The United Nations Office at Geneva
Multimedia Newsroom
HRC 53 - Religious hatred Turk Ghanea Continuity 11JUL2023
/
21:55
/
MP4
/
1.6 GB
DATE SHOT: 11 July 2023
LOCATION: Geneva, Palais des Nations
- Statement by Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Statement by Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and on behalf of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures
Please, see attached PDF for the statements. Check against delivery.
Urgent debate on "the alarming rise in premeditated and public acts of religious hatred as manifested by recurrent desecration of the Holy Quran in some European and other countries"
- Statement by Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Statement by Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and on behalf of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures
Teleprompter
Mr.
President, excellence is distinguished delegates beyond words, human beings communicate through symbols.
A ring marks our commitment to marry, a coloured light signals us to stop or go, and religious symbols go much deeper.
A Crescent, a star across a seated figure.
For some this might mean little, but for millions of people they have deep significances as the repository and incarnation of an immense history, a far reaching system of values, a foundation of collective community and belonging, and the essence of their identity and beliefs.
The ***** or destruction of the manifestations of our innermost beliefs can polarise societies and aggravate tensions.
This urgent debate is prompted by recent incidents of burning of the Quran, which is the core of faith for well over a billion people.
These and other incidents appear to have been manufactured to express contempt and inflamed anger, to drive wedges between people, and to provoke transforming differences of perspective into hatred and perhaps violence.
So the first point I want to make here is this.
Setting aside for a moment the question of what the law states is permissible or not, and irrespective of 1's own religious beliefs or lack of belief, people need to act with respect for others, all others.
Only in this way can sustain dialogue become possible.
Only in this way can we have conduct among human beings that enables us to address together the challenges that we face.
Yet the vandalism of religious sites, the destruction of icons and texts that are sacred to their believers and religious items have been used to insult and provoke people for centuries.
To me it is clear that speech and inflammatory acts against Muslims, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and actions and speech that target Christians or minority groups such as the Ahmadis, the Bahais or Yazidis are manifestations of utter disrespect.
They are offensive, irresponsible and wrong.
It is important to recall the immense benefit of diversity for all societies.
All people have an equal right to believe or not to believe.
This is fundamental to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that unites us.
We need to promote interfaith harmony and mutual respect in the interest of all communities.
Political and religious leaders have a particularly crucial role to play in speaking out clearly, firmly and immediately against disrespect and intolerance not only of their own communities but of any group subjected to attack.
They should also make it clear that violence cannot be justified by prior or provocation, whether real or perceived.
Mr.
President, these are complex areas.
The limitation of any kind of speech or expression must, as a fundamental principle, remain an exception, particularly since laws limiting speech are often misused by those in power, including to stifle debate on critical issues.
But on the other hand, an act of speech in the specific circumstances in which it occurs can constitute incitement to action on the part of others, in some cases very violent and discriminatory action.
In recent years, numerous acts of violence, terror attacks and mass atrocities have targeted people on account of their religious beliefs, including inside their places of worship.
International law is clear on these kinds of incitement.
Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights States, states parties must without exception, prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
To understand better how this must be applied, in 2011 my office organised a series of regional workshops that led to the Rabat Plan of Action.
It provides a six step threshold regarding context, speaker intent, content and extent and likelihood of harm to help demarcate free speech from incitement to violence.
Ultimately, the application of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a matter for national lawmakers and courts to determine in a particular case.
They need to do so in a manner that is consistent with the guardrails that international human rights law provides.
Any national restrictions to the overriding, overriding right to freedom of opinion and expression must be formulated so that their sole purpose and outcome is to protect individuals rather than to shield religious doctrine from critical review.
My second point is this advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility should be prohibited in every state.
Mr.
President.
While they may not be deemed to incite violence, other forms of expression can amount to hate speech if they use pejorative or bigoted language towards a personal group on the basis of their sex, belief, race, migration status, sexual orientation or any other factor inherent to their person or identity.
Seeking to diminish their dignity and demean their value in the in the eyes of others.
I'd like to elaborate.
Dehumanising women and denying their equality with men.
Verbally abusing Muslim women and girls who wear a headscarf.
Sneering at people with disabilities.
Making false claims that migrants or people of specific ethnicities are more likely to engage in crime or smearing L GB TIQ plus people.
