While the campaign to ban “defamation of religion” appears to have lost some steam at the world body recently, continued efforts to curtail “religious hate speech” could restrict free expression in some of the same ways. [Nina Shea, NRO “Corner”; Ilya Somin, Volokh] Warns Nina Shea:
In 2009, the Obama administration had the U.S. co-sponsor with Egypt, which represented the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference], a non-binding hate-speech resolution in the Human Rights Council. In contrast to U.S. constitutional law, that resolution urges states to take and to effectively implement “all necessary measures” to combat any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. It thus encourages the worldwide criminalization of religious hate speech.
4 Comments
I’m so relieved to know that the Obama administration is on top of the “defamation of religion” issue and has enlisted the help of the tolerant, freedom-loving Egyptian government in this regard. More hope and change!
By the way, Freedom House wasn’t too impressed with the Egyptian government in 2009, rating it “Not Free”. Here’s a small excerpt of what they said:
Islam is the state religion. The government appoints the staff of registered mosques and attempts to closely monitor the content of sermons in thousands of small, unauthorized mosques. Most Egyptians are Sunni Muslims, but Coptic Christians comprise a substantial minority and there are small numbers of Jews, Shiite Muslims, and Baha’is. Although non-Muslims are generally able to worship freely, religious expression considered deviant or insulting to Islam is subject to prosecution. In January 2008, a court ruled that the authorities could not prevent Baha’is from receiving identity cards. The religion section on Baha’i cards will now be left blank. In February, the Supreme Administrative Court found that Christians who had converted to Islam and wanted to return to Christianity were permitted to do so. Anti-Christian employment discrimination is evident in the public sector, especially the security services and military. The government frequently denies or delays permission to build and repair churches.
….
And since Mubarek got bounced recently, they’ve been burning churches and killing Coptic Christians. But that’s OK, as long as there’s no “hate speech.”
1. I hate the term “hate speech.” Especially when a judge or commenter alleges a distinction between “free speech” and “hate speech.” Hate speech IS free speech. Banning speech you don’t like becomes much easier when you simply tag it “hate speech.” Voila! It’s not “free speech” or “legitimate speech” or political discourse, it’s… hate speech.
2. Not to belabor the obvious, but terms like “defamation of religion” and “hate speech” are astoundingly broad and can emcompass pretty much anything. Saying “Merry Christmas” could easily be “hate speech”, since you narrowly focus on a single religious day.
3. Not to belabor the obvious, Part II: all of this stuff is geared toward one target — the traditional West. Christianity and whites are in the cross-hairs, nothing else.
“And since Mubarek got bounced recently, they’ve been burning churches and killing Coptic Christians. But that’s OK, as long as there’s no “hate speech.””
Yup. And in protest of “hate speech” against Muhammedans, Muhammedans kill Christians and Jews. Complaining about those killings, which are simply an expression of their religion, is of course hate speech and thus prompts more of the same.
But there are no more extremists, says Daisy Khan, so that’s all right.
Anonymous Attorney is exactly right: “Hate speech IS free speech.” Banning it doesn’t make the “hate” go away — it just takes it underground where it cannot be debated or questioned.