But only in the sense of tolerance
I like Evolving Thoughts but I think John Wilkins got the wrong end of the stick when he read Johann’s article ‘Why should I respect these oppressive religions?’ He quoted a bit on the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights and the UN and then commented:
There’s more, but I wanted only to discuss the UN-bashing here. There has been no such resolution by the UN, either by the General Assembly or the Security Council.
It’s not clear from the quoted passage exactly what resolution he means – it could be the Cairo Declaration, it could be the resolution on ‘defamation of religion,’ it could be the change in the role of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights – or it could be all those, or bits of all of them. But whichever it is, Wilkins is wrong; all three are very real.
Yes, Muslim leaders have asked the UN to ensure respect for religion, but only in the sense of tolerance for all religions, and at the same time they condemned the use of suicide bombers and attacking schools.
But the linked article doesn’t say that at all, it says something quite different.
SPEAKERS at a seminar urged the UN to take stringent measures to ensure respect of every religion and formulate laws to stop blasphemy against the Prophet of Islam (pbuh)…He said Muslims respected West’s freedom of expression but were deeply grieved and angered on the blasphemy of their Prophet (pbuh) and the Holy Quran committed with blatant callousness by the western leaders in the name of freedom of expression. He said freedom of expression had its limits in the West and it must never damage religious feelings of any human being, adding that Muslims would never tolerate the blasphemy of the prophet (pbuh) and other sacred personalities…He asked the UN to legislate to stop blasphemy and disrespect of religions which, he stressed, was essential for world peace. [emphasis added]
That is very far from ‘only in the sense of tolerance for all religions.’ Moreover, it is hardly mollifying that ‘at the same time they condemned the use of suicide bombers and attacking schools’; it’s not as if everything short of suicide bombers and attacking schools is perfectly all right.
Frankly it’s hard to see how anyone could read that passage as asking the UN to ensure respect for religion ‘only in the sense of tolerance for all religions’ when it says quite clearly that the request is for laws to stop blasphemy. Wilkins goes on to say that the UDHR protects religions in Articles 18 and 19 and that this ‘hasn’t changed’ – but the OIC would like it to change, and the Cairo Declaration is in direct opposition to Article 18 in many places. The UDHR protects various rights only as long as it is adhered to, and the OIC has explicitly repudiated it; that is the point of the Cairo Declaration. I think Wilkins perhaps should have looked into the subject a little more. (Most of his readers don’t seem to know the facts either. I keep saying how under-reported this whole subject is.)
Thanks OB for the polite disagreement. My point is not that there are no resolutions that the UN add “respect for religion”. I said as much. The point is that the UN itself has no such resolution before it, and is making no move to introduce such a measure. The way Johann and others online are discussing this, they make it seem like this is in fact what is occurring.
But Dr. Wilkins, these special rapporteurs and subcommittees and so on are the United Nations!. There is no other entity, no special magic power ranger part of the UN that does all the *real UN stuff* behind the scenes. Rather, this is what has become of the main working bodies that the UN has which focus on human rights – calls for special protection of religious oppression and the cessation of all calls for equal rights, especially equal rights for women. The situation is completely toxic and morally reprehensible – and as far as promoting human rights is concerned, it’s the only going United Nations concern.
I am forced to ask: What sort of spurious distinction are you drawing here? It’s not the United Nations itself that’s gone completely astray on human rights and religious freedom, it’s just the only UN committees that deal in any way with religious freedom and human rights… WTF?
“The point is that the UN itself has no such resolution before it”
They have already been approved by the UN. Just not by the two parts of the UN that you point out they have not been passed by.
Not all men are Socrates.
“He said freedom of expression had its limits in the West and it must never damage religious feelings of any human being”
That’s one of the most terrifying ideas I’ve ever heard.
Besides, John (if I may), the General Assembly has passed such a resolution.
‘the U.N. General Assembly passed an Islamic-sponsored resolution condemning “defamation of religion” for the fourth year in a row’
“the General Assembly has passed such a resolution”
Well that certainly undermines *my* argument. ;-)
Argument still valid! Less needed perhaps, but no less valid.
