Criticism of religion is not blasphemy

The IHEU position on defamation of religion was strongly supported on 23 September 2008 in a statement to the Human Rights Council prepared by Rabbi Francois Garai of the World Union of Progressive Judaism.

Egypt tried to have the statement ruled out of order on the grounds that “Nobody can discuss the basic tenets of any religion in this Council”. In other words, a Jewish Rabbi (unlike the Holy See) was not qualified to discuss the basic tenets of Judaism!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – Ninth Session (8–26 September 2008)
World Union of Progressive Judaism
Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia…Combating defamation of religions (item 9)
Speaker, David Littman

This is an English translation of the statement, which was given in French: the original text in French is below.

Mr. President, I am reading this statement for Rabbi François Garaï, who was unable to be here just before the Sabbath.

Do not confuse criticism and defamation of religion: an appeal for freedom of thought.

Everyone knows that, in their respective legal codes, religions have laws which are not in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can refer to laws authorising war, hanging, stoning or burning at the stake. For centuries already, Christian and Jewish jurisprudence have led to these laws being considered obsolete. In Western Europe it is unthinkable that a Christian priest of a rabbi could advocate holy war or reintroducing stoning although these are mentioned in the Bible. Were this the case, universal disapproval would immediately condemn such statements both within civil society as well as in religious circles. But this unequivocal condemnation seems to be difficult to reach within certain religious circles of other faiths.

Within Judaism and Christianity, religious law flows from the Bible, in Islam it flows from the Koran and the Hadith. Traditional circles consider these texts as holy writ and absolute truth.

Point of order by Egypt (Mr Amr Roshdi Hassan):

“Mr President, I have to ask that this statement be ruled out of order. We are not here to decide where Islam is derived from. Nobody can discuss the basic tenets of any religion in this Council. Nobody in this Council is in a position to decide if Moses (PBUH) spread the Red Sea or not. Nobody can discuss if Jesus is divine or human. Jesus also PBUH. The delegation sitting here on behalf of Egypt is representing all Egyptians, Muslims, Christians and Jews. And on behalf of the three of them I say that the contents of religion or the origins of religion cannot be discussed in this Council. We can discuss religious freedom. We can ensure religious freedom but we cannot discuss what is in religion or what is not in religion or where religion came from or where religion is going. I am sorry. We cannot discuss this and I will have to insist. Thank you”

The President declined to rule the statement out of order, and David Littman continued:

This is a statement by Rabbi Garai.

Traditional circles consider these texts as holy writ and absolute truth. Outside these circles these cannot be considered as an absolute norm or standard. Outside their respective domains no philosophical doctrine or religious doctrine can be seen as the absolute truth or claim impunity.

Denying the existence of God, or calling into question a belief may be a criticism but it is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is possible only if it is conducted by a believer in a legal environment based on religion. This is not the case here. If this Council were to place one right above all judgements or criticism, it would be seen as having qualities that other religions or other rights do not have. It would be given precedence over all other rights, in this particular instance over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is the actual foundation for the Council.

The United Nations and the Council cannot become the gravediggers of freedom of thought nor the foes of freedom itself. Yesterday, books were burned, and history shows that this can lead to burning at the stake and the crematorium. Today we cannot impose silence on free and healthy criticism. That would be the death of critical inquiry and the denial of the divine light which we share with all human beings, whoever they may be.

Thank you sir.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critiquer est-ce blasphémer?

Chacun sait que, dans leurs codes respectifs, les religions ont des lois qui ne sont pas en harmonie avec la Déclaration universelle des droits humains. On peut citer celles autorisant la guerre, la pendaison, la lapidation ou le bûcher. Depuis plusieurs siècles, la pratique jurisprudentielle chrétienne et juive les a rendues caduques. En Europe occidentale, il est impensable qu'un prêtre chrétien ou un rabbin prône la guerre sainte ou la réintroduction de la lapidation, pourtant prévues dans la Bible. Si tel devait être le cas, une réprobation générale condamnerait immédiatement ces propos. Mais cette condamnation sans équivoque semble difficile à émettre au sein de certains milieux religieux d’autres confessions.

