A UN General Assembly committee has once again voted to condemn the “vilification of religion”, but support narrowed for a measure that Western powers say is a threat to freedom of expression.
The non-binding resolution, championed by Islamic states and opposed by Western countries, passed by only 12 votes in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which focuses on human rights, 76-64 with 42 abstentions.
Opponents noted that support had fallen and opposition increased since last year, when the Third Committee vote was 81-55 with 43 abstentions. The 192-nation General Assembly is expected to formally adopt the measure next month.
The resolution was amended from versions passed in previous years in an attempt to secure support from Western nations. Instead of defamation of religion, it speaks of “vilification.” It also condemned acts of violence and intimidation due to “Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia.”
Last year’s resolution, as in previous years, focused on Islam and did not mention Judaism and Christianity.
Despite the changes, however, the United States, European Union and their allies rejected the resolution’s calls for legislation banning the defamation of religion.
The text, submitted by Morocco on behalf of Muslim states:
Urges all States to provide … adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from vilification of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general.
In another vote Arab and African nations succeeded in getting a UN General Assembly panel to delete a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation from a resolution condemning unjustified executions
Western delegations expressed disappointment in the human rights committee’s vote to remove the reference.
A British statement to the committee said:
The subject of this amendment – the need for prompt and thorough investigations of all killing, including those committed for … sexual orientation – exists in this resolution simply because it is a continuing cause for concern.
The General Assembly passes a resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings every two years. The 2008 declaration included an explicit reference to killings committed because of the victims’ sexual preferences.
But this year, Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words “sexual orientation” and replacing them with “discriminatory reasons on any basis”.
That amendment narrowly passed 79-70. The resolution then was approved by the committee, which includes all 192 UN member states, with 165 in favor, 10 abstentions and no votes against.
The US delegation voted against the deletion but abstained from the vote on the final resolution. Said Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch:
It’s a step backwards and it’s extremely disappointing that some countries felt the need to remove the reference to sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is the very reason why so many people around the world have been subjected to violence.
Hat tip: Roger
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
November 25th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
The UN is a joke, albiet an expensive one. It is the souffle of politics, hot air and no substance.
The good thing is I can comfortably say that all religions are a joke as are the muppets that follow it. What will the UN do? Send me a severely worded letter?
November 25th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
They will issue a resolution to you, tony e, stating that you had better start thinking about stopping your vilification of religion, otherwise they might pass another resolution against you that will allow them to start talking about passing a resolution to determine whether or not they will think about imposing sanctions with a further resolution.
By which time America will have hired mercenaries to shoot everyone in your neighbourhood indiscriminately to teach you a lesson for being so intolerant.
November 26th, 2010 at 2:46 am
BDuke,
It was your captcha code, I think, well let’s see if this posts.
NeoWolfe
November 26th, 2010 at 6:52 am
The UN has become a paper tiger, powerless to stop wars and really help people reach their potential, while at same time it allowing religious and political intrests to set the agenda in important areas. People’s individual intrests are not in the best of hands over there, it seems.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:53 am
JohnMWhite:
Surely you mean they’ll appoint a committee charged with addressing the idea of forming an official committee to issue Tony that resolution?
November 26th, 2010 at 8:50 am
The next time they modify the executions bill, people of non-religion will be excluded to justify the current de-facto status of atheists in desert death cult countries.
November 26th, 2010 at 9:11 am
It also condemned acts of violence and intimidation due to “Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia.â€
So presumably acts of violence against ‘Beingintelligentophobia’ and ‘Havingcommonsenseophobia’ ‘Nofaithophobia’ are OK?
November 26th, 2010 at 9:16 am
It really is time the UN was disbanded, it is spineless, ineffective and allows the uncivilised a voice and power at its table. Also, the only countries who abide by UN resolutions are those who already have a decent record of human rights.
November 26th, 2010 at 9:49 am
They forgot “jainophobia, scientologyophobia, raelianophobia, zoroastrianophobia, hinduophobia, bhuddismophobia, etc.etc.etc.
Brain dead morons!
November 26th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Why not a resolution saying “Worship or not worship as you like, provided you don’t harass, harm or impose your morals to others”?
November 26th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Religion is like penis: it’s no crime to be proud of it, it’s a crime imposing it to unwilling others!
November 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I’d withdraw the right to vote to all ONU members who won’t sign the Declaration of Human Rights
November 26th, 2010 at 11:33 am
@Graham Martin-Royle They also forgot, flyingspaghettimonsterophobia and another, you almost mentioned, braindeadmoronophobia
November 26th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Shouldn’t be too long before the Desert Cults of Death, aided and abetted by a variety of fundie nutters in the West, want another step backwards into the darkness: you musn’t “think” bad thoughts about religion. This has lots of potential. Start torturing people to force them to admit they thought bad thoughts about religion.
The vicious point in all this is that the big defenders of religion are the worst hypocrites: e.g. those fundie pastors in the USA; the multitudes of paedo priests; Ratzi and the various death preaching and death dealing mullahs.
Peace be with you, as we atheists are the most justified in saying.
November 26th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“It also condemned acts of violence and intimidation due to “Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia. 
