In the news yesterday was a vote by the United Nation’s Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution on “Countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” by a vote of 28-12 with seven abstentions.1
This appears to be the actual text:
the Council condemns and strongly rejects any advocacy and manifestation of religious hatred, including the recent public and premeditated acts of desecration of the Holy Quran, and underscores the need for holding those responsible to account in a manner consistent with obligations of States arising from international human rights law; and calls upon States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks that address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and to take immediate steps to ensure accountability.
The Council urges the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and all relevant Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and treaty bodies within their respective mandates, to speak out against advocacy of religious hatred and to formulate recommendations on addressing this phenomenon; requests the High Commissioner to present at its fifty-fourth session an oral update on the various drivers, root causes and human rights impacts of religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, highlighting gaps in existing national, legal, policy and law enforcement frameworks, to be followed by an interactive dialogue; decides to organise an interactive panel discussion of experts at its fifty-fifth session to identify drivers and root-causes and human rights impacts of desecration of sacred books, and places of worship as well as religious symbols as a manifestation of religious hatred which could constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
Source: Human Rights Council Condemns and Strongly Rejects Any Manifestation of Religious Hatred, Including Recent Public Acts of Desecration of the Holy Quran | OHCHR
Although religious hatred is bad, the requirement to “prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” especially with the apparent specific intent of banning the burning of the Quran (Islam’s holy book)2 led the United States and the European countries on the council to vote against the resolution. The language is a bit vague, but I think it can fairly be read to call upon countries to ban the burning of the Quran, at least when that action is intended to be expressive, and I am willing to believe that is the entire point.3 One of the concerns expressed by Turkey with Sweden’s joining NATO was that Sweden did not prevent the burning of the Quran at a demonstration.
Inasmuch as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that that burning the flag of the United States is protected speech under the First Amendment4, I doubt that the United States could comply with that ban, even if it wanted to.
The resolution also raises the question of when it is appropriate to use the coercive power of the state to prevent conduct because it offends the religious sensibilities of some. It may be understandable to prohibit the burning of a book sacred to two billion adherents of Islam, but on what principled basis does the same government not prohibit the slaughter of cows, which is considered sacrilegious for Hindus?
- Here the breakdown of how the 47 member countries voted:
In favour (28): Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
Against (12): Belgium, Costa Rica, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Romania, United Kingdom and United States.
Abstentions (7): Benin, Chile, Georgia, Honduras, Mexico, Nepal and Paraguay. ↩︎ - I am more used to seeing the term spelled “Koran.” Perhaps it’s a transliteration change; I do not mean to make an issue of the spelling. ↩︎
- I am certainly no expert, but at least one source indicates that when a copy of the Quran is worn, burning is an acceptable way to dispose of it, just like burning a worn U.S. flag is an acceptable means of disposal. ↩︎
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). ↩︎