This information seems crucial to understand the current dynamics of the HRC and we should give attention to what this composition of
votes really mean in the current HRC scenario:

In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia;

Against_ (14): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom;

Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India,
Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.

For more details on the debate of this resolution in a HRC press
release, see below.

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/4826AF1691C43372C12572AE00583E0B?opendocument_

---

 Action on Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions

In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.12) on “Combating defamation of religions”,
adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 14 against, and nine abstentions, as
orally amended, the Council expresses deep concern at attempts to
identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations;
notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of
defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of
Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September
2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination
including through political institutions and organizations of racist and
xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers
that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or
violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts
of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from
defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote
tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to
complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to
combat religious hatred and intolerance; further urges all States to
ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement
bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of
their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do
not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or
belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is
provided; invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to
regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in
particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment
of all rights; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to
report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of this
resolution at its sixth session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon,
China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali,
Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

Against (14): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany,
Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania,
Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria,
Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) presenting the resolution L-12 on behalf of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the text
was not new to anyone. Pakistan had held open handed consultations. The
draft resolution addressed the defamation of foreign religions and
particularly the one of Islam. Today, it was Islam that was being
targeted. There was a clear recognition of the existence of the
phenomenon. The manifestations of Islamophobia had extensively been
document by three Special Rapporteurs. In a post 9/11 world, Muslims had
suffered from discrimination. There were numerous instances reflecting
the defamation of Islam, not only in law and judicial practices but also
through Islamophobia. Therefore, the draft resolution was presented. The
profiling of Muslims constituted racism and was a human rights
violation. The resolution would compel the international community to
address the phenomenon of the defamation of religions and the
consequence it had on individuals. The OIC hoped that the draft would be
adopted by consensus. Oral amendments were also made to the text.

BIRGITTA MARIA SIEFKER-EBERLE (Germany), speaking on behalf of the
European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the
European Union strongly believed in freedom of religion, expression and
belief, and believed an ongoing dialogue was the best way forward, and
regretted that such a dialogue had not taken place in the Council. There
were increasing risks of stereotyping Muslims after the events of
September 11, but the European Union was strongly committed to fighting
this phenomenon. All forms of religious intolerance should be fought as
discrimination based on religion and belief was not limited to adherents
to Islam, it was equally relevant with regards to anti-Semitism,
Christianophobia, and such as Candomblé and other beliefs. Followers of
all religions were victims of human rights violations.

It was problematic to reconcile defamation with discrimination, as the
two were of a different nature. It should be stressed that human rights
law, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights particularly forbade discrimination due to belief. The main focus
should remain the rights and freedoms of individuals, and such an
approach would be better for this resolution. International human rights
law protected individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion
and belief, and not the religion itself. Against this backdrop, the
European Union had supported round tables and other discussions on
religion in the context of the Council. For all these reasons, the
European Union called for a vote on the resolution, and would vote
against it.

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking in an
explanation of the vote before the vote, said Guatemala condemned
defamation of religions and any practice incompatible with the
preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms. This draft resolution
was unbalanced and gave importance to one single religion over all
others. It was a selective document that did not take account of the
situation of discrimination against other religions around the world.
The Guatemalan delegation would vote against this draft resolution and
any other that was not inclusive in its content.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India), speaking in an explanation of the vote before
the vote, said that India firmly opposed the defamation or negative
stereotyping of any religion. In regard to the resolution L-12, the
resolution excessively focused on one religion. But all religions were
facing the problem of defamation in one form or another. The resolution
did not envisage any role for the Special Rapporteur on the right to
freedom of opinion and expression. It inappropriately sought to address
this complex issue as a manifestation of racism. India would abstain
during voting on this resolution.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote,
said religious intolerance was a matter of concern for all in the world,
including all people. Religious tolerance was part of Canada’s efforts
to increase harmony, both at home and abroad. Canada respected diverging
views and ideas, and hoped in the future the Council could take a
consensus view on this approach, based on dialogue, cooperation, frank
dialogue and best practice sharing, and looked forward to achieving this
goal. Canada consistently worked to promote religious tolerance, and
called on all States to do so.

Canada was also a strong promoter of the freedom of expression, and was
concerned that this was not included in the text. There was also concern
that the protection of the religions themselves, rather than the
protection of the adherents to the resolution, was the focus of the
resolution. Canada was also concerned that one religion only appeared to
be the focus of the resolution. A lack of implementation of existing
obligations was the single most pressing obstacle to tackling religious
discrimination. For these reasons and others, Canada would vote against
the resolution.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of
the vote after the vote, said Brazil abstained because operative
paragraph 10 of L. 12 contained elements found in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 19 paragraph 3 of the
Covenant stated that exercise of freedom of religion may be subject to
certain restrictions but these should be provided by law and necessary
for the respect of the rights of others, for public order, or national
security. The same paragraph 10 mentioned respect of religions and
beliefs in connection with freedom of expression. Amendments did not
address the main concerns related to operative paragraph 10 of draft L. 12.

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) speaking in an explanation of the
vote after the vote, said that in supporting L-12, the resolution
emphasized that everyone had the right to freedom of religion. The
Philippines viewed the inter-religious dialogue as a way of combating
the defamation of religions.

MURIEL BERSET KOHEN (Switzerland), in an explanation of the vote after
the vote, said freedom of religion was a fundamental right for human
beings, and could not be restricted or suspended, except under criteria
of international law. Switzerland was aware of problems encountered by
Muslims after September 11, and considered that defamation and
discrimination based on religious reasons were intolerable in all cases.

