Oh, I See.

My best wishes to those who celebrate Christmas.  To those who read The Young Diplomat, we are also (coincidentally) celebrating our one year anniversary!
Speaking of religions...and now for something completely different.

The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) has proposed a controversial resolution at the United Nations that has raised the hackles of those concerned for human rights, specifically freedom of speech.  Though last week they announced on International Human Rights Day that they are “deeply committed to the Human Rights and in upholding the noble principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948”, they are nonetheless embarking on a veritable crusade against perceived anti-Islamic speech worldwide.  The resolution put through the UN’s Third Committee—which passed by a 76 to 64 margin with 42 abstaining—aims to internationalize the prohibition of speech critical of religion and inhibit free speech.

The draft resolution “Combating Defamation of Religion” was put to vote on 24 November 2010 and was presented to the General Assembly on Tuesday.  Critics of the proposal object to its treatment of religion as an entity entitled to protection—at the cost of human rights.  The document

“urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection  against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from vilification of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general”

and makes specific mention that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”, highlighting the resolution’s underlying agenda.  No other religion is mentioned with such specificity.  American Deputy Representative to ECOSOC John F. Sammis spoke out against the resolution because it

“still seeks to curtail and penalize speech. The changes that have been made from the original tabled version, while representing an important gesture, unfortunately do not get the heart of our concerns - the text's negative implications for both freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

Nevertheless, the draft resolution was passed by the General Assembly on 21 December 2010 with 79 favoring, 67 opposed, and 40 abstentions.  

A more seditious and conniving measure against the fundamental principles of human rights has never been passed by a UN body.  The motion aims to arm non-democratic states against those they deem religious dissidents and clad them in international legalistic armor of the most deceitful kind.  Under this malicious resolution, OIC states—the overwhelming majority of which are despotic—can justify the continued persecution of non-conformist Muslim communities (Ahmadis, Allawis, etc.) and non-Muslim minorities under the UN’s aegis. 

Having been brought before the Third Committee each of the past five years, each successive vote has brought an ever-increasing number of countries to the “nay” side.  (For last year’s vote tally, follow this link.)  Various island nations —The Bahamas, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, The Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Vanuatu—changed their votes from abstentions to nays in the 2010 committee vote.  Former advocates of the resolutions, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republic of the Congo, and Honduras, changed from yeas to abstentions.  One fence-sitter, Sri Lanka, opted to vote yes, while Argentina, who had formerly supported the motion, fell in with the Western states who voted unanimously against the motion.  Notably absent from the list of democratic nations voting against the proposal, India stands among the non-aligned amidst this cold war, too.  By changing its vote to nay, India, the world’s most populous democracy and home to numerous religions and the largest Muslim minority population, could inspire other states to do likewise. 

There is little doubt that the OIC’s commitment to human rights and democratic values is strictly lip service; in practice these states are among the most repressive on the planet.  Their hijacking of the UN’s Third Committee is a disgrace to the organization and the values for which it stands.  With voting records on resolutions like these, one has to wonder which pillar of the Declaration of Human Rights will fall next.  Those critical fence-sitters from Europe, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, as well as much of South America, could have swung the vote to a decisive nay, but, alas!  
Let us hope the definitive proposal is quashed once and for all.