Ophelia,
I don’t think your equation of suppressing blasphemy (as requested by the OIC), and coming out against defamation (as expressed in the UN Resolution), is warranted.
Blasphemy is a religious concept, and can only have a context within a religious authority, which the UN is obviously not, and will never be. Let the OIC empty its lungs calling for international protection against blasphemy; it’s not going to happen. (If I’m wrong I will quickly join you in denouncing it).
Defamation, OTOH, is a secular, legal concept, and absolutely within the purview of a body like the UN. It exists to protect innocent people and groups from unfounded harm to their reputation and other elements of their social capital. There is no reason why religious defamation should be any less actionable than ethnic, political, gender, or professional defamation.
I quoted a statement from the resolution in comments on Evolving Thoughts, and I’ll paste it here as well:
Note the qualifications, in bold. I grant that both “morals” and “respect for religions and beliefs” are overly vague, but to the extent it intends to protect the right of everyone to freely practice one’s religion, it is a liberal, humanist value, not a stepping stone to theocracy.
I disagree strongly, Chris Schoen. It is not a liberal, humanist value to speak of ‘respect for religions and beliefs.’ In fact, it is anything but. It is a stepping stone on the way to theocracy, because it places religious beliefs in a protected zone, and permits the continuing violation of human rights that underlies many religious beliefs and practices.
The noteworthy thing about the report of the Lahore Seminar in The International News(!) is that it speaks unwarrantably of religions as bringing messages of peace and love, and yet goes on to say that religion must be respected otherwise religious extremists will commit acts of violence and do great harm. And it is the protection of belief systems which result in this kind of extremism that we are asked to validate with respect. This is not overly vague. It is a direct and dire warning of religious violence if we fail to give religious the respect which, in the view of those at the seminar whose words are reported, religions believe they deserve.
If anything, this message indicates how important it is, as Johann Hari says, not to give respect of oppressive belief systems. These oppressive systems were in evidence at the Lahore Seminar, and it is not something that we should acknowledge as coming within the understanding of liberalism and humanism. It is, in fact, an outright threat of theocratic violence, if such respect is not given. We should refuse to give it. The messengers of religion, including the Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses, are not messengers of peace and love. They threaten freedom and peace, and should in no wise be given the demanded respect.
Given the mad religious world of Pakistan, I can understand why such appeals are being made. However, Pakistan’s problem is of its own creation. It was founded as a Muslim state, though arguably Jinnah was, at the outset, a humanist and an atheist. The only solution for Pakistan is to establish a secular democracy. In the circumstances that is not likely to happen, but until it does the madness that is Pakistan will continue unabated, as it has done since its inception. Suppressing criticism of religion will not solve the problem but exacerbate it. Only freedom of belief and expression will solve these problems, and Muslim must just get used to the fact that we will not give their prophet the respect which they believe, wrongly, that he deserves. Anyone who has read the Qu’ran cannot give to that violent man any consideration and respect, and to be said that it is contrary to human rights to scorn him is in itself a massive violation of human rights. Such men must be scorned, or we will continue in this cul-de-sac forever.
Our notes were crossposted OB. I agree entirely with your point.
As I suspected, CS has his facts wrong, at least with respect to US law.
Defamation is speaking or writing false statements about another person that does injury to his/her reputation. It’s about individuals, and the statements have to be false.
“In the United States, defamation laws are far less plaintiff friendly than the laws of other nations. This is due – in large part – to the protections offered by the first amendment of the US Constitution.”
And the goal – of the UDHR, for example – would be to make that true outside the US as well. Making it a crime to ‘defame’ religion is drastically incompatible with the protections offered by the first amendment of the US Constitution and by several articles of the UDHR.
Same here, Eric, and thank you for saving me the time and effort of arguing with Chris S!
In defiance of my own refusal, I will just spell out one thing…
“The Assembly would emphasize that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations, according to law and necessary for…respect for religions and beliefs.”
