[This is a cross-post from my column at Examiner.com]
Thursday, an organization of Islamic states managed once again to shove its oppressive agenda down the throats of the United Nation's Human Rights Council, as well as the wider UN itself, legitimizing state acts of religiously-based oppression and the criminalization of speech, all in the hopes of building toward fully binding international law. This didn't seem to be "newsy" enough for coverage in the U.S. press, however. Unless you were already looking for news from mainstream outlets on the subject, you probably wouldn't ever have known what had taken place, even if you were an avid newspaper reader.
Let's do a check of who covered the UN Human Rights Council's vote to "combat defamation of religions" the following day.
- Associated Press: Yes
- Reuters: Yes
- United Press International: No
There are the wire services. They're supposed to cover pretty much everything that moves, and they provide content to other papers. So let's see what the record shows for some of the biggest news outlets in the country. Did they cover the story?
- New York Times: No
- Wall Street Journal: No
- Washington Post: Website hosts Reuters story in "On Faith" section, not in print edition
- USA Today: Posts AP story
- Chicago Tribune: Posts AP story
- Los Angeles Times: No
- ABC News: Posts AP and Reuters
- CBS News: No
- NBC News/MSNBC: No
- CNN: No
- Fox News: No
- Bloomberg News: No
Not encouraging, is it? In fact, the only major American publication that did any original reaction or coverage was the right wing
editorial board of the Washington Times, itself controlled by a
Grade A religious nut. We can at least take a look at what the
Times says.
. . . very troubling is the elasticity of the term "defamation." It is used to silence social critics and other liberal voices in countries where the law is captive of the official religion. "Anti-blasphemy" statutes in Shariah-based legal systems squelch debate over the rights of women, the right to free speech and expression, privacy, criminal justice and a variety of other off-limits issues. This U.N. resolution would give further international sanction to every authoritarian regime that hides its oppression behind the veil of faith.
The OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference] also plans to introduce binding resolutions that will require states to punish religious defamers. In practice this could target almost anyone with an opinion.
No arguments here. The piece goes off the tracks somewhat at the end, however, and I fear it may be part of the right's more vocal opposition to the Human Rights Council's actions:
The resolution condemns the type of "defamation of religion and incitement to religious hatred." But this would be familiar to anyone in the region when the talk turns to Israel, India or the West. By all means, let us apply these standards to some of the member states of the OIC and make an honest accounting of the true sources of intolerance.
No, by all means let us not. The principled opposition to this resolution is not its equal imposition, but its full reversal. I fear that a great deal of the anger over this resolution (much of it coming from right wing crazytown: the ironically-named American Thinker, CNS News, etc.) has more to do with a xenophobic loathing of Muslims and a mistrust of any international body, particularly the UN. Take a look at Lou Dobbs' program's take on the phenomenon from last month. He rails against the oppression of free speech, surely, but it also seems like he's more worked up about the UN as a whole. I worry that anger will be misdirected at the very idea of cooperative international governance, rather than the real problem: the codification of religion's untouchability in civilized discourse and its horrific implications for, yes, human rights.
But that is a side concern. I am more troubled that no one thought to mention this in their news broadcasts. No newspaper thought to devote its resources to highlighting this problem. Perhaps in the next few days, there is a chance that op-ed columnists or newsweeklies will focus their attention on this metastasizing problem, and perhaps I have missed some example of original mainstream coverage, but on the day after the council's vote, the news media is weirdly silent.
Who is covering it? Few others, but many are reacting. As I mentioned yesterday, Roy W. Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union wrote a must-read piece explaining how we got here, and the IHEU-affiliated National Secular Society of the UK has its own writeup here. Reporters without Borders released a strongly-worded statement which included:
This resolution is outrageous. On the grounds of combating discrimination, it assails the news media for the ‘targeting of religious symbols’ and ‘sacred persons,’ especially those of Islam. In other words, the UN is asking the media to stop criticising Islam in the name of combating incitement to religious hatred. This is unacceptable to all those who feel strongly about the defence of free expression.
Naturally, the Center for Inquiry was quick to respond to the vote:
The United Nations Human Rights Council has handed another victory to Islamic states in their decade-long push to limit freedom of expression out of "respect" for religious beliefs. . . . "The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ is both absurd and dangerous." said Ronald A. Lindsay, CFI’s president and chief executive officer. "Legally speaking, it’s gibberish, and any ban on so-called ‘defamation’ would effectively prevent any critique of religious beliefs or practices."
Importantly, CFI notes that not all Western states' hands are clean on this issue:
"Now the argument becomes very awkward for Europe," said [Dr. Austin] Dacey, "since many European states have laws against hate speech, Holocaust denial, and even blasphemy (for example, in Austria) that have been upheld by their regional human rights courts. The Islamic states will say they simply want to extend the same protection to all beliefs."
Oh, but just in case you were curious, Islam Online doesn't see a problem:
The UN Human Rights Council adopted Thursday, March 27, a resolution condemning religious defamation and calling for respect of all faiths and promoting tolerance.
"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram told the council, reported Reuters.
"It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone."
The piece cites the Danish cartoon and Geert Widers' film as justifications for the resolution's alleged necessity.
Now, yesterday's vote in the Human Rights Council was only one among many instances of anti-blasphemy measures passing through UN bodies, not unlike a poorly digested piece of food. But the implications of these resolutions are real, and the more they pass unnoticed and uncondemned, the more entrenched their principles become, until finally this perversion of the idea of human rights is inscribed into international -- and then national -- law.
Have you seen some thoughtful, quality coverage or reaction to the anti-blasphemy vote? If so, let us know in the comments section. Let's keep this issue from falling into the background.