On Wednesday, the UN Human Rights Council granted approval to a contentious resolution on religious intolerance and bigotry in the wake of the burning of a Quran in Sweden, prompting controversy and concern among Western states who say that it opposes long-held practices in rights protection.
Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the resolution calls for the U.N. rights chief to publish a report on religious hatred and for states to revise their laws and close loopholes that may “impede the prevention and prosecution of acts and advocacy of religious hatred.”
“We must see this clearly for what it is: incitement to religious hatred, discrimination and attempts to provoke violence,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari told the Geneva-based council via video on Tuesday.
It was met with strong opposition from the United States and the European Union, who maintained that the motion does not correspond to their firm positions on human rights and freedom of expression. While denouncing the Quran desecration outside Stockholm’s central mosque on June 28, they contended that the OIC initiative was proposed to protect religious symbols rather than human rights.
Twenty-eight countries voted in favour of the resolution, 12 voted against, and seven countries abstained. After the approval, representatives of some countries clapped as an expression of satisfaction and triumph.
Marc Limon, director of the Geneva-based Universal Rights Group, said the outcome revealed: “the West is in full retreat at the Human Rights Council.”
“They’re increasingly losing support and losing the argument,” he said.
Michele Taylor, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the United States concerns about the initiative “were not taken seriously.”
“I believe with a little more time and more open discussion, we could have also found a way forward together on this resolution,” she said.
After the vote, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. in Geneva, Khalil Hasmi, accused the West of paying ‘lip service’ to their commitment to prevent religious hatred and bigotry.
“The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Koran or any other religious book,” he said.
“They lack political, legal and moral courage to condemn this act, and it was the minimum that the Council could have expected from them.”
The vote’s implication represents a major defeat for Western countries and an unprecedented victory for the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which enjoyed a substantial influence in the council.
add your comment
Terms of publication : Not to offend the writer, people, sacred things, or attack religions or the divine self, and refrain from racist incitement and insults.