UN and Defamation of Religion

A non-binding resolution was adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council condemning the “defamation of religion” as a violation of human rights. The promoters of the resolution, characterized as “a step in the right direction to deal with the growing problem of Islamophobia, were led by Pakistan.


This is a mistake.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly sets forth the right of freedom of expression, including freedom of religion and conscience. Public international law does not promulgate rules to defend political ideas, much less religious; rather, the focus of the international human rights system targets the protection of individual rights. The Muslim countries and organizations which supported this resolution and actions like it are seeking to establish rules against religious defamation – whatever that happens to be at the moment. This is ridiculous.

The right of individuals to practice their religion freely is already set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That does not mean that people can be prevented from legitimate or illegitimate criticism of an idea, religious or not. Any religion, its founders, priests, prophets whatever, can be discussed or ridiculed. Get over it. It is freedom of speech –something not enjoyed in most Muslim countries at any level and where people face the death penalty for, among other things, sorcery, a true 12th century attitude.

Blasphemy laws are frequently used to suppress those with different interpretations of Islam – including those who support women’s rights or religious minorities. It is useless at this point to comment on death threats by fanatical believers against Salman Rushdie or other intellectuals who dare to offend those with different views.

Islam, or any other religion for that matter, does not need protection from criticism and does not need this resolution which will only be used to justify religious intolerance on all sides and lead to further bloodshed.

Growing Authoritarianism in Isreal

Israel is setting up procedures that are a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Under the current government, Israel is becoming more isolated as its former supporters, including your humble blogger, have doubts about whether it believes in basic democratic principals or is intent on pandering to its religious extremists by continuing to invoke religious reasons for its occupation of the West Bank and inflaming the region.


The matter at hand is the report in the Guardian and a new “Order Regarding Prevention of Infiltration and Order Regarding Security Provisions”, which comes into force on Tuesday. According to Israeli human rights’ activists, the order can label any foreigners living in the West Bank as infiltrators and deported within 72 hours or jailed for seven years if they are found without the correct permit. It does not define what Israel considers a valid permit. We know which "foreigners" are targetted.

This is called ethnic cleansing and is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. It is clearly in preparation for the approaching threat by West Bank Palestinians to unilaterally declare an independent state.

Wrap this latest move together with the constant attempts to get the US to attack Iran, the insults to its former ally, Turkey, additional settlement activity on the West Bank and Netanyahu’s cowardly avoidance of the nuclear summit that began today in Washington and you have the makings of a rogue government that is no better than the religious zealots running Iran. Except this one actually has nuclear weapons.

Washington Post - Bad for Mental Health

I admit I have abandoned reading most US newspapers. However, at times I am compelled to seek out stupid. So I read the Washington Post.

The latest Hiatt editorial regarding Hillary Clinton's recent speech is stupendously moronic, but typical of the AIPAC and neo-con mentality that appears to have hijacked a formerly great newspaper.

There is this, for instance:

She offered an innovation: The Obama administration, she said, would "see human rights in a broad context," in which "oppression of want -- want of food, want of health, want of education, and want of equality in law and in fact" -- would be addressed alongside the oppression of tyranny and torture. "That is why," Ms. Clinton said, "the cornerstones of our 21st-century human rights agenda" would be "supporting democracy" and "fostering development."

This is indeed an important change in U.S. human rights policy -- but the idea behind it is pure 20th century.

First of all - he might have just as well characterized this as "soooo 20th century", dismissing freedom from want as some sort of passing phase. This is the conservative equivalent of "let them eat cake". The point made by the Secretary of State is that human rights must encompass freedom from hunger, disease, and access to education as well as supporting democracy. This is not a new policy Freddy and is fundamental to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the US is a signatory.

...and this:

Ms. Clinton said that in adding "human development" to human rights and democracy, "we have to tackle all three simultaneously." But there are two dangers in her approach. One is that non-democratic regimes will seize on the economic aspect of her policy as an substitute for political reform -- as dictators have been doing for decades. Another is that the Obama administration will itself, in working with friendly but unfree countries, choose the easy route of focusing on development, while downplaying democracy.

Hiatt is amazingly transparent here while also conveniently ignoring those parts of the speech that don't fit his view of the universe. He and his fellow travellers believe that dictators are interested in economic development in a vacuum and indulge in assuring their population are adequately housed and fed only in order to please Washington. Simultaneously, he clearly has no problem with that so long as US corporate investments (China leaps to mind) get their cut, while ignoring the non-democratic aspects of the government.

Kazakhstan Takes Up the OSCE

In 2010, the Republic of Kazakhstan will assume the chair of the OSCE. Is this a cause for concern or is it possible that the government in Astana will become more democratic as a result?

I don't really think the chairmanship will turn into the possible debacle that has been portrayed by organizations like Human Rights Watch. Neither will it produce the deep changes in Kazakhstan's human rights record precisely because in order to alter attitudes within the country, laws restricting basic human rights such as freedom of expression and religion, will need to be amended so as to remove the vagueness surrounding, for example, what can be written in the press without charges of affecting the welfare of the state. Unfortunately, Astana is a totally top-down government. Nothing happens unless lower level officials receive explicit instructions from the Presidential Administration and then often it must come from the president himself.

In the meantime, perhaps the first test of the chairmanship will be monitoring the elections in Ukraine in January. Considering that after the Orange Revolution even mentioning the events in Ukraine was met by cold stares from government officials, to have Astana judging a much more robust democratic expression (despite its flaws) in Ukraine is worrying. Astana will need to approve of an election process in Ukraine (and it will) that is in stark contrast to its own.

Astana is in a position to gain considerable prestige from its chairmanship, but it will also focus attention upon its own, considerable, failings. Will the attention prove too much for the government to tolerate? Perhaps by 2011, they will be glad to have done with it. Kazakhstan is a tribal society with a ruler not accustomed or tolerant of dissent. The people were appalled by the Orange Revolution and are repelled by the apparent chaos that it represented. Stability is highly valued, just like it is in China. Holding the reins of the OSCE for a year will not change that perception and although legislation may be enacted to assuage the sensibilities of OSCE members and organizations like Human Rights Watch, implementation will unlikely be pushed very hard.

This is not to say that pressure to change will be entirely unsuccessful or should be abandoned. But more will be needed than simply appealing to Astana's sense of justice and respect for human rights. After all, they are much more interested in economic development as the newest pipeline to China indicates or recent energy deals with France.

Economic strength is a priority for the government and the general population and attitudinal changes only come after people feel economically secure. The misconception peddled by donor agencies that civil society programs alone have a significant impact in societies such as in Central Asia (or in any of the former Soviet Union for that matter)is simply a waste of money in the absence of economic stability. To put it simply, a family does not care about what happens to journalists, who owns the media or the lack of government transparency when there is no job and no food on the table. More, not less, economic development and investment will be needed to establish a foundation for systemic change while at the same time keeping the pressure on for an end to human rights abuses.

Finally, what damage can Kazakhstan possibly do to the reputation of the OSCE? Silvio Berlusconi was President of the EU for a year and the universe did not collapse.

Coming Apart in the North Caucuses?

Image by Thomas Roche via Flickr

The BBC reports that human rights activists and opposition politicians are now calling the unrest in Ingushetia as a civil war. The President of the republic has been seriously wounded in a bomb blast that killed his bodyguard.

Medvedev and Putin may have a messy problem on their hands after calling the uprisings in neighboring Chechnya over. Russian security forces have responded in the usual manner - heavy-handed and repressive.

Historically, it took the Russian Empire about 150 years to subdue the northern Caucuses. They never really won...