The main human rights body of the United Nations (UNHRC) has adopted a resolution to express its disapproval of the recent acts of burning the Quran in Sweden. The resolution denounces all forms of religious hatred, including deliberate and planned acts that defile the holy Qur’an, and calls for the perpetrators to be held accountable. However, some Western nations chose not to support the resolution, causing further division rather than unity.
Although there was widespread condemnation of the desecration of the Muslim holy book, the voting process created more disagreement among countries from Europe and the Americas. These countries believed that more effort could have been put into reaching a stronger and unanimous decision.
Following an incident where an Iraqi refugee burned pages of the Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm, Pakistan and other countries from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) initiated a debate and resolution. The event sparked a diplomatic backlash across the Muslim world. The resolution presented by the OIC received support from 28 votes in favor, while 12 countries voted against it, and seven abstained.
Despite the resolution being passed and applauded, there was a lack of enthusiasm in the chamber. While strongly condemning the burnings, however, western countries such as the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Costa Rica, Montenegro, and other European Union countries, voted against the resolution to defend free speech. Also, countries such as Benin, Chile, Mexico, Nepal, and Paraguay were among those abstentions.
Ambassador Khalil Hashmi, speaking on behalf of the OIC, expressed disappointment rather than celebration. He emphasized that the resolution was not intended to limit free speech but to strike a balanced approach.
Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi also echoed the statement from Iran, and Saudi Arabia, stating, ‘Stop abusing freedom of expression. Silence means complicity.”
What is freedom of expression?
Following the council’s failure to reach a unanimous decision on condemning anti-Muslim hatred, Michèle Taylor, the U.S. representative, expressed her deep sadness. She emphasized the importance of condemning such deplorable acts while respecting freedom of expression.
But what is freedom of expression? When one has freedom of expression, the other person also has freedom of expression that should be respected.
Freedom of speech encompasses the right of individuals to express their opinions and ideas without government interference or reprisal. It encompasses various forms of expression beyond verbal communication, including actions, clothing, reading material, performances, and protests.
In the United States, freedom of speech is highly safeguarded by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and numerous state and federal laws. The protection of free speech in the United States is regarded as one of the most robust among democratic nations, as it extends to even speech that may be considered offensive, hateful, or harassing by many. The US even excludes freedom of speech, referring to harassment occurring within an educational institution that specifically targets an individual due to a protected characteristic, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, which can be categorized as pervasive and severe. This shows that the US recognizes the limitation of freedom of speech regarding race, gender, or religion issues.
Related to the UNHRC resolution, freedom of speech not only upholds other fundamental rights, such as the right to peaceful assembly, participation in public affairs, and freedom of religion, but also serve as their foundation. What is discussed in the UNHRC is not freedom of speech but also related to hate speech. As cited by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”
The debate surrounding the UNHRC resolution emphasizes the importance of balancing freedom of expression and fighting hate speech. It is important to recognize that protecting freedom of expression does not mean advocating or condoning acts perpetuating discrimination or inciting harm. By understanding the limitations and responsibilities accompanying freedom of expression, societies can actively combat hate speech while creating an environment respecting human rights.
Such disrespectful acts should be condemned, and this once again shows how the U.S. government is inconsistent on human rights issues, especially when they do not directly affect national interests. The United States denounces human rights abuses in some countries; it is relatively silent or less vocal about similar abuses in others, particularly those with which it has strategic or political alliances.
A good and better balance between freedom of expression and combating hate speech should be clear. There should be measures to counter hate speech without contravening free speech while promoting diversity and dialogue among different cultures or religious communities.