|
United Nations resolution calls for a worldwide ban on publicly burning the Quran
|
|
|
| 14th July 2023
|
|
| See article from secularism.org.uk
|
Members of the misleadingly named UN Human Rights Council (HRC) has voted in favour of a resolution for the deliberately and publicly burning of the Quran or any other holy book to be prohibited by law. The UK voted against the resolution. In a
statement , the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said: We do not accept that, by definition, attacks on religion, including on religious texts or symbols, constitute advocacy for hatred. Other states opposed to the motion included France, Germany and the USA, but they were outvoted 28 to 12.
The resolution follows a high profile incident in Sweden last month, when Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika burned a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm. Momika is an atheist formerly from Iraq's persecuted minority Christian community. The
resolution was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has long supported efforts to censor blasphemous speech. The OIC is an intergovernmental organisation of 57 states and claims to be the collective
voice of the Muslim world. Although it stopped explicitly campaigning for a global blasphemy law in 2011, it has repeatedly spearheaded attempts to install backdoor blasphemy laws. The resolution passed was amended to include the explicit provision
that burning the Quran and other holy books should be banned. The original resolution did not include this statement. UNHRC resolutions are not legally binding, but can be used to pressure states to change their laws. National Secular Society
chief executive Stephen Evans said: Equating the desecration of religious books and symbols with incitement to violence is a pernicious attempt to impose blasphemy laws by stealth. The Islamic nations behind this
resolution have long been more interested in protecting religion than protecting individuals. Speech and expression must be viewed in context. Crude attempts to impose blanket prohibitions clearly risk capturing and silencing
legitimate expression and dissent. Democratic societies must find ways to combat intolerance and hatred without further restricting freedom of expression to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious groups.
|
|
|
|
|
| 14th
August 2020
|
|
|
How social media companies coordinate the rapid take downs of terrorist videos See article from slate.com
|
|
UN Secretary General dreams of world peace
|
|
|
| 8th May 2020
|
|
| See article from theguardian.com
|
The UN secretary-general António Guterres has said the coronavirus pandemic has unleashed a tsunami of hate and xenophobia, scapegoating and scare-mongering, and appealed for an all-out effort to end hate speech globally. He said anti-foreigner
sentiment has surged online and on the streets, and highlighted the spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Covid-19-related anti-Muslim attacks. Guterres called on the media, especially social media, to remove racist, misogynist and other
harmful content, on civil society to strengthen their outreach to vulnerable people, and on religious figures to serve as models of mutual respect. He added somewhat hopefully: And I ask everyone, everywhere, to stand up
against hate, treat each other with dignity and take every opportunity to spread kindness.
|
|
Article19 reports that global freedom of expression is at a ten-year low
|
|
|
| 11th December 2019
|
|
| See summary from
article19.org See full report from article19.org |
The Global Expression Report 2018-19 shows that global freedom of expression at its lowest for a decade. Gains that were made between 2008 -- 2013 have been eroded over the last five years. Repressive responses to street protests are contributing to the
decline in freedom of expression around the world. A rise in digital authoritarianism sees governments taking control of internet infrastructure, increasing online surveillance and controlling content. The numbers of journalists, communicators and human
rights defenders being imprisoned, attacked and killed continues to increase. 66 countries -- with a combined population of more than 5.5 billion people -- saw a decline in their overall freedom of expression environment last decade.
Global Expression Report 2018-19: media pack
The Global Expression Report 2018-19 shows that global freedom of expression at its lowest for a decade. Gains that were made between 2008 -- 2013 have been eroded over the last five years. Repressive responses to street protests are contributing to the decline in freedom of expression around the world.
A rise in digital authoritarianism sees governments taking control of internet infrastructure, increasing online surveillance and controlling content. The numbers of journalists, communicators and
human rights defenders being imprisoned, attacked and killed continues to increase. 66 countries -- with a combined population of more than 5.5 billion people -- saw a decline in their overall freedom of expression
environment last decade.
Comment from Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19: "Almost ten years ago, the Arab Spring offered hope to people across the world that repressive governments would not be able
to retain power when faced with protestors, empowered as never before with access to information and digital tools for organising. "Today, protests continue to take place around the world but our report shows that global
freedom of expression remains at a ten-year low and that many of the gains made in the earlier part of the decade have been lost. "Some of these threats are not new: governments are still using state violence and judicial
harassment to close down protests. Journalists, communicators and human rights defenders are still being imprisoned, attacked and killed with impunity. But we are also seeing a rise in digital authoritarianism where governments are using digital
technology to surveill their citizens, restrict content and shut down communications." "Governments need to take action to reverse this trend and uphold their citizens' right to freedom of expression."
|
|
|