Human rights doublespeak at the UN

A group of Islamic countries has used "tolerance", "diversity" and "harmony" in an effort to ban criticism of Islam.

Once again belying its stated purpose of "promotion and protection of human rights around the globe," the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution last week straight out of George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984." The measure, sponsored by Pakistan on behalf of a group of Islamic states, employs Western-style references to "diversity," "interfaith harmony" and "tolerance" in defense of a decidedly intolerant objective: a global ban on criticism of religion — specifically, criticism of Islam.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," states the resolution, the brainchild of the powerful 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. One of the main culprits in this "Islamophobia," the measure says, is "the print, audio-visual and electronic media." The solution: Governments must "combat defamation of religions," including "stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons."

Not surprisingly, Canada, Chile and the European Union nations that sit on the Human Rights Council opposed this resolution, which they recognized as a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize the anti-blasphemy laws that theocratic Muslim regimes use to squelch dissent and persecute religious minorities. Indeed, it was hard for the measure's supporters to argue otherwise, given that Islam was the only religion specifically mentioned in the resolution and the list of nations backing the measure could, with a few exceptions, double as a who's who of human-rights violators.

An attack on human rights couched in the language of human rights, the "defamation of religion" resolution essentially would abolish free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in any country that adopted it. As a statement of opposition released by a diverse coalition of 186 religious and secular non-governmental organizations explained, the concept of "defamation of religion" has "no basis in domestic or international law" and "would alter the very meaning of human rights, which protect individuals from harm, but not beliefs from critical inquiry."

The "defamation of religion" resolution is old trick at the United Nations, where Islamic states that belong to the OIC have been passing similar measures for a decade now. This year's resolution is the latest salvo in the long-running campaign of Islamist extremists to use Western language and respect for the rule of law to subvert Western ideals of freedom and democracy.

Their success has made the Human Rights Council an international joke. Its forerunner, the Commission on Human Rights, was disbanded after it became hopelessly corrupt. In 2006, the council replaced the commission in an attempt to restore integrity to the United Nations' top human rights body. But the new council still lacks membership criteria to weed out human-rights violators. So the same repressive regimes that dominated the former commission dominate the new one, making the council a textbook case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

Given the council's predictable continuation of old patterns — aiding and abetting totalitarian states and singling out Israel, a democracy, for repeated rebukes while ignoring human-rights violations by neighboring nations — the Bush administration refused to seek election to the council when it was reconstituted in 2006. The Obama administration announced Tuesday afternoon that the United States will seek a seat on the council, though last week's vote should have given President Obama pause. One more nay ballot from the United States would not prevent the passage of such measures as the "defamation of religion" resolution, which won by a double-digit margin. Rather than spurring reform, America's presence on the council may only legitimize its sham proceedings.

Genuine reform may be possible at the United Nations, but given its record of self-correction in recent years, such renewal seems improbable. More likely is continuation of the sorry status quo: repeated assaults on the concept of human rights at the hands of the very organization charged with their defense.

Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television and radio host and St. Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is www.colleen-campbell.com. This article first appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.