An amateurish and offensive video that disparages the Prophet Muhammad set off a series of violent protests in the Middle East and around the world. This week, watch for a new twist: Muslim leaders may revive a call for a
An amateurish and offensive video that disparages the Prophet Muhammad set off a series of violent protests in the Middle East and around the world. This week, watch for a new twist: Muslim leaders may revive a call for a U.N. resolution to outlaw blasphemy.
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are expected to demand U.N.-sanctioned curbs on offensive expression targeted at religious leaders and religions. Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has suggested limits to free speech could be appropriate when speech is “used to provoke or humiliate.”
Such a resolution wouldn’t have the force of law, but it would legitimize and expand the inclination of some governments to muzzle free expression. What a useful, if unintended, gift to dictators and repressive regimes worldwide.
We recognize that many Muslims feel strongly about this issue. Last week, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, visited the Chicago Tribune editorial board and made the case for such a blasphemy law. He said people who responded to the video with violent protests in places such as Libya are poor and uneducated, and thus cannot be expected to understand concepts such as freedom of speech and tolerance for repugnant views. He suggested that the way to quell anti-U.S. sentiment overseas is for more advantaged societies to mute such “provocations.”
The great U.S. traditions of free speech and religious tolerance are not placed at risk at home by this international debate. But it’s critical to explain to other nations — particularly nations that have suffered under rulers who brutally silence dissent — how those traditions have helped to protect the stability of American society. We are a richer, more stable nation by virtue of our tolerance of all manner of speech, including hateful speech.
At least 30 countries have anti-blasphemy laws. A 2010 Freedom House report said those laws are often touted as efforts to blunt discrimination and advance freedom of religion and human rights, but usually yield opposite results: These laws “typically give rise to the violation, not the protection, of fundamental human rights.”
In countries with “weak” democracies, authoritarian systems or compromised judiciaries — which describes many countries in the Middle East — the laws have often been used to “silence political opposition, government critics and other dissidents,” the report said. In some cases, “people fabricated charges of blasphemy against others in their communities to settle petty disputes.”
A recent, troubling example: In Pakistan, a 14-year-old Christian girl spent three weeks behind bars after a Muslim cleric accused her of desecrating the Quran. Earlier this month, a Pakistani judge ordered her released on bail, after the arrest of the cleric on charges he tried to fabricate evidence against her.
The U.N. should hear Freedom House’s conclusion loud and clear: Blasphemy laws do not promote religious tolerance and harmony. Religious extremists have “exploited blasphemy laws to justify attacks on religious minorities, thereby fostering an environment of intolerance where discrimination is effectively condoned by the state.”
The Arab Spring has swept dictators from power across the Middle East. It has raised the hopes of millions for freedom and democracy. But when a dictator is toppled, the void isn’t necessarily filled with a free and tolerant government and society.
Nations such as Egypt and Libya have a difficult road ahead to establish a democratic tradition. The United Nations should not suggest that people in free countries, ours included, need to curb their own rights in order to placate the sensibilities of those who permit their anger to become actionable. The video in this case didn’t only raise offense. It also raised an opportunity for self-restraint from those it offended.
Someone else’s opinion, no matter how repulsive, is not incitement to violence. It is incitement to argument. A U.N. embrace of anti-blasphemy measures sends precisely the wrong message: that respect can be legislated.
