High Commissioner for Human Rights Tells Urgent Debate of the Human Rights Council that Speech and Inflammatory Acts against Muslims and Others Are Offensive, Irresponsible and Wrong

AFTERNOON 11 July 2023

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an urgent debate on the alarming rise in premeditated and public acts of religious hatred as manifested by recurrent desecration of the Holy Quran in some European and other countries.

Action on a draft resolution on “Countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” was postponed to Wednesday, 12 July at 10 a.m. because of time constraints.

Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a keynote address, said that beyond words, human beings communicated through symbols. Religious symbols went so much deeper. For millions of people these religious symbols had deep significance and were the essence of peoples’ identity and core beliefs. The abuse or destruction of the manifestations of innermost beliefs could polarise societies and aggravate tensions. This urgent debate was prompted by recent incidents of burning of the Quran, which was the core of faith for well over one billion people. These and other incidents appeared to have been manufactured to express contempt and inflame anger; to drive wedges between people; and to provoke, transforming differences of perspective into hatred and, perhaps, violence.

The High Commissioner said that it was clear to him that speech and inflammatory acts against Muslims; Islamophobia; anti-Semitism; and actions and speech that targeted Christians – or minority groups such as Ahmadis, Baháʼís or Yazidis – were manifestations of utter disrespect. They were offensive, irresponsible and wrong. Advocacy of hatred that constituted incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility should be prohibited in every State. Other forms of expression could amount to hate speech, if they used pejorative or bigoted language towards a person or group on the basis of their sex, belief, race, migration status, sexual orientation or any other factor inherent to their person or identity, seeking to diminish their dignity and demean their value in the eyes of others.

Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, speaking on behalf of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures in a keynote address, said religions, beliefs or their followers should not be instrumentalised to incite hatred and violence, including for electoral purposes or political gains. Public acts of intolerance were on the increase around the world and were more common in times of political tension such as elections; these acts should be condemned. Acts which manifested intolerance and were intentionally aimed at stirring up hatred, such as some recent instances of the public burning of the holy Quran or desecration of places of worship, were objectionable and risked drawing societies backwards, reversing positive educational and social investments towards understanding and diversity. They raised concern regarding tolerance, civility, and respect for the rights of others.

Ms. Ghanea said that restrictions of freedom of expression needed to respect the three-part test set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: they must be legal, strictly necessary, and proportionate to achieve a legitimate objective set out in international human rights law. All States should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities and to detect signs of intolerance that may lead to discrimination based on religion or belief. Expressions of intolerance needed to be countered so that they did not encourage further acts of intolerance or even of violence.

In the ensuing debate, many speakers said the values of tolerance and dialogue must be reaffirmed, and hatred rejected. Burning copies of the Holy Quran could not be justified, as they were incitements to discrimination and hatred, running counter to international efforts, and undermining the respect between peoples and countries. Despite normative stipulations, there was a clear pattern of deliberate desecration, leading to expressions of religious hatred. Promoting the culture of peace, mutual respect, inter-cultural tolerance and harmony were a start, but combatting religious hatred and its incitement were duties that States must address. The escalating anti-Muslim phenomena across the world were a matter for great concern for many speakers, who pointed out how they undermined respect, tolerance, and mutual understanding. The international community should stand firm against this rampant scourge.

One speaker pointed out that human rights protected individuals, not religions or religious systems. It was not up to the United Nations to determine what was holy or not, it was up to individuals to determine their beliefs, and to live up to them up to the limits of the law - this was a requirement for living in tolerant societies. Exercising freedom of expression required self-discipline, not incitement to war, hatred, or distinction. All forms of censorship should be carefully monitored - the freedom of expression, pursuant to international law, was not an absolute, whilst nevertheless requiring protection. Restrictions on the right must be carefully assessed as per international agreements. In combatting religious intolerance, all must be mindful that that combat must not limit other rights.

Speaking in the discussion were Saudi Arabia on behalf of a group of countries, Pakistan, Qatar, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Côte d'Ivoire on behalf of a group of African States, Oman on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Lebanon on behalf of a group of Arab States, Spain on behalf of the European Union, Maldives, Cuba, France, Morocco, Sudan, Viet Nam, Mexico, Algeria, Cameroon, United States, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Benin, Germany, Senegal, Lithuania, Romania, Luxembourg, Belgium, Bolivia, Eritrea, United Kingdom, Kyrgyzstan, Czech Republic, Gambia, Finland, China, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Türkiye, Holy See, Bahrain, Japan, Iraq, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Libya, Kuwait, Dominican Republic, Djibouti, Mauritania, Netherlands, Oman, Nigeria, Lebanon, Brunei Darussalam, Niger, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Israel, Singapore, Syria, Timor-Leste, Brazil, Venezuela, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Afghanistan, Russian Federation, Canada, Cyprus, Thailand, Italy, Philippines, Austria, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia, Spain, Malta, Peru, Portugal, Poland, Ireland, Mali, Sweden, Denmark and Tunisia.

