(MENAFN- Arab News) An event took place last week that received little notice outside the GCC countries yet it was of such significance that it's troubling to note that the media took very little interest in it.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) hosted the 5th Istanbul Process meeting in Jeddah to establish a mechanism to implement the United Nations Human Rights Commission's Resolution 16/18. UN member states passed the resolution in 2011 to establish anti-discrimination laws and combat religious hate crimes. Since 2011 meetings have been held annually to strengthen the resolution.
The irony of this important two-day event is that for 11 years the OIC now a leader in attempting to eradicate religious hate had been the whipping boy of western media outlets for sponsoring anti-blasphemy laws. In the view of the western nations the proposed resolution suppressed free speech. The OIC apparently recognized it was fighting a losing battle because the proposed laws could not reconcile criminalizing religious hate speech and guaranteeing freedom of expression. The compromise was UN Resolution 16/18 which is designed to protect individuals from discriminatory practices and violence. The resolution does not include proposals for laws for people who preach hate.
Countries that practice true democracies will never back down from ensuring their citizens have the right to say what they want no matter how offensive their opinions.
But Iyad Madani secretary-general of the OIC made a salient point during the Jeddah meeting noting that prohibiting free speech would 'lead to the reversal of many of the positive democratic developments' but giving citizens in democratic countries the freedom to stretch that speech 'into the realm of hate speech' would do little to produce a 'positive outcome.'
Let's take this a step further. I like many Muslims see anti-blasphemy laws as a useful tool to curb hate. Granted such laws conflict with free speech but as we have seen on countless occasions hate speech often results in violence. When individuals abuse the rights granted to them then governments must re-evaluate those rights to protect the community particularly minorities and the marginalized. The United States constitution is a good example.
Perhaps the two most important rights guaranteed to
Americans is the Second Amendment that gives the right to bear arms. The First Amendment of course grants the right to free speech. The problem arises when organized hate groups and individuals prominent in their communities abuse those rights. America is rife with gun violence. From the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords which left six people dead to the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre in which 20 primary schoolchildren and six adults were murdered the US is in deep crisis. Yet the National Rifle Association aggressively lobbies Congress to dilute existing gun control laws and prevent the passage of future gun legislation.
Groups organized to aggressively promote hate against specific ethnic and religious minorities create such a hostile climate that it encourages individuals to carry out acts of violence. The US averaged about 20 to 30 anti-Muslim hate crimes annually before 9/11. Today the average is between 100 and 150 crimes. The murders of three Muslim university students in February in Chapel Hill North Carolina the vandalism of mosques in San Diego and Santa Cruz California and the shooting at a Coachella California mosque did not occur in a vacuum. These incidents were the result of the constant bombardment of hate speech.
Individuals have no claim to the rights they enjoy if they continue to abuse those rights and hide behind those rights. The US and other western nations do not have the will to curb free speech rights claiming that freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy no matter how offensive that speech may be even if that speech leads to murder. Unfortunately there will come a point in time when the floodgates of hate will open and when democratic countries will have to decide that perhaps limits are necessary to curb violence but it will be too late and people will get hurt.
The OIC had the right intentions to seek UN anti-blasphemy resolutions but the organization could have done a better job of explaining its position in a public relations campaign that focused on educating the American public. The OIC might have succeeded with at least a version of an anti-blasphemy law. While Resolution 16/18 severely dilutes the OIC's former position it can still work toward the OIC's goals of minimizing hate speech. Outreach education and interfaith advocacy groups are important elements of the resolution and it's a much less confrontational approach to eliminating violence.
But if the OIC wants non-Muslims to understand its message then it must launch an awareness campaign that addresses their concerns and fears. The message also must be inclusive of all religions and ethnic minorities. The perception today is that the OIC only wants Resolution 16/18 to protect Muslims when other religious minorities are experiencing terrible discrimination and violence.
Image building is almost as important to implementing the resolution as building community-based interfaith groups and outreach programs. Perhaps by the time the 6th Istanbul Process is held in Santiago Chile media outlets outside the GCC will take notice.