The UN Defamation of Religions Resolution and Domestic Blasphemy Laws: Creating a Culture of Impunity

Abstract

In Hate Speech Laws and Unintended Consequences, Richard N. Winfield and Janine Tien raise critical questions about the relationship between the state and religion. The authors focus on the Danish cartoon controversy as a representative example of the pitfalls and unintended consequences of hate speech and blasphemy laws; they argue that the global Danish cartoon controversy became as such largely because of the government’s entanglement in the affair – an entanglement that necessarily, even if unfortunately, flowed from the existence of hate speech and blasphemy provisions in its Criminal Code.The authors extend their analysis to Hungary and Japan, noting that each of these countries chose to accept a jurisprudential model that vigorously protects free expression. The courts in each of these countries recognized the slippery slope consequences of limiting one form of peaceful speech. While the contrast between these two countries and much of the rest of Europe provides important insight, an analysis of the unintended consequences of state control of speech would not be complete without a look at the United Nations Defamation of Religions Resolution (hereafter, “Resolution”) and its domestic counterparts in countries like Pakistan and Egypt. The argument that state control of speech produces unintended consequences is particularly exemplified in the case of the Resolution and blasphemy laws. Blasphemy law case studies from Pakistan and Egypt, whose representatives at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have played a principal role in pushing the Resolution forward, help answer perhaps the most key Winfield and Tien question: “Is the state best suited to define, regulate, censor and punish the social injuries and verbal offenses of hate speech?”This paper briefly discusses the Danish cartoon controversy and the political implications of blasphemy and hate speech laws. Also included in this paper are two case studies on blasphemy laws in Egypt and Pakistan which explore the ways in which the laws of both countries are abused in order to restrict free speech by conflating blasphemy and political dissent. The possibility of repeal or reform is considered uncertain and unlikely in both countries, but in Pakistan especially where assassinations and intimidation have deterred law makers from pursuing legislation to repeal the laws. The paper also discusses the inherent problems posed by the broad language used in the UN Defamation of Religions Resolution which equates religion with race and the positive changes adopted in a new resolution this year which aim to protect individuals from victimization based on the ideas they hold rather than protecting ideas which cannot be proven or disproven. This paper concludes by answering the question “Is the state best suited to define, regulate, censor and punish the social injurises and verba offenses of hate speech?” and discusses the importance of civic responsibility, self-moderation, and the necessity of social rather than legal solutions to deal with divisive speech.