Since it is the islamic countries, as so often documented here, that are by far the bigest offenders in this regard one wonders which country will be censured first? Pakistan perhaps? Afghanistan? Indonesia? Saudi Arabia? Not so much;
My irony meter pegged and wrapped the needle on this one…….
November 26th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Pat Condell has made several points over the past 6 months on this and similar issues.
@JohnMWhite. I’ll have to remain resolute against their resolutions!
November 26th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Surely the whole thing is totally unworkable. Countries where people are oppressed on religious grounds will continue to do so, claiming that the victim is something-or-other-phobic, just as they do at present.
Ah. I see. In countries where there is a vestige of free speech, any criticism of the hypersensitive religion of peace will trigger even more complaints than at present, but now they will go through the highest official channels, and tie up that country in red tape. There will be some successful prosecutions.
The UN is able to wring its hands and sit on them at the same time. (I wish I had made that up but I don’t think I did.)
November 26th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Maybe I’m being a bit thick here or just naive, but they replaced the words “sexual orientation†with “discriminatory reasons on any basisâ€.
Surely the latter includes the former, and is much more comprehensive, so what’s the problem?
November 26th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
@Barry Jones, I think it is clear why they don’t want to mention sexual orientation. Without it being mentioned, they can carry on executing everyone guilty of same-sex sodomy on an entirely non-discriminatory basis. It’s a bit like that in the Church of England: vicars are allowed to be gay provided they are celebate.
If the UK voted against no vilification of religion, it would have been hypocritical, since it, or something very like it, has recently been made illegal in the UK. For a fine example of a recent application of this new law, see http://www.newstatesman.com/bl.....government
November 26th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
The world has gone F U C K I N G N U T S !
Let me get this right ….they have just pasted a law that protects superstitious people from being made fun of…..???
We are 10,000 years past living in caves and being afraid of the night yet 70% of the world still believes in boogie men.
There is a reason life from other planets has not made an appearance here on earth. A satellite hook up to the goings on at the UN is all they needed to decide that we are not worth the bother.
November 26th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Chick-a-boom is correct. Attacks on Christians and Jews, etc, will continue in the Muslim world without abatement. Criticism of Islam will be classed as “vilification”, wherever it occurs – Islam being the “true religion” – but other religions will remain fair game due to their “provocation”, and the fact that they dare to “proselytize” in “Muslim countries”. And regarding the words “discriminatory reasons” in place of “sexual orientation”: if you believe – or at least claim – that “there is no such thing as a homosexual” these people are being punished for a crime (homosexual sex) and NOT being discriminated against because of their sexuality. See?
November 26th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Is this kind of stuff an indication of desperation from the religious? They are used to being able to silence anyone who disagrees with them but in the information age they can no longer do so. The fact that the internet allows religious organisations a level playing field to air their views and make their case really highlights the weakness of that case. When a religious person invades a rationalist comment thread they tend to get a mauling. This may not have much effect on the mauled but to any lurkers it must be fairly obvious who has the best arguments.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Canada Dave:
“Let me get this right ….they have just pasted a law that protects superstitious people from being made fun of…..???”
Er, no. They haven’t.
Dan
November 26th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
@Canada Dave
The reason they need the law is because that’s all they have got. Put a couple of religious fuckwits up against two atheists – as happened recently when Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens took on a couple of religionuts – and the outcome is the verbal equivalent of bear baiting. The bear (tethered to its post being the equivalent of the religionuts tethered to their beliefs) takes one hell of ripping to bits.
I don’t know if you live in Canada but if you do you may not be aware of the fear of the BBC towards secular views. As a consequence, those of us who bother to listen, have inflicted on us a daily dose of the dire Thought for the Day. This is open to “people of faith” although what faith is not specified and the programme attracts some serial religious bigots as well as a regular supply of the most flaccid, crass bullshit you are like to hear. The Roman Catholic boss of the BBC decided, apparently off his own bat (ex cathedra you might say) that no atheist must appear. This despite a persuasive and carefully argued case that non atheist opinions should appear. I understand the anxiety. The last think they can allow is anything that might encourage listeners to think and to stop assuming that this daily puke is the normal mental fare of the rest of the population.
I have heard, and it surprises me I must admit, that Elizabeth Windsor, addressing a recent Church of England get together, said that those not of faith (I don’t know whether she managed to say atheist) were as capable of moral and ethical behaviour as those of faith.
Well done, Mrs Windsor. A positive step if that happened. My complaint would be that atheist, on the evidence, are far more likely to be ethical in their behaviour.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
StonyGround – “Is this kind of stuff an indication of desperation from the religious?” In my more optimistic moments I like to think so. I understand that in animal behaviour (and that includes us all) if an animal is trained to expect a reward for a certain behaviour, and you then stop providing the reward, or provide it only sometimes, the behaviour pattern is strengthened. You can see a simple example of this when you do something like try to get a machine to work. Normally you press the button and it goes – that’s your reward. If it doesn’t go, what do you do? You press the button harder, you press it more. So yes, this extreme religiosity could be a sign of religion’s impending demise. I don’t expect it will ever demise fully, but this could be a reaction to the failure of believers’ reward mechanism.