All such hate speech is similar in that it stems from the baseline notion that some people are less deserving of respect as human beings.
Powered by the tidal forces of social media and in the context of increasing international and national discord and polarisation, hate speech of every kind is rising everywhere.
It is harmful to individuals and it damages the social cohesion necessary to the sound functioning of all societies.
My Third Point then, hate speech needs to be addressed in all societies through dialogue, education, awareness raising, interfaith and inter community engagement and other public policy tools.
It needs to be actively countered by all responsible authorities, figures of influence and the private sector.
The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech is the UN response to address this phenomenon and to support States to counter it.
Effective prevention strategies by national authorities and others can identify and address the underlying causes of hate speech.
I encourage States to redouble their efforts to implement the action Plan to combat Intolerance based on Religion or belief that was set out in the Human Rights Council Resolution 16, Stroke 18 and via the Istanbul process.
As I highlighted in my related report earlier this year, teaching materials and peer-to-peer learning should promote respect for pluralism and diversity in the field of religion or belief.
Exchanges of lessons learnt and promising practises should continue to be promoted, including with the support of our Faith for Rights framework.
Mr.
President, many societies are struggling with this weaponisation of religious difference for political purposes.
We must not allow ourselves to be reeled in and become instrumentalised by these merchants of chaos for political gain, these provocateurs who deliberate deliberately seek ways to divide us.
I'm immensely sympathetic to the millions of people who are offended and outraged by acts that target their deepest values and beliefs.
My overriding goal today is to acknowledge the profound enrichment of all of us that is brought about by our diversity, by our common understandings of human existence and our thoughts and beliefs.
Our societies, all our societies, whatever their religious and cultural backgrounds, must strive to become magnets for respect for dialogue and cooperation among different people, as has been achieved by multiple civilizations in the past.
To promote international peace and security, a rich, safe and respectful social fabric, as well as economies and societies that can benefit fully from the contributions of all of their members, we must commit to advancing greater tolerance, greater respect, and greater recognition of the importance and value of our differences in the media, online, in business, in schools, in government, in the police, and both outside and within places of worship.
The best way to push back against hate speech is with more dialogue, more conversations, more building of common understanding and more acts that manifest our conviction that we are all equal, that all of us have rights, including the right to held different beliefs, to adopt different ways of living and to have and share different opinions.
I trust this Council will be able to discuss these complex issues in the spirit of unity, constructive engagement, mutual respect and deep reflection that they deserve.
Thank you, thank you Mr **** Commissioner, colleagues, now let me give the floor to Miss Nasr Al Ghana, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
Madam, you have the floor.
Mr.
President, distinguished delegates, representatives of civil society, it is my honour to be with you today and deliver a statement on behalf of the Coordinating Committee of the Special Procedures and my own mandate.
The Special Procedures work tirelessly to promote understanding, coexistence, non discrimination and equality for all.
No one should be subject to discrimination by any state institution, group of person or persons, whether on the grounds of their religion or belief or any other identity ground.
The Special Procedures promote non discrimination and equality through their country visits, communications and reporting.
Most of the work of the Special procedures addresses this, for example through identifying root causes, instances that require redress and amendments to laws and policies that may contribute towards it.
Together with several of my colleagues, on 6th of March this year, we called for greater efforts to promote freedom of religion belief, foster intercultural dialogue and understanding, protect religious minorities, and combat hate speech while upholding freedom of opinion and expression.
This is a call that we should all reaffirm today.
Intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief is experienced in numerous ways in every corner of the world.
It includes distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief.
Any attack on the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes such intolerance and discrimination, whether this was the purpose or otherwise.
Article 18 two of the ICCPR draws attention to the fact that no one should be subject to coercion which would impair their freedom to have or to adopt A religion or belief of their choice.
The targets of such attacks may be individuals or groups, and they may be targeted directly or indirectly.
Attacks are distinct from incitement, which by definition is an instigation by a person for the audience to attack the target group.
It is not directly implementable by one person against another or others.
Religions, beliefs or their followers should not be instrumentalised to incite hatred and violence, for example for electoral purposes or political gains.
Public acts of intolerance are on the increase around the world and are more common in times of political tension.
