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.
| 