Dans le Judaïsme et dans le Christianisme la loi religieuse est déduite de la Bible, dans l'Islam elle découle du Coran et des Hadith. Les milieux traditionalistes considèrent ces textes comme parole divine et vérité absolue. Mais en dehors de ces cercles tel n'est pas le cas et aucune tradition religieuse ne peut s'ériger en norme absolue ou revendiquer l'impunité.

Ce serait une erreur grave que de confondre les idées d’une part et les êtres humains d’autres part.

Critiquer une doctrine philosophique est le droit de chacun, comme mettre en question une doctrine religieuse et ses lois. Il ne s’agit pas là de diffamation. Nous restons là au niveau des idées et nul ne s’en prive d’ailleurs, croyants comme incroyants, dans l’hémisphère nord comme dans l’hémisphère sud.
Le racisme quant à lui relève d’un autre domaine. Il s’attaque non aux idées mais aux individus, aux êtres humains.

Confondre les deux serait invalider la Déclaration universelle des droits humains et donc ce Conseil dont la légitimité est fondé sur cette Déclaration même.

L'ONU et le Conseil des droits humains ne doivent pas devenir les fossoyeurs de la liberté de penser. Hier on brûlait les livres et l’histoire a montré que cela menait au bûcher ou aux fours crématoires. Imposer le silence à la critique, ce serait alors la mort de l’esprit, ce serait effacer cette lumière divine que nous affirmons partager avec tous les humains, quels qu’ils soient, croyants ou non.

---- SIGN Appeal “Boycott Durban II” ---

Against the Durban Review Conference of the UN!

- What Does Freedom of the Press Mean to the OIC?

- Don’t Say a Word: A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• Urgent appeal: Support freedom of expression, oppose "defamation of religions"

• Joint NGO Statement on Danger of U.N. “Defamation of Religions” Campaign

• IFPS Launches Urgent Mission: Save Free Speech from Worldwide Threats

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- D.C. Watson: Is the “Religion of Peace” Being Defamed?

- UN Considers Proposal to Criminalize Defamation of Islam

• UN Human Rights Council banned Discussion of religious questions

• Incredulous UN Bans Criticism of Islam

• Jihad Against Free Speech

- Islamic states draw new battle lines over Freedom of Expression

- Petition for defence of individual rights at the UN Human Rights Council

- Growing opposition to the concept of "defamation of religion"

- How Some Europeans and the UN Are Helping Islamists Undermine Freedom

- The UN must not give in to Islamic criticism

- In the name of Islamophobia, will the OIC soon ‘Rule the Waves’ at the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council?

- Religion and Freedom of Expression in the Human Rights Council

- Criticism of religion is not blasphemy

- An Islamic Blasphemy Law? Let’s Call Their Bluff

- Islamic states draw new battle lines over Freedom of Expression

- Creeping Dhimmitude at the United Nations

- World’s Press Criticises UN Human Rights Council

- IHEU "ambushed" at Human Rights Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• Universal Human Rights and "Human Rights in Islam"

• Islamic Law vs Human Rights

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam - Diverges from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in key respects

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Islam and Democracy: The theory - and the practice...

ALGERIA: Political killings, Censorship, Harassment & Intimidation

BAHRAIN: Executions, Abuses of detainees & Censorship

EGYPT: Censorship, Limited Judicial Independence & Police Tortures

IRAN: Torture, Repressed Minorities, Discriminated Women, Unfair Trials, Censorship & Executions

LYBIA: Censorship, Killings of Demonstrators & Prisoners

MOROCCO: Discriminated Women, Abused Prisoners, Migrants & Refugees

OMAN: Discriminated Migrants, Abused Woman & Domestic Workers, Trafficking in Human Beings

IRAQ: Violence against women, Thousands of killed Civilians & Executions

KUWAIT: Torture, Abuse of Migrant Workers & Executions

QUATAR: Violence against Women, Human Trafficking, Torture & ill-Treatment

TUNISIA: Censorship, Limited Judicial Independence, Torture & ill-Treatment

SAUDI ARABIA: Violence against Women, Migrant worker Abuse, Torture, Unfair Trials, Censorship & Executions

SYRIA: Censorship, Torture, Arbitrary Detention, Discrimination of Woman & Minorities

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Stoning, Flogging, Death Penalties & Cruel Judicial Punishments

YEMEN: Executions, Censorship, Political Prisoners & Unfair Trials