HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONTINUES GENERAL DEBATE ON RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA, FOLLOW-UP TO DURBAN DECLARATION
The Human Rights Council this morning continued its general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, and on follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
Several non governmental organizations welcomed the suggestion of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to shift the discussions on contemporary forms of racism in the Council away from the use of the highly problematic term “defamation of religions”. It was also mentioned that the Durban Review Conference must not shy away from dealing with structural discrimination and must act against past policies of discrimination.
The following non governmental organizations spoke: Fraternité Notre Dame, Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples, the African Commission Of Health And Human Rights Promoters, Baha’i International Community, Association for World Education, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, International Humanist and Ethical Union, World Union for Progressive Judaism, Interfaith International, North South XXI, Indian Council of South America, Centre for Inquiry International, European Union for Public Relations, International Institute for Peace, European Centre for Law and Justice and World Peace Council.
At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Human Rights Council made a statement concerning the closed meeting on the Complaint Procedure. He said that in accordance with established practice, and before resuming the general debate in public session, the Human Rights Council had in closed meetings examined the human rights situation in Maldives and in Turkmenistan under the Complaint Procedure. The Human Rights Council had decided to discontinue the consideration of the human rights situation in Maldives. The Council had also decided to keep the human rights situation in Turkmenistan under review.
The Council will resume its meeting this afternoon at 3 o’clock to conclude the general debate on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and will then move on to discuss the reports of the Independent Experts on the situation of human rights in Liberia and Somalia, which were presented on Friday, 19 September.
Continuation of General Debate on Racism and Racial Discrimination and Follow-Up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Work
MARIE SABINE LEGRAND, of Fraternite Notre Dame, requested the attention of the Council on the defamation against Christian religion through arts and the media in France that was coming from Christian authorities. In a church in Mezin, an artist, with the parish priest approval, had replaced a Last Supper Painting with a similar one, in which Christ and the Apostles had been replaced with hippopotamuses under the pretext that art must be accessible to all. Also, Fraternite Notre Dame, because of pressure from some Catholic authorities, had been dismissed from airing a weekly show on a European Satellite Channel. Fraternite Notre Dame deplored the excessive power of Christian authorities in France over the media forces, which increasingly oppressed the freedom of religious expression.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that the 9/11 event in 2001 was a catalyst for Muslim extremism and terrorism and was a new form of xenophobia. Those forms were very serious threats to freedom. Conflicts such as the conflict in Afghanistan would continue because the causes continued to exist. The acts committed during the last six years under the “war on terror” had led the world to a deadlock. New wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and ongoing conflicts such as in Palestine were ongoing threats to world peace. Finally, the Movement criticized the French project to put on file ethnic data because it could lead to dangerous excesses and the categorization of citizens.
ANA LEURINDA, of African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, said that last March, the African Commission had emphasized the necessity to shed new light on the fight against racism. This was necessary to reconcile the societies responsible for the past slave trade with their history. This would give rise to a new era. Renewed energy and commitment was vital so that one could clean things up and move away from tragic ills. It was important to incorporate in the follow-up of Durban a study on practices of discrimination. Such practices were harmful as they affected every part of life.
DIANE ALA'I, of Baha'i International Community, expressed deep concern that certain States sanctioned or condoned incitement to hatred, fear and prejudice based on religious beliefs. There had been a recurring pattern where stories aimed at vilifying Baha’is were fabricated and disseminated through Iranian State-sanctioned media. They incited hatred and mistrust of Baha’is among the people of Iran and created an atmosphere where human rights violations were carried out with impunity. The Baha’i International Community called upon the international community and in particular on those governments who supported initiatives on defamation of religions, to denounce these tactics and to condemn the official, systematic incitement to hatred.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, drew a parallel between the genocide in Rwanda and the horror that is now taking place in Darfur. The Association criticized that Islamophobia took more pages in the Report of the Special Rapporteur than Christianopobia, despite rampant discrimination and a mass Christian exodus from Middle Eastern countries, especially Iraq. Anti-Semitism was an endemic indigenous phenomenon in the Arab-Muslim world that was being nourished by a general culture of hate that was creeping into Europe and beyond.
HOSSAM BAGHAT, of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that the Cairo Institute was encouraged by indications of a shift in the discussions on contemporary forms of racism in the Council, moving away from the use of the highly problematic term “defamation of religions”. Discrimination on the basis of religion was a serious problem and more effective measures were required to address it. However, the framework of so-called “defamation of religions” and resolutions on the topic were unduly restrictive of freedom of expression and often ineffective in protecting religious adherents against discrimination or in promoting understanding and tolerance. The Cairo Institute welcomed the initiative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an expert consultation on the links between freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
ROY W. BROWN, of International Humanist and Ethical Union, in a joint statement with Association for World Education, welcomed the desire of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism to move the discussion of the idea of “defamation of religions” from the human rights discourse “to the legal concept of incitement to national, racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence.” The Union also welcomed his proposal to gather examples of hate speech and make a robust analysis of the problem. The term Islamophobia was both misleading and unhelpful and falsely implied that any criticism of Islam was based on “irrational fear” and must lead automatically to hatred of Muslims. Criticism of Islam, or of any other religion, was not racism, but a human right. There was some evidence that the incidence of hostility to Muslims was being exaggerated. The International Humanist and Ethical Union suggested that, rather than focusing exclusively on Islamophobia, States should address the deep-rooted Anti-Semitism and general hatred of “the other” within their own societies.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said that religions had laws which were not in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was inconceivable that a Christian priest or a Rabbi would be calling for a holy war or stoning, even though they were in the Bible. This would be condemned immediately. If the Human Rights Council was to place one right above all judgment, it would give this right a quality that the others lacked. The Human Rights Council could not become the grave-digger of freedom of thought and critical inquiry.
