Universal Blasphemy Law Drive Hits a Courageous Wall

The international drive to turn blasphemy laws into an international censorship standard hit a powerful roadblock in Geneva this month.

The four international rapporteurs for freedom of expression from Africa, Europe, Latin America and the United Nation issued a joint declaration urging the United Nations to reject this drive, mostly by Islamic countries, to internationalize the penalties for blasphemy.

The statement, published by the website of the Organization For Security And Cooperation In Europe (OSCE), reflects the common opinion of the rapporteurs for freedom of expression from the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Faith Pansy Tlakula; the OSCE, Miklos Haraszti; the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Catalina Botero, and the UN Council on Human Rights, Frank La Rue.

And they all state in no unclear terms their opposition to this undemocratic effort.

The signatories agreed that the concept of 'defamation of religions' does not accord with international standards accepted by pluralistic and free societies. They said that international organizations should abstain from adopting statements supporting criminalization of 'defamation of religions'.

They also stressed that restrictions on freedom of expression should never be used to protect institutions, abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones, and that such restrictions should be limited in scope to advocacy of hatred.

The drive for exporting the concept of criminal blasphemy has the backing of both the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Muslim World League, and was taken to the UN General Assembly on Nov. 13 by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who presented it to the world as an effort to bring the "Culture of Peace."

The proposal is trying to link blasphemy with the crimes of extremism and terrorism. But in their statement, the four rapporteurs say that one and the others are not interchangeable.

The four freedom of expression rapporteurs also advised that the definition of terrorism should be restricted to violent crimes which inflict terror on the public, and that vague notions such as 'providing communications support' or 'promoting' extremism or terrorism should not be criminalized unless they constitute incitement. They said that the role of the media should be respected in anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation.

 WPFC has repeatedly expressed its strong opinion about this issue. We believe both blasphemy and insult laws are ancient, obsolete pieces of legislation designed to silence the opinions of the people and shield religious, public or corporate officials from the criticism of the rest of society.

Both blasphemy and insult laws are the anti-matter to democracy and free-thinking. Come on, pleople, let's move on to the 21st Century