Religion 4 - The Global Blasphemy Law

As a keen reader of international media, I thought that I was aware of most things, but the following article, when it appeared in Forbes Magazine caught me on the hop.  It describes an attempt to create a global blasphemy law applicable to every nation.

US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure 

While you were out scavenging the Walmart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany or Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”  Whatever that means. 

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.” 

The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on. 

Deception.   Here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.  Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains non-binding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.) 

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In other words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it. 

What about “incitement to violence”?  Whose violence? 

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha. 

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference to the demands of the Islamic state.  It’s a dangerous game. 

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.

Abigail R. Esman

Religion 1 - The Burqa

Just the word alone attracts much attention. Discussion related to the Burqa, is not only a religious issue but also becomes a political issue (Just to name two).

It is my experience that many people do not understand the definition of a burqa. It is, simply, an outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies in public places. Confusion exists in the use of words such as, hijab and niqab. These are individual parts of the burqa — the hijab being a head covering, and the niqab being a face covering (or veil).

I can see little reason to be offended by a woman wearing a burqa that does not have the niqab. In fact, some European women, in the summer, may wear a Indian sari as an evening dress, even though they have no knowledge of Islam. The sari being little more than a burqa with the hijab and niqab removed.

It is interesting to note that all women are asked to cover their heads with a scarf, as a matter of respect, when entering churches and cathedrals. Yet, ironically, some of those women, would still be critical of Muslims wearing a simple burqa.

The wearing of a niqab in public is the most controversial aspect of this discussion because a liberal interpretation of the Koran fails to convince most people that God (Allah) commanded that women must be completely covered. In addition, it is recorded that Mohammed said that both women and men should “dress and behave modestly in public.” This is a tradition that happened long before Islam, and should be interpreted according to today’s normal behaviour.

I read that a Muslim cleric had stated that women must wear a niqab because when a man looks at a woman’s body he looks, first, at her face. This is ridiculous because all things being equal, in other words, when a man has the opportunity to look at a woman’s naked body, the face is not the initial attraction.

Therefore, it is not surprising that countries are beginning to seriously consider banning the niqab (France has already done so) with arguments against being made by men and women indoctrinated by unfortunately biassed, and bigoted, interpretations of the Koran.

Discussion related to health matters or assimilation into other societies would be something to include at another time.