DIPOMI GAYAN, of Interfaith International, said that East South Asia, which India called her North East, was the home of a mosaic of ethnic, indigenous and tribal populations who used to know harmony and respect for each other. Over the last few decades, the policy of divide and rule had created an environment where discriminatory forces could work. Consequently, racial discrimination had increased by leaps and bounds. In addition, uncontrolled economic migration of aliens had fuelled the discriminatory process. It was a normal practice of any country to be extremely vigilant in protecting and preserving national monuments, but not in this region. Ancient temples and historical palaces had been allowed to disintegrate.
SHABARINATH NAIR, of North South XXI, said that they could not imagine why any member of the international community would want to block or not participate in the Durban Review Conference or why any State acting in good faith would object to consideration of the insidious discrimination against the Palestinians. North South XXI could imagine that all States would strongly support the Review Conference and would speak out against those who tried to oppose it. This conference must not shy away from dealing with structural discrimination and must act against past policies of discrimination. North South XXI reiterated the importance of all States and as many members of civil society joining to work together at the Durban Review Conference.
RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, in a joint statement with International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development, said the survival and existence of the indigenous peoples of Alaska was under constant attack. In their attempt to annex the indigenous peoples of Alaska the United States had violated the Constitution of the United States, the United Nations Charter and international law, with particular violations based upon racial discrimination. The constitutional government of the State of Alaska was not a democratically elected institution; the US military, the American citizens and puppet institutions were the basis for erecting the apartheid government. The Indian Council of South America regretted that treaty bodies were not exercising the full discharge of their mandate, as there was obvious politicization and selectivity coming from the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. They also accused Canada of derogating from the most fundamental international human rights standards and of having rejected their social, cultural and traditional rights.
M. AUSTIN DACEY, of Centre for Inquiry International, in ajoint statement with International Humanist and Ethical Union, welcomed the call of the former Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism to replace the notion of the “defamation of religions” with the legal concept of incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. Not only did the former notion have no legal basis, it was a threat to human rights and to religion itself. Existing instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 20 already protected believers against expression that constituted incitement. Rights belonged to individuals, not ideas. United Nations resolutions combating the defamation of religions were dangerous, since they could be used to legitimize blasphemy laws that punished members of religious minorities, dissenting believes and non-theists or atheists. Belief depended on the right to doubt, to dissent, to discover. To combat the defamation of religions was, in the end, to combat religion. They urged Member Sates to abandon the dangerous notion of the defamation of religions.
M. STEPHAN CICCOLI, of the European Union for Public Relations, endorsed the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, particularly with regard to the situation where States and national systems sought, either through legislation, societal coercion or violence, to prevent people from exercising their right to express themselves, and follow or change their beliefs and religions. Given the heterogeneity of human kind, the international human rights community must ensure that people of different faiths, different views and different ideologies must be persuaded to dialogue with each other. It was only through such a process that they would discover that there was a universal dimension to the problems that human beings faced. It was incumbent upon those who exercised power in Nation States to listen to the people and act according to what could best be called national conscience.
AS KOHLI , of the International Institute for Peace, said that racial and other forms of discrimination were characteristic of systems that were not grounded in democratic ideals. The creation of non-discriminatory environments was the duty of Nation States. Policies that they adopted defined both their perceptions about themselves and about others. Further, the whole concept of racial and religious profiling that had been given legitimacy by the war on terror was abhorrent to those who were in the forefront of the battle to preserve human dignity and who believed in the universal equality of all human beings. Eradication of discrimination often also required an examination of the entire gamut of societal customs and traditions handed down through the generations. It was a slow and gradual process that required the disassembling of long held beliefs and attitudes.
GREGOR PUPPINCK, of the European Centre for Law and Justice, said that, as had been emphasized in the interactive dialogue, nowadays discrimination battled on religious and no more on racial ground. They could not support the concept of defamation of religions or phobias when applied to religions or beliefs. The concept of phobia should not be employed, as it did not describe reality, but a psychological instability. The use of the concept of phobia victimized a part of the population. They also recalled that the concept of defamation was incompatible with human rights. It endangered the rights of religious minorities. It would end in an international approval of blasphemy laws. There should rather be a greater respect of religious freedom.
A. POFFLIS, of the World Peace Council, said that the principles of equality and non-discrimination were fundamental to the United Nations and must be respected by States. The people in Hindu societies had been divided in different groups to facilitate the division of labour, this system had later grown into the caste system. A number of constitutional measures had been taken by the State of India, including legislative measures to abolish untouchability, while the national human rights commission was doing regular monitoring and reporting to the Parliament. Some efforts of the Dalit Movement were starting to bear fruit, for example greater representation of Dalits. The World Peace Council underlined that more efforts were needed to combat discrimination at the roots.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08102E