“[T]o the extent it intends to protect the right of everyone to freely practice one’s religion, it is a liberal, humanist value, not a stepping stone to theocracy.”
It is a very illiberal proposed law (not value: the proposal is for laws, not mere values). That is because the right to freely practice a religion does not and cannot depend on legally mandated approval of the religion, and that is so because legally mandated approval of anything interferes with the freedom of everyone to speak, write, argue, debate, disagree, and ultimately think. The freedom to practice a religion can and must carry on regardless of the stated opinions of other people. In other words freedom to practice a religion cannot be understood as taking away freedom to disagree with or criticize that religion.
And it’s a bad, ludicrous joke to pretend that saying it can is ‘liberal.’ That’s one of the most non-liberal claims on the contemporary landscape.
Chris Schoen,
The “right of everyone to freely practice one’s religion” is very different from a right to never hear any harsh condemnation of one’s religion. If you don’t make the distinction, then you must regard the open publication of Voltaire’s writings as a violation of the rights of Roman Catholics to practice their religion.
Furthermore…
“We all have the right to be protected from defamation, if only in the form of displays of solidarity.”
From defamation, yes, but criticism or mockery of our ideas, no, absolutely not. We have zero right to be ‘protected’ from putative insults to our ideas. You’re taking the idea of ‘defamation of religion’ at face value, and that’s a mistake.
“You’re taking the idea of ‘defamation of religion’ at face value, and that’s a mistake.”
Perhaps.
But saying that a certain group of people would like to read “defamation” as “blasphemy” doesn’t mean that it’s a justified reading.
Whatever force the resolution has, it has at “face value.” Anything else is a projection.
Thank you OB. I was just going to say the same thing about defamation. Defamation (libel, slander) is very different from criticism and even scorn.
I still wonder, though. Voltaire, for example, is very scornful (very mocking, if you like) of religion (particularly catholic religion) and anti-clerical. Some of his jibes could be taken as hyperbolic and offensive. Some were taken to be offensive and defamatory, which is why he lived so close to the Swiss border.
Where does scorn and mockery end and defamation begin? Take PZ Myers, who ran a campaign for awhile belittling the catholic belief in transubstantiation. He even took the ‘consecrated’ bread and ‘desecrated’ it. Now, these are religious conceptions. From PZ’s point of view, he could not desecrate anything, because it’s a ‘frackin cracker’! But for some catholics this was taken as a monstrous act of disrespect to their beliefs, and to their conception of the sacred. Nevertheless, in the US this is regarded as protected ‘speech’. Rightly, in my view.
But where does defamation begin?
Come to that, it occurs to me that the Qu’ran actually defames Christian and Jewish beliefs, and holds that Christian and Jewish ‘saints’ were really Muslim after all. Christianity defames Jewish belief and Jews (with consequences of which we are all aware).
It is not defaming to tell the truth about someone. To say that someone is a thief when he is a thief is not defamation. To say that a religious belief is oppressive to women, if it is, is not defamation, no matter how offended believers may be.
The act under which the Editor and Publisher of The Statesman were arrested speaks of “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.” I should have thought that, aside from deliberate – since something published was obviously deliberately done – it would be difficult to prove intention ‘to outrage religious feelings,’ even though someone might know (as PZ presumably did) that people will be outraged. Mockery, generally, is supposed to arouse outrage. If it didn’t, there would be little point in mocking something. But it is still a pretty broad space to work in, which makes for bad law, I should have thought. In fact, it is just the kind of broad space in which violence takes the place of law.
Given the Indian history of religious violence, I can understand the reason for such a law, but it is just this situation that religions, and in particular Islam, is trying to force on the rest of the world. Basically, we will be offended, therefore you must not say anything that will offend us, otherwise our extremists will do nasty things.
The rest of this century is going to be very violent, I’m afraid. (Oh dear, I have gone on a bit. Sorry about that.)
What about defamation of God? If defamation of religion is to be allowed, blasphemy has to be out.