Switzerland had however voted against, as it would have preferred that
the resolution be against discrimination based on religion, and not
defamation per se. Its unclear wording could lead to restrictions on the
freedom of expression. There should also have been a clear reference to
the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion and belief. Mutual
understanding should be strengthened through education so as to avoid
stereotypes, and discrimination based on religion should be fought so as
to promote and protect harmonious communities.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after
the vote, said Japan regretted that it had to vote against the
resolution. Japan was against the defamation of religion. All religions,
including Islam, should be fully respected and not subject to negative
labelling. Japan understood the underlying sentiment behind L. 12, but
the draft only focused on one religion. Japan’s suggestions for
amendments to cover other religions were not taken on board, and it
regrettably had to vote against the resolution.

ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote
after the vote, said that Argentina had always sought to bring positions
together rather than extend division between communities. The country
would have liked to see reflected in the resolution historical positions
and shared the view expressed by other delegations on paragraph 10 in
the resolution. Argentina also advanced some proposals to strike a
balance in the text. Although an effort had been made, it was not
sufficient to allow Argentina to vote in favour. Therefore, the country
abstained.

CARLOS ALBERTO CHOCANO BURGA (Peru), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Peru condemned and opposed discrimination
based on religious belief. Religion was not incompatible with freedom of
expression - both were fundamental rights, and the two should not have
been set against each other in the resolution. It would also have been
better if, rather than singling out one religion, there had been
protection of all religions and beliefs, and this was why Peru had
abstained.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea), speaking in an explanation of the
vote after the vote, said the Republic of Korea shared concerns about
intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
Constructive dialogue between cultures, education and respect for
fundamental human rights norms were necessary to combat this, but other
human rights norms were equally important. This draft contained an
element that might impact on other human rights. There was a need to
support efforts to fight against intolerance of all religions. For this
reason, the delegation voted against.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking in a general comment on behalf of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that they
sincerely wanted to take the opportunity to thank all those who voted in
favour of the resolution. There was a license apparently for anyone to
attack Islam and Muslims. The Organization of the Islamic Conference
hoped that the Human Rights Council would look at the resolution again
to see how best the concerns of the OIC in this matter could be addressed.

---

http://www.euromedrights.net/pages/...

 Protecting the belief at the expense of the believers: Another post 9/11 legacy?

Article 19

19-04-2007

http://www.euromedrights.net/pages/331/news/focus/28984

It happened quietly. There was no uprising. No emotional speeches. No angry debates. But on March 30, 2007, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution that violated international standards on freedom of expression. A resolution stating that freedom of expression may be restricted “to ensure respect for religions and convictions” was passed by 24 council members, with 14 against and 9 abstentions. The resolution was sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC could have made a wiser choice than to hand over that responsibility to a country where still people are put to death for blasphemy. The OIC might have been given pause by China’s support – a country hardly distinguished by its commitment to freedom of religion - or by Russia’s, whose treatment of religious minorities and religious freedom stands as a negative example to all. But perhaps, the OIC took its comfort in South Africa’s or Mexico’s endorsement.

Human rights and freedom of expression activists, on the other hand, can only be left wondering… Can the human rights destruction waged by President Bush’s version of America, justify undermining the human right that, ultimately, is among the most effective recourse and instruments against these abuses – the right to freedom of expression?

Since 9/11, as too often this newsletter has had to report, restrictions on and violations of universal human rights have multiplied all over the world, justified on the grounds of national security. At the same time there is evidence of growing intolerance and burgeoning discrimination within established democracies, especially vis-à-vis Muslims whether as residents or foreigners. There is little doubt that a number of governments have fed this intolerance through policies and laws targeting explicitly or implicitly Muslims.

In this environment, a resolution reminding the international community of its obligations under article 20 of the UDHR, particularly as far as Muslims are concerned, could have been important and timely. The proponents of the resolution could have insisted on strengthening the protection of all people’s and each individuals’ rights to life, equality, and justice and on the obligations of all states to protect minorities, including religious minorities, against acts of hatred, oppression, violence. But instead, states chose to focus their efforts on protecting religion itself: NOT the believers and NOT freedom of religion.

For example, paragraph 10 of the resolution distorts blatantly Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, by quoting largely from it but then adding, without acknowledgment a new “respect for religions and convictions” (“le respect des religions et des convictions”) to the otherwise carefully defined grounds that may justify a restriction on freedom of expression. The resolution’s frequent use of the term ‘defamation’ also suggests wider restrictions are being sought than are actually permitted under international law. In particular, while certain restrictions on speech are allowed to protect reputation of individuals these are not allowed in respect to religions, which cannot be said to have a “reputation” as such and thus cannot be said, under international law, to have been defamed. While international law does not entirely rule out restrictions on speech to protect religion, it very carefully circumscribes the scope of such restrictions.

Religious believers have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs, but they cannot expect their religion to be set free from criticism, even in its harshest or most sarcastic form. The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy. As international human rights courts have stressed, freedom of expression is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received but also to those that may offend, shock or disturb any or all of us.

In many ways, the Human Rights Council resolution is in keeping with a trend that has resurfaced with great strength in our post 9/11 world: protecting the belief at the expense of the believers, of all believers.

---

Dossier circulatyed by:

Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights

Tel/fax: + (202) 795 0582- 796 2682

eipr eipr.org

www.eipr.org