UN Attacks Religious Freedom

By Doug Bandow

In the name of protecting religion, the United Nations has voted against religious liberty. Islam, however, is to be protected from criticism.

Religious persecution is distressingly common around the globe. Most offending states are either Communist or Islamic.

Communist nations like China and Vietnam generally use artful diplomacy to deflect criticism. The Muslim states, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, have taken a more aggressive position, criticizing the ``defamation'' of religion.

Of course, not every Islamic nation is so inhospitable. Nevertheless, while many ``Christian'' states avoid acknowledging their religious heritage, most Muslim societies suppress other faiths.

Obviously, the Islamic states, which promoted the resolution against the ``defamation of religions,'' did not mean to criticize persecution of Christians, especially by their own governments.

And despite isolated assaults on Muslims, there has been no significant Western discrimination, let alone persecution, against Muslims for decades. The real purpose of the defamation resolution is to protect Islam from criticism.

The measure technically covers all faiths and is filled with the usual boilerplate about ``mutual respect and understanding.''

However, the measure mentions only Islam by name: ``Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of September 11, 2001, on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries, the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims.''

Moreover, resolution supporters proclaimed themselves ``Deeply alarmed at the rising trends towards discrimination based on religion and faith'' and ``the increased intellectual and media discourse is among the factors exacerbating such discrimination.''

Finally, the resolution expresses ``deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism'' and over ``the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities.''

Undoubtedly some Muslims in some nations have been treated unfairly. However, the idea that Islam is under siege is nonsense.

Indeed, the offenses against Muslims pale compared to the abuse of Christians across the Islamic world. Unfortunately, Islam is intimately associated with ``human rights violations and terrorism,'' even though there are other factors at play as well.

The real target of the resolution is anyone who criticizes Islam. The resolution means in practice: ``Thou shalt not speak ill of Islam.''

Pakistan, where religious minorities face legal discrimination and private violence, led the campaign on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Pakistani U.N. Ambassador Masood Khan complained that Islamophobia ``is an alarming and growing phenomenon in several countries.''

Egypt, which jails moderate Muslims and tolerates violence against Coptic Christians, cited ``offensive publication of portraits of the Prophet Mohamed'' which ``highlighted the damage that freedom of speech if left unchecked may lead to, not only hurting the religious feelings of more than a billion people, but also their freedom of religion and their right for respect of their religion.''

Thus, the resolution deplores ``the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion.'' The measure stresses ``the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular.''

True, ``everyone has the right to freedom of expression,'' but, announced the U.N., it ``should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs.''

The resolution goes on to urge states ``to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.''

Who could be in favor of such materials?

Alas, as President Bill Clinton once observed, everything depends what is. To fundamentalist Muslims, factual criticism of their faith is an incitement to violence _ just ask those Christians murdered by Muslim mobs after publication of the Danish anti-Mohamed cartoons.

To listen to the OIC, one would think the West is rife with religious discrimination and persecution. In reality, Muslims are largely protected in Christian and other lands. In contrast, in most Muslim countries religious minorities are not just defamed, but brutalized, as persecution ranges from modest to severe.

But reality does not matter to the United Nations, which has affirmed the OIC's alternative universe. The Islamic nations sacrifice individual liberties to enforce the supremacy of Islam.

They expect non-Muslim nations to follow suit. The U.S. and its friends must say no and resolutely defend freedom of religion and speech.

Doug Bandow is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and the author of ``Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire'' (Xulon Press). He can be reached at ChessSet@aol.com.