The following is a letter to the Melbourne Age this morning, which I quote in full:
“Insult to injury
“DANNY Nalliah’s comments (The Age, 11/2) that the bushfires are God’s punishment for the decriminalisation of abortion may be offensive, but not much more offensive that Uniting Church leader Gregor Henderson’s comments that ‘God is with the people in the middle of their suffering’ (Comment & Debate, 12/2).
“Let’s get this straight. If God exists, then he caused these bushfires. He caused whole towns to be burned to the ground. He destroyed lives and brought unimaginable grief to the survivors. This is a loving God? Please don’t insult my intelligence.
“Paul Dixon, Fraser, ACT”
“I don’t think your equation of suppressing blasphemy (as requested by the OIC), and coming out against defamation (as expressed in the UN Resolution), is warranted. “
The latter has been perverted to effect the former.
“There is no reason why religious defamation should be any less actionable than ethnic, political, gender, or professional defamation. “
Other than that it should apply to specific factual statements regarding specific individuals like every other form of defamation.
“to the extent it intends to protect the right of everyone to freely practice one’s religion, it is a liberal, humanist value, not a stepping stone to theocracy”
That would be the null extent.
People have the freedom to practice their religion and they have freedom from hate speech (except in some of those countries calling for “defamation” law to be perverted in order to effect a blasphemy law). They do not need the “freedom” to remove other people’s freedom of speech.
Will I, an unbeliever, be allowed to take offence at the statements of the religious and ask for them to be silenced in turn? Thought not. (To be clear, I am not asking that it should.)
Confusing negative freedom from harm with the power to silence others is not liberal or humanistic.
Chris Schoen,
I’m assuming that the Danish cartoons provide an instructive example of the kind of speech that would constitute ‘defamation of religion’.
Now, notice that the cartoons do not forward claims that can be assessed for truth or falsity. Instead, they express attitudes and exploit stereotypes and make jokes. So the sort of defamation at stake here is of a much wider scope than traditional defamation. Indeed, it is hard to think of a plausible boundary lying in between a fact-oriented understanding of defamation of religion and blasphemy. So I think it is very plausible to construe ‘defamation of religion’ as a simple euphemism for blasphemy.
So do you think that these cartoons would fall outside the scope of ‘defamation of religion’, or do you think they would violate a standard that is significantly different from a blasphemy standard?
Also:
“However, if a news anchor in Eastern Europe were to say, in the course of the evening news ‘Everybody knows that Gypsies are thieves and cutthroats,’ or if an American broadcaster said ‘Everyone knows that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies,’ would you deny a tort right to advocacy groups on behalf of Gypsies or Jews?”
Without hesitation.
Well now I wouldn’t – I would have lots of hesitation. I wouldn’t know what to do. That’s because statements of that kind are not merely ‘offensive,’ they are the kind of thing that can get people killed. That’s what happened in Rwanda and Greater Serbia, for example. I do think there’s a genuine worry about statements about groups that are likely to trigger hatred and then violence – but I also think that’s quite different from statements about beliefs.
I agree with Ophelia, here.
Regarding cartoons, I agree they are not a simple matter of propositional content, and thus hard to judge on a true/false basis.
Some cartoons exploit stereotypes very effectively. I was in vocal support of the Blitt “fist-bump” Obama cover, for example. Others, to me, are just lazy re-hashes of negative stereotypes. I’m thinking of the one of Muhammad with the fuse in his turban. The artist has been very explicit that he was not satirizing Islamophobia, but rather expressing his anger at the events of 9-11.
I’m not saying it should be banned, or criminalized. I’m just saying that it’s of a piece with a cartoon portraying an African-American as shiftless, ape-like, or rapacious. Or a Jew as duplicitous, or money-grubbing. That is, it’s the kind of garbage we have to put up publicly with if we believe in free speech, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn it.
Dave2,
In reference to the example of the news broadcaster, I’m curious why you think groups of individuals don’t deserve the same legal protection against slander, by virtue of their belonging to those groups, as individuals do. If I wrote publicly that such and such a Romany or Jew was a thief or cannibal, I’d be subject to tort law. Why is such a statement different in the aggregate?
