National Director Glyn Carpenter says if the resolution is passed it could end up silencing dialogue about troubling aspects of religion in society.

The resolution, introduced by Pakistan in 1999 at the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights, was first tabled at the UN General Assembly in 2005, and has been regularly resubmitted.

The Religious Liberty Commission of NZ Christian Network's global body says there are a number of issues of concern about the resolution.

Spokesman Arie de Pater says as soon as human rights treaties start to protect groups of people rather than the individual, the rights of individuals - especially those belonging to a minority group - are at risk of being seriously limited.

"Further, the concept blurs the distinction between religion and race. A person can and has the right to change his or her religion or belief. Race, however, is immutable. Race is about a person's biology, religion is about ideals and ideas.

"The legal measures, and in particular the criminal measures, adopted by national legal systems to fight racism may not necessarily be applicable to defamation of religions.

"When blasphemy of religion becomes prohibited by international law, the state has to take the role of a theologian by determining which religious viewpoints may be expressed. Therefore the state, through the courts or a judge, will determine whether a statement (for example) about the prophet Mohammed, defames Islam. In doing this, the state will be called upon to judge the truth of religious beliefs and claims and determine which interpretations of a religion are valid."

Mr de Pater said existing international laws already contain limitations on freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief, to protect the interests of the state in maintaining public order or preventing incitement to violence. Existing laws already sufficiently protect religious persons from assault, incitement to violence, arson, murder and other forms of intimidation or endangerment.

He said that passing the resolution could severely restrict fundamental freedoms of religion and belief, and the right to change one's religion or belief. "Laws that prohibit blasphemy of religions will not only miss their aim to protect individuals from being offended but will empower the majority against dissenters and the state against individuals.

"The vague concept is likely to be abused by some governments to suppress minority religious individuals and dissenting voices."
He said that in Pakistan, for example, authorities routinely used blasphemy laws to harass religious minorities and vulnerable Muslims and to settle personal scores or business rivalries.

Glyn Carpenter, NZ Christian Network‘s says responses so far from Prime Minister John Key have been positive about maintaining religious freedom.

However, he said it is easy for governments to be swayed by public opinion with initiatives which appear to be pressing for religious tolerance, but will have the opposite effect.

"For this reason, we need to stay vigilant about possible unintended consequences from this kind of resolution."

He said governments that are pushing for this resolution should be invited to demonstrate true freedom of religion in their own countries, including explicit statements allowing people to change religion without any penalty, and confirming the law will protect this right.

0 Comments