The political motives and purposes for these engineered public displays of intolerance belie their purpose, the instrumentalisation of religion and belief and its weaponisation to foster hatred.
We condemn such acts wherever they might occur and whoever the instigator may be.
Acts which manifest intolerance and are intentionally aimed at stirring up hatred or cause hurts and foster inter religious and political tensions, such as some recent instances of the public burning of the Holy Quran or desecration of places of worship, are objectionable and risk drawing our societies backwards.
Reversing positive educational and social investments towards understanding and diversity.
These acts also raise concern in terms of tolerance, civility and respect for the rights of others.
More than ever, our responses to these acts should be strongly anchored in the international human rights law framework.
The responses of national authorities to these acts and related incidents should be compatible with international human rights law.
We welcome the condemnations by state authorities, international organisations, Csos and individuals of such acts of intolerance.
Recent public objections by numerous authorities and actors have made clear that these acts carried out by individuals are not condoned by the authorities or are representative of wider society.
This is in line with Article 5 E of Human Rights Councils Council 1618's action points and the resolve to strongly encourage government representatives and leaders in all sectors of society and representative communities to speak out against acts of intolerance and violence based on religion or belief.
Resolution 1618 also calls on States to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect through the through encouraging the creation of collaborative networks, to build mutual understanding, to inspire constructive action towards integration, to identify and address potential areas of tension between different communities, to engage in effective outreach and to recognise the positive role of the debate of ideas and interfaith and intercultural dialogue.
It also recognises the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons by taking action, inter alia, through education and awareness raising and adopting measures to criminalise incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.
Mr.
President, with reference to several relevant incidents in Europe this year, we note that relevant special procedures have visited Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden and that the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has requested to visit Sweden in order to examine this matter more fully, and this has been welcomed by Sweden.
We are aware and have raised our concerns regarding religious intolerance and attacks on religious minorities in a number of countries in Asia and Africa and would urge those governments to welcome visits by special procedures to examine and advise on these matters.
The Third Committee recognises discrimination as being forbidden on numerous grounds.
In light of the principle of intersectionality.
3rd calls for States to effectively sanction as offences punishable by law, incitement to hatred, contempt or discrimination against members of a group, and insults, ridicule or slander of persons or groups or justifications of discrimination.
Their focus is on persons or groups, as emphasised by my predecessor.
In his report to the 46th session of the Human Rights Council, Ahmad Shahid stressed that international human rights law protects individuals, not religions.
He stated nothing in this report suggests that criticism of the ideas, leaders, symbols or practises of Islam is something that should be prohibited or criminally sanctioned.
This is why context is important.
The Third Committee has noted and endorsed the observations of the UN Human Rights Committee that criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrines or tenets of faith should not be prohibited or punished.
The Human Rights Committee also highlights that prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the ICCPR except except in the specific circumstances envisaged in Article 22 and in line with other ICCPR standards.
Mr.
President, Mr **** Commissioner, freedom of religion or belief and freedom of opinion and expression are mutually reinforcing as they allow all persons, no matter of what religious belief or no belief at all, whether from minority or majority communities, to speak out against intolerance and hostility and to participate meaningfully and contribute openly and equally in society.
Freedom of expression is essential for combating negative stereotypes, offering alternative views and counterpoints, and creating an environment of respect and understanding between peoples and communities.
While the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is prohibited under international law, there is a **** threshold required to reach that standard and we need a case by case analysis.
Contextual factors for assessment of gravity are insisted upon by SERD, the Human Rights Committee and the Rabat Plan of Action in its six part threshold test for expressions that may call for the application of Article 20 of the ICCPR, namely, as you mentioned, Mr **** Commissioner, context, speaker, intent, content, extent of dissemination and the likelihood of harm, including imminence.
Furthermore, restrictions of freedom of expression must respect the three-part test set out in the ICCPR.
They must be legal, strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate objective as set out in international human rights standards.
All States should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities and to detect signs of intolerance that may lead to discrimination based on religion or belief.
Expressions of intolerance needs to be countered so that they do not encourage further acts of intolerance or even of violence.
Political, religious and civil society leaders can play a major role in both condemning intolerance and encouraging diversity, inclusion and understanding among communities.
We stand against those who willfully exploit tensions or target individuals based on their religion or belief.
I thank you.