Chris,
1. I was addressing your attempt to distinguish defamation of religion from blasphemy. My point was that, assuming that the cartoons are a clear case of defamation of religion, then it turns out to be pretty much the same thing as blasphemy. Whether the cartoons are hateful or contemptible is therefore beside the point.
2. For the record, I agree that such thoughtless and hateful cartoons should be condemned as such. I do not, however, agree that all deliberate provocation that is insulting or offensive to religious people should be condemned, and I certainly don’t want governments in the business of deciding what provocative speech needs to be condemned, not even symbolically. And if I’m not mistaken, that’s what the UN resolution is all about.
3. Regarding Rwanda and the Balkans: I am willing to accept an “imminent lawless action” standard, especially when the lawless action in question is violent. And I didn’t take it that the hypothetical news anchor cases included the supposition either of a mob of maniacs at the ready or of the anchor repeatedly spreading lies to cultivate a powderkeg climate of racial hostility. If those suppositions are included, then I withdraw my claim. If not, however, I don’t see the problem (e.g., if tomorrow Rush Limbaugh said Gypsies were thieves, I wouldn’t expect any outbreak of violence).
4. About group defamation:
First, I think most cases that somewhat resemble group defamation do not actually qualify. For one thing, they primarily express hatred rather than forward assertions of fact. There’s something hilariously incongruous about a court allowing a defendant to soberly adduce evidence that the Roma have a tendency to thievery, and then inquiring into the ultimate truth or falsity of the statement. (And what if crime statistics somehow end up officially exonerating a shockingly hateful racist diatribe? Headline: “Court agrees: Gypsies are thieves”) For another, it would be hard to show actual malice for crackpots: anyone who buys into Jewish blood-libel myths just might actually buy into them, and thus could not be shown to have disseminated information whose falsehood was known or recklessly disregarded.
Second, I think it is obviously a bad idea to prohibit defamation of, say, Republicans. Political rants ought to be protected, regardless of how stuffed with unfair generalizing lies and nonsense they are. But then it will be quite hard to draw a principled line here. An individual’s group identity and group reputation can be just as tied to her political affiliation as to her religious affiliation or ethnic affiliation. Similar points go for unloved religious groups like atheists and apostates (or maybe even backsliders and scoffers!). The Bible seems to explicitly say that atheists are morally corrupt doers of vile deeds, every one of them bereft of all virtue (Psalms 14:1); may we then seek legal remedy against those who publish the Bible? I do not know real-world humans can have open discussions without legal protections for unfair generalizing lies about the social groups people belong to.
That said, there might perhaps be a case of bona fide group defamation: I can imagine someone ruining the business of Ukrainian immigrants who run open air markets throughout a region by publishing false claims that their products are made by slaves or that their profits are funneled to the mafia. I’d be interested in knowing if there are any real-world cases like this, and any practiceable ways of providing a legal remedy in such cases without thereby opening the floodgates in the ways mentioned above.
Dave2,
Your points about group defamation are well taken.
I’m grateful and proud to live in the country with greatest speech protection in the world. But a philosophy like Hari’s, where the best way to combat hateful speech is with more speech, doesn’t take a number of dynamics into consideration. There is no single marketplace of ideas that we all have equal access to. A letter to the editor will not possess the same authority and interest of the news article it attempts to rebut. A media criticism blog will generally not have the circulation of a Fox News or Drudge.
To what extent does inciting hatred differ from shouting “fire” in a crowded theater? When all is said and done, the truth comes out that there was no fire, but it is still actionable, because of the peril to the the theater-goers. Similarly, in the fullness of time it’s possible to rebut the idea that certain groups are of inferior moral character. But in the meanwhile, how many people may have acted as though the incitement were in good faith? Where is the recourse when it really counts?
