Defamation of religions in a Brave new World...

As the Durban II Review conference on Racism comes to an end, I would like to come back to one aspect of my previous entry: the defamation of religions as an act of racism. It appears from the draft outcome document that it has not been adopted in Geneva.

The Human Rights Council, however, adopted a resolution at the end of March on the theme of "Combating Defamation of Religion". In that document, Defamation of religion is presented as a component of incitement to religious hatred. It therefore "Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general". It justified the limitations of freedom of expression that would ensue, by saying that it is protecting Human Dignity and freedom of religion, thus putting us in front of a classic Human Rights balancing test: "Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence".

This is not a new issue, and painfully became of global concern when the caricatures of Mohammed were published in a Danish newspaper and in several other countries. The debate back then also focused on the freedom of expression Vs Freedom of religion/Human Dignity.

But the whole logic of this HRC resolution and of this debate in general is flawed at various levels.
First of all, it is wrong to balance Freedom of Expression and Freedom of of Religion here. Nobody is preventing anybody from practicing their religion. Expressing the view that such and such religious practice is to my dislike (whether the stoning of adulteress women, the fact that homosexuals should burn in hell, that women are treated as mere breeders, that I cannot smoke on saturdays, drink when I want, or have sex before marriage (!!!)) is of no relevance to whether the people who do believe in those practices can do so freely or not.
Second of all, since when do "religion" have rights? what does "defamation of religion" mean exactly? Who is this "Religion" who is going to go to court and sue me for having defamed his name? Maybe this a one more example of this trend of "collective" human rights that seems to be gaining ground in the past few years, like the "right to developement"...
Third of all, and more generally, we must not give in to the general trend of politically correct limitations to our freedom of expression. Under the umbrella of "Human Dignity", pressure groups are trying to prevent any kind of comment that might be vaguely offensive. Comedians cannot open their mouth without someone making a formal complaint. Let me make things clear here. That people are unhappy with something being said and express it is perfectly ok. What I have a problem with is that we call for a legal and more specifically criminal response to offensive remarks. Because that is what we are talking about most of the time. It has nothing to do with "human dignity". It has to do with being offended and, following this logic, why should "only" the people who call you a "nigger", a "raghead", or a "spick" be prosecuted? I should also be sued because I tell you that you are fat, or ugly, or short... Moreover, it leaves no room for irony, sarcasm, or second degree humour. what a sad and brave new world that is...
On a more philosophical level, any thought, philosophy or ideology that cannot accept contradiction is structurally defective. Moreover, I am not defined by the opinion others have of me. Why should I care what an antisemite thinks of me? It says more about him than about me. If we put all stupid people in jail, it would make finding a free stretch of sand on the beach in the summer easier (although I only go to the beach if it's free...).

Finally, on a more subtantive level, and without taking sides, this general debate should not cloud the fact that certain religious practices are contrary to internationally recognised human rights. Religious leaders can spin it as much as they want, they can't have their cake and eat it: sometimes strict religious practice is just plain incompatible with respect of human rights. What should be done about this is another issue, but the elephant in the the living room can't be ignored forever, under the pretence that there isn't enough light to see it...

PS: Someone pointed out to me that the speech in Geneva by Ahmadinejad was not only on the birthday of Hitler, but also on remembrance day of the Shoah in Israel... you have to love the timing...

The Geneva Show on (anti-)Racism

Once upon a time... on the birthday of Hitler (oh, the irony...)...

It was written like a crafty Hollywood script... Enter the Iranian president, under the applause of part of the room. The speech starts. Cue unplanned protesters wearing a clown's attire and who threw a red nose on stage (probably all participants had been asked to take off their shoes to avoid any assault on the speakers...). A few shouts later, they are dragged away by the security team of the conference. And then, to the utmost suprise of the audience, Ahmadinejad starts ranting about the immigrants sent by Europe to create a racist State in the Middle East. Faced with this unforeseen speach from a usually so moderate world leader, some representatives, mostly from European countries, recovered fast from the suprise and improvised a courageous walkout to show their opposition. Following this, despite the short notice, all these countries manage to issue in a suprinsingly coordinated way strong press releases condeming this attack on Israel... The UN expresses dismay at the Iranian president's outbreak. This is a perfect storyline, full of unexpected drama and...

oh come on! Who are we kidding? This whole joke was as predictable as an episode of Mission Impossible (did anybody ever really believe that they might not save the day?). Everybody wins from this theatrically staged farce in Geneva for the second conference against Racism, after the one organised in Durban in 2001.
It was obvious that the bearded leader of Iran would say something that could create outrage. But a walkout looks so much better on TV than not showing up at all. Like that, the Europeans can show their voters, sorry, citizens, their strong rejection of racism. Ahmadinejad also wins, by looking like a courageous martyr who has the balls to stand up to the Western-capitalist-zionist-freemason-aliens-from-outer-space conspiracy.

The Durban Conference in 2001, despite its good intentions, was hijacked by those wanting to single out Israel as a racist State. Very few countries actually reacted when at the time some "NGOs" distributed anti-semitic material. Only the USA and Israel left the conference back then. And even if the final declaration was mild in its language, most of the debates were focusing on Israel. As for the "Durban II" conference, the signs were not good. A document circulating some weeks before the start of the event, drafted by the Preparatory Commission, headed by Libya with an Iranian Vice-President, contained strong language against Israel and called for the "criticism of religions" to be included as Racism, basically preventing blasphemy. And what did this lead to? How did most countries respond to that? Some States actually decided to boycott the conference (USA, Israel, but also Italy, the Netherlands and Germany). But most apparently learned from the previous event... that they had to have better communication!

Which brings us back to today. The only lesson to draw from this is that it is an artful operation in political PR. All the participants might not agree on the content. But they can all meet up in the dressing room afterwards and congratulate each other on the success of the performance, and get ready for the next show...

... or go back to hone their skills at the permanent rehearsal stage for this type of mascarade that is the UN Human Rights Council... but let's keep this for another time, shall we?