Particularly after the inflammatory speech on Monday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, most of the press attention has been focused on the Conference's treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Here the Conference's final document is seen by the U.S. and some other countries as no improvement over Durban I because it "reaffirmed" the 2001 Durban Declaration. (Philadelpha Evening Bulletin.) Anne Bayefsky in the New York Daily News yesterday expanded on the anti-Israel elements of the Conference.
However, another issue of concern leading up to the conference has been efforts by Islamic states to get language into the final document barring "defamation of religion." That reference was removed in negotiations last month. (See prior posting.) The language remains out of the final document; but reference to "negative stereotyping of religions" remains in. This reference can be used by countries to prevent debate or criticism of religious ideas. (See press release from ARTICLE 19.) However the final document also strongly emphasizes the importance of freedom of expression.
In what appears to be the final version of the Outcome Document that was adopted (March 17 draft from UN Watch), here is the relevant language:
Another press release this week from the UK free speech group, ARTICLE 19, decrying the boycotting of the Conference by some countries, describes the Document's language on free expression in more upbeat terms than many other rights groups might be willing to do:10. Recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions and the global rise in the number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism;
11. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law, as well as the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority and hatred and acts of violence and incitement to such acts, and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;....55. Reaffirms the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
56. Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society, since it ensures access to a multitude of ideas and views;
Months of negotiation have resulted in a draft Outcome Document that reaffirms the essential role of freedom of expression and freedom of information while omitting any reference to "defamation of religions", a concept rejected by free speech activists because it protects belief systems against criticisms or jokes and is incompatible with international human rights law. The Document's current language acknowledges the primacy of the individual as rights holder rather than religion.
According to Mr. Moataz El Fegiery, Executive Director of Cairo Institute for Human Rights, "The replacement of 'defamation of religion' with language protecting an individual's freedom of belief represents a significant acknowledgment by the international community that international law does not recognise this concept; and that it should not be used by the United Nations."