I don’t go so far as to argue for the criminalization of hateful speech. But I think it is worth asking, first, whether people have an inherent right to be free from slander both as group-members and individuals, that is at least as primary as Hari’s “right” to disrespect other people for their beliefs. (He writes that he respects people, whether or not he respects their beliefs, but this is belied in his comment that religious beliefs “belong to the childhood of our species.” How can this be read as anything but a judgment of the believer, not just the belief?) And then asking, secondly, what can be done, if anything, to help secure this right.
Well here’s one for the books: I agree with your first para, Chris (and that’s why I didn’t quote that part of Johann’s article). I don’t think it’s always and everywhere the case that the best way to combat hateful speech is with more speech, in fact I’m very sure it’s not. It wasn’t in 1930s Germany, it wasn’t in Kigali in 1994, and so on.
I disagree with your last though. Just for a start it begs the question of whether there is any ‘slander’ or not. Johann would naturally say there isn’t, and I’d agree with him about that.
……Are you really seriously claiming that it’s ‘worth asking’ if there is a right not to be told, for instance, that one’s religious beliefs ‘belong to the childhood of our species’? A real right, such that everyone else must be prevented, by law and by force, from saying that? Are you seriously claiming that phrase is group slander? You have got to be kidding.
Sometimes you make sense, then other times you head off a cliff.
Granted, Ophelia. I’m certainly not trying to establish that religious criticism (and/or “blasphemy”) constitutes slander. What I am arguing is that slander can be directed in the direction of religion, as easily as anywhere else.
That is, there is a difference between, for example, asserting that ritual slaughter is cruel to animals (it’s not, so far as I know, in the case of kasruth or halal, at least compared to standard slaughter practices), and on the other hand saying that Jews or Muslims are barbarous people. It seems to me that we all have a right in a liberal democracy to some protection from the latter, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of a criminalization of speech. But it’s harder to find a justification for a right to protection from the former.
Sure, I agree with that – but not because the slander in question is religious; that’s probably where the confusion comes in. I don’t think it’s relevant what category it is, in fact I think that’s a distraction; I just think it’s morally dubious-to-bad and often dangerous to say Xs are [bad thing]. But it really doesn’t matter what X is. Race, vocation, hobby, size, shape – whatever – it doesn’t matter. And in so far as X is substantive and public – as with politics or religion – it’s crucial to keep the two separate and to discuss X without trashing Xs.
Well I would put the first part much more strongly – I wouldn’t say ‘it’s harder to find a justification for a right to protection from the former’; I would say there is no such justification and we shouldn’t try to find one because if we did that would close down huge swathes of necessary inquiry and debate.
Wow, the idiocy from Chris Schoen really demonstrates what we’re up against if we want to hang on to our Enlightenment legacy of free speech.
The elephant in this particular room is that defamation law is already too broad. It should be narrowed, not broadened even further.
Yeh. There really are a lot of people who think groups should be protected by having their beliefs protected…which is alarming.
Step one perhaps is to label criticism ‘defamation’ – which is exactly what the copy editor for Does God Hate Women? has done, thus ignoring a lot of careful argument in the book itself about why such moves are illiberal and dangerous for women’s rights. It’s really rather staggering…
OB, I think I agree, if I’m reading you right. Religion isn’t a special category, deserving of “extra” protections beyond what might be granted for one’s ideas in general, or one’s sexuality, or race.
On those grounds I agree that the added duties would be better extended to the SR of Religious Freedom, as you suggest.
That’s really my only point. That religious freedom deserves protection alongside the other human rights the UNHRC is tasked to defend. I don’t see how the revised mandate can be seen to extend beyond this. (As I’ve written, the word “defamation” does not appear in the document.)
But one’s ideas in general are not granted protection, nor should they be. The right to hold ideas, and to express them, is protected, but the ideas themselves are not.
The religious right in the US, for instance, has a whole sustained campaign going to get the Constitution’s protection of the ‘free exercise’ of religion expanded to include this kind of protection of ideas; this is a very bad thing.
We have to do what we can short of violence and insurrection, to stop this creeping muzzlement.