Matt Cherry, formerly with the Institute for Humanist studies, is currently the UN representative for the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a global federation of humanist and atheist groups. His talk was entitled, “The Right to Blaspheme -Why an atheist defends religious freedom at the UN.”

 

Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom . . . to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” The UN Human Rights Council has clarified that this covers all believers and non-believers, however they describe themselves.

 

Matt Cherry further explained that this is not a right for religions, cultures or nations but, rather, for individuals. It does not privilege religious believers over the nonreligious; it does (explicitly) include the right to leave a religion (“apostasy” – punished by death in some countries) – and the right to criticize religion (“blasphemy”) – even to insult God (which Cherry called the ultimate victimless crime).

 

All well and good. But since 1999, the UN’s Islamic group has been pushing to outlaw “defamation of religion,” including “negative projection of Islam in the media.” The effort was accelerated by the 2005 Danish cartoon affair, and in annual votes, has gained large majorities in both the UN General Assembly and in the Human Rights Council. However, those were non-binding resolutions, not covenants with the force of law, which seemed to elude proponents.

 

Cherry argued that this proposal, which amounts to a blasphemy law, is conceptually defective from a legal standpoint, since “defamation” can only apply to living people harmed by falsehood. And, he said, it actually violates freedom of religion, which has prompted many religious interests to oppose it. After all, the dogmas of any religion constitute blasphemy in relation to the dogmas of any other; hence the doctrine under consideration could actually be used to suppress any religious expression.

 

The resolution has been consistently opposed by the U.S. (we can be proud of our country), and over time, the votes in its favor have narrowed. In 2010, the U.S. joined with Pakistan to offer a rather different approach, a resolution to combat intolerance based on religion or belief, religious stereotyping, etc., and outlawing only “incitement to imminent violence.” This resolution passed unanimously, and the “defamation of religion” effort was dropped.

 

But, lest we think this battle has been completely won, an IHEU publication distributed by Matt contains a sobering account of a recent prosecution in Denmark – yes, Denmark!! – of Lars Hedegaard (President of the Danish Free Press Society) for insulting Muslims – under Denmark’s Article 266b, criminalizing public statements by which a group of people are “threatened, insulted or degraded.” The prosecution was not even deterred by the fact that Hedegaard’s remarks were actually made in private, in his own home! His eloquent final statement is transcribed – Hedegaard explains that he was criticizing some barbaric Muslim practices like “honor killings” – while, ironically, Muslims themselves can publicly advocate such awfulness with legal impunity.

 

Hedegaard was convicted. He is appealing.