Also speaking were World Evangelical Alliance, World Jewish Congress, European Centre for Law and Justice, Centre European pour le droit, les Justice et les droits de l'homme, Article 19 - International Centre against Censorship, Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights Association, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Humanists International, Association Ma'onah for Human Rights and Immigration, Partners For Transparency, Union of Northwest Human Rights Organization, World Muslim Congress, Centre d'études juridiques africaines, Human Rights Research League, International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Jubilee Campaign, and Legal Analysis and Research Public Union.

Speaking in right of reply at the end of the discussion was Ukraine.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-third regular session can be found here.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 12 July, when it will continue its consideration of the draft resolution issuing from the urgent debate. The Council will then conclude an enhanced interactive dialogue on technical cooperation and capacity building in the field of human rights. Next, it will hold an interactive dialogue on the oral update of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Central African Republic, followed by an interactive dialogue on the oral presentation of the High Commissioner of the findings of the periodic report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Ukraine, and the interim report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine. This will be followed by the presentation of the oral update of the High Commissioner on Georgia.

Urgent Debate to Discuss the Alarming Rise in Premeditated and Public Acts of Religious Hatred as Manifested by Recurrent Desecration of the Holy Quran in some European and other Countries

Keynote Addresses

VOLKER TÜRK, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said

that beyond words, human beings communicated through symbols. Religious symbols went so much deeper. A crescent, a star, a cross, a seated figure: for some, these might mean little, but for millions of people they had deep significance and were the essence of their identity and core beliefs. The abuse or destruction of the manifestations of innermost beliefs could polarise societies and aggravate tensions. This urgent debate was prompted by recent incidents of burning of the Quran, which was the core of faith for well over one billion people. These and other incidents appeared to have been manufactured to express contempt and inflame anger; to drive wedges between people; and to provoke, transforming differences of perspective into hatred and, perhaps, violence.

The vandalism of religious sites and destructions of icons, texts that were sacred to their believers, and religious items, had been used to insult and provoke people for centuries. The High Commissioner said that it was clear to him that speech and inflammatory acts against Muslims; Islamophobia; anti-Semitism; and actions and speech that targeted Christians – or minority groups such as Ahmadis, Baháʼís or Yazidis – were manifestations of utter disrespect. They were offensive, irresponsible and wrong.

Mr. Türk said it was important to recall the immense benefit of diversity for all societies. All people had an equal right to believe, or not to believe: this was fundamental to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These were complex areas. The limitation of any kind of speech or expression must, as a matter of fundamental principle, remain an exception – particularly since laws limiting speech were often misused by those in power, including to stifle debate on critical issues. But on the other hand, an act of speech, in the specific circumstances in which it occurred, could constitute incitement to action on the part of others — in some cases, very violent and discriminatory action. In recent years, numerous acts of violence, terror attacks and mass atrocities had targeted people on account of their religious beliefs.

International law was clear on these kinds of incitement. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated: States parties must, without exception, prohibit “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Ultimately, the application of article 20 was a matter for national lawmakers and courts to determine in a particular case, in a manner that was consistent with the guardrails that international human rights law provided. Any national restrictions to the overriding right to freedom of opinion and expression must be formulated so that their sole purpose and outcome was to protect individuals – rather than to shield religious doctrine from critical review.

Advocacy of hatred that constituted incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility should be prohibited in every State. Other forms of expression could amount to hate speech, if they used pejorative or bigoted language towards a person or group on the basis of their sex, belief, race, migration status, sexual orientation or any other factor inherent to their person or identity, seeking to diminish their dignity and demean their value in the eyes of others. Powered by the tidal forces of social media, and in a context of increasing international and national discord and polarisation, hate speech of every kind was rising, everywhere. It was harmful to individuals, and it damaged the social cohesion necessary to the sound functioning of all societies.

Hate speech needed to be addressed, in all societies, through dialogue, education, awareness raising, inter-faith and inter-community engagement, and other public policy tools. It needed to be actively countered by all responsible authorities, figures of influence, and the private sector. The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech was the Organization’s response to address this phenomenon and to support States to counter it. Effective prevention strategies by national authorities and others could identify and address the underlying causes of hate speech.

Many societies were struggling with the weaponisation of religious differences for

political purposes. All must not allow themselves to be reeled in and become instrumentalised by these merchants of chaos for political gain - these provocateurs who deliberately sought out ways to divide, Mr. Türk said.

Societies – all societies, whatever their religious and cultural backgrounds – must

strive to become magnets of respect, dialogue and cooperation among different peoples, as had been achieved by multiple civilisations in the past. The international community must commit to advancing greater tolerance; greater respect; and greater recognition of the importance and value of all differences. All had rights, including the right to hold different beliefs, to adopt different ways of living, and to have and share different opinions.

NAZILA GHANEA, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, speaking on behalf of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, said religions, beliefs or their followers should not be instrumentalised to incite hatred and violence, including for electoral purposes or political gains. Public acts of intolerance were on the increase around the world and were more common in times of political tension such as elections; these acts should be condemned. Acts which manifested intolerance and were intentionally aimed at stirring up hatred, such as some recent instances of the public burning of the holy Quran or desecration of places of worship, were objectionable and risked drawing societies backwards, reversing positive educational and social investments towards understanding and diversity. They raised concern regarding tolerance, civility, and respect for the rights of others.

The responses to these acts should be strongly anchored in the international human rights law framework and should be compatible with international human rights law. Ms. Ghanea said the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures welcomed the rejections by State authorities and other actors, which made clear that these acts, carried out by individuals, were not condoned by the authorities or representative of the wider society. This was in line with paragraph 5(e) of Human Rights Council resolution 16/18’s action points and the resolve to strongly encourage “government representatives and leaders in all sectors of society and respective communities to speak out against acts of intolerance and violence based on religion or belief”. It also called on States to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance and recognised the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping.

The statement of the Coordination Committee said the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had requested to visit Sweden due to recent events, and this had been welcomed by Sweden. The Special Procedures were aware of and had raised concerns regarding religious intolerance and attacks on religious minorities in Asia and Africa and urged those governments to welcome visits from Special Procedure mandate holders to examine and advise on these problems in their countries. Freedom of religion or belief and freedom of opinion and expression were mutually reinforcing. Freedom of expression was essential for combatting negative stereotypes, offering alternative views and creating an atmosphere of respect and understanding between peoples and communities. While the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, was prohibited under international law, there was a high threshold required to reach that standard, and the need for a case-by-case analysis.

Restrictions of freedom of expression needed to respect the three-part test set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: they must be legal, strictly necessary, and proportionate to achieve a legitimate objective set out in international human rights law. All States should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities and to detect signs of intolerance that may lead to discrimination based on religion or belief. Expressions of intolerance needed to be countered so that they did not encourage further acts of intolerance or even of violence. Political, religious and civil society leaders could play a major role in condemning intolerance and encouraging diversity, inclusions and understanding among communities.

Discussion

In the discussion, many speakers said the values of tolerance and dialogue must be reaffirmed, and hatred rejected. Burning copies of the Holy Quran could not be justified, as they were incitements to discrimination and hatred, running counter to international efforts, and undermining the respect between peoples and countries. International organizations must move to end these acts that provoked peoples’ feelings and incited hatred, affecting the freedom of opinion and expression. Freedom of expression was an ethical value that should spread peaceful co-existence rather than causing the clash of civilisations. The universal culture of peace and tolerance could only be built through international efforts to ensure the respect of all in all societies.

Some speakers said the United Nations General Assembly had spoken with one voice in condemnation of Islamophobia. Unfortunately, the deliberate desecration of the Holy Quran had continued under government sanction and with the sense of impunity. Increasingly, these acts were designed to maximise provocation. This was incitement to religious hatred and discrimination, and attempted to provoke violence. The international community must join hands in condemning it, isolating those who stroked hatred.

Free speech was as indispensable as hate speech should be indefensible, some speakers said. The vigour to protect free speech must not lose sight of the imperative to reject hate speech. There must be prevention, legal deterrence and accountability of actions that constituted incitement to hostility against people of faith. The international community must unite against hatred, discrimination and intolerance, and forge pathways for mutual respect, understanding and tolerance.

The debate addressed an urgent topic that fell within the Council’s mandate, a number of speakers said. At a time when the whole world was facing great challenges, the Council had to select standards. Anti-Semitism was an issue that it was required to address. This session was an opportunity to shed light on religious minorities across the world, which were not limited to any one country. In European countries, many laws did not respect religious practices, including for Muslims. There was a confusion of ethnic and religious discrimination, which could lead to deaths.

No sacred book should ever be disrespected, speakers said, and such acts were a contemporary form of racism, requiring meaningful prevