The cases are on the rise. In the first three months of this year alone, at least 17 have been registered against 23 people under Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws. The accused include a mentally challenged shopkeeper, and a 17-year-old schoolboy who is alleged to have scribbled something sacrilegious on his physics exam. Under Pakistani law, the punishment for blasphemy is death—which often comes without court sanction. Just recently, a blasphemy accused, Qamar David, was found dead in his Karachi jail cell. Officials say he died of a heart attack, but his family and lawyer suspect foul play.

Last week at the United Nations in Geneva, de facto international support for persecution in the name of religion finally appeared to be waning.

Led by the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the U.N.’s Human Rights Council has passed a resolution against the “defamation of religions” every year since 1999. The OIC, which is represented by Pakistan at the Council, says the resolution is critical for “the defense of Islam” and to combat “Islamophobia” in the West. Others say the resolution amounts to a “global blasphemy law” and curtails other human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the U.N. charter. “Religious freedom is a fundamental right,” says Asma Jahangir, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan and a former U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. “It is the fundamental right of people to not become victims of religious intolerance,” she told me. Jahangir has long argued against the resolution saying that “defamation” could be stretched to target those who offer legitimate critiques of religious customs and norms. In Pakistan, those who have merely critiqued the country’s manmade blasphemy laws have themselves been silenced.

This year, to the chagrin of the OIC and in consideration of the tragic events in Pakistan, a markedly-changed version of the nonbinding resolution passed on March 24. This “represents a significant step forward in the global dialogue on countering intolerance, discrimination, and violence against persons based upon religion or belief,” said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It will also deprive proponents of domestic blasphemy laws of what they have claimed is cover and justification from the international community.

Whereas previous versions of the resolution sought to protect “beliefs,” the newest seeks to protect “believers.” The three-page resolution, which resulted from discussions among diplomats from the U.S. and Pakistan (as the OIC rep), recognizes that there is “intolerance, discrimination and violence” aimed at believers of different faiths, but it omits any reference to “defamation” and denounces the advocacy of religious hatred and incitement to violence. It also calls on governments to prevent and confront such acts carried out in the name of religion.

I spoke at a panel discussion organized by Human Rights First, an American nonprofit, at the U.N. in Geneva in March. The panelists included Salam Al Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and Heiner Bielefeldt, the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Some in the audience decried any amendments to the antidefamation resolution by citing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of 2005, the 2009 ban on minarets in Switzerland, France’s burqa ban as well as the Facebook cartoon controversy from last year, and a Florida pastor’s declaration to burn the Quran.

But while these members were understandably upset by some of this unabashed and deplorable Muslim-baiting, they conveniently ignored the crisis of faith in their own countries. In a recent report, Human Rights First has cited 70 cases in 15 countries where blasphemy laws have been used as instruments of fear and violent oppression. These laws end up protecting people from the vocal, well-armed, well-funded, and well-organized religious right. Laws are, of course, enacted to protect lives. But when countries have laws that are so vague and open to such grave misuse that they end up persecuting those whom they had originally sought to protect, it is time for a good-faith review.

By passing the reworked resolution, the U.N. has made clear that it is unacceptable to undermine fundamental rights on the pretext of protecting religion, any religion. Through its vote, the Human Rights Council has signaled that religions do not require protection, people do. After 12 years of passing this resolution without considering some of its unintended consequences, the rethink is a step in the right direction. In August, the resolution will be put to vote at the U.N. General Assembly. Here’s to hoping they keep the faith.

Source: Newweek

Comments

comments