EU meeting warns of dangers of restricting free speech
Should religious belief be protected from “defamation”? Is respect for the sensibilities of religious believers compatible with freedom of speech? How should the EU respond to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that endorses restrictions on freedom of expression in the name of "respect for religions and beliefs”? These issues were discussed by MEPs and experts at a meeting of the EP Subcommittee on Human Rights yesterday (Thursday).
Hélène Flautre (Greens/EFA, FR), chair of the subcommittee, opened the meeting by citing Asma Jahangir, UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, who addressed Parliament's plenary last week. Mrs Jahangir had argued against “protecting religions per se” and had said “criminalizing so-called defamation of religions can be counterproductive”.
Thursday’s guest speaker, Sara Whyatt (International PEN Writers in Prison Committee), took a critical view of the UNHRC resolution of 30 March 2007, which calls on UN member states to take steps against “defamation of religions”, focusing particularly on Islamophobia.
For her part, Ms Whyatt argued that “religions are systems of ideas and cannot therefore be seen as beyond criticism”. In any case, “what does ‘defamation’ mean?”
Moreover, “religious defamation laws have been used by governments to stifle dissent” and “can lead to violations of human rights”. Protests about the UNHRC resolution had come from many quarters, “over half from Islamic states!” Ultimately, it was crucial to see that “protection of religious freedom is compatible with freedom of expression”. She urged the EP to push for a review of the UNHRC resolution.
The representative of the European Commission stated that EU Member States had not supported the UNHRC resolution and that the EU “does not see ‘defamation of religion’ as appropriate to the human rights discourse”. The very concept poses problems, such as the right of diverse currents to exist within a religion and the freedom not to have a religion or to change one’s religion. The EU’s preferred approach was “to protect individuals not beliefs”.
Alexis Krikorian (International Publishers Association) described the lack of freedom of expression in Tunisia. He spoke about prisoners of opinion, book and internet censorship, restrictions on freedom of association and official harassment, and urged the European Union to link EU-Tunisia relations to freedom of speech and human rights. He also drew attention to Article 10 of the UNHRC resolution, which states that freedom of expression may “be subject to limitations as provided by law” on grounds of “respect for the rights and reputations of others…and respect for religions and beliefs”. “That says it all”, he concluded.
In her closing words, Mrs Flautre reiterated her view that it was best to stop using the expression “defamation of religion” as it was “not a legally consistent concept”. MEPs will return to this subject. A study is being commissioned by the subcommittee and the Euromediterranean Parliamentary Assembly is due to draft a report on it.
The NSS has been in contact with a number of MEP’s about these issues.
27 June 2008
Make a Donation
Guardian, 21 August 2008
Yorkshire Post, 21 August 2008
Telegraph, 21 August 2008
The fact that this case was won while another case – that of 16- year old Lydia Playfoot and her claim in 2007 to want to wear a “chastity ring” in school – was thrown out of court seems in itself to be discriminatory.
Government transitional safeguards to protect the jobs and promotion prospects of head teachers and teachers already in post in Voluntary Controlled faith schools breach natural justice and are discriminatory, says the National Secular Society.