One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh.”
“The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.”
“There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. ‘The Almighty,’ he explained, ‘finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores. ”
“The nice thing about citing god as an authority is that you can prove anything you set out to prove.”
“When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you may not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything–you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
“It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.”
And finally:
“The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.”
I’ll second that “Yep” and add a “What Blouise said”.
I suspect the real reason all this is happening is because religion is actually losing ground … Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and Mosques are all experiencing declining memberships and reduced funding from the faithful. As memberships decline the political clout of the religious institutions also declines and politicians lose influence over the “captured” masses who are no longer listening to religious leaders.
The original Inquisition did not save the Catholic Church from heretics (In the 12th century, to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics by secular governments became more frequent.) and the following Roman Inquisition did not stem the advance of the Reformation. (In practice, the Inquisition would not itself pronounce sentence, but handed over convicted heretics to secular authorities.)
Want to fight this latest move by politicians to recapture the masses … you know what to do.
Yep….
Whats sad it, that no matter how bad Obama is on this issue the bozos stumbling out of the Republican clown car of opposition would be worse. We are well and truly screwed.
Gene,
Great song choice. The title says it all when it comes to any domestic or international attempt to limit and criminalize free speech. The public isn’t tired of free speech, but governments are. If llowed to stand anything done under the religious label may not be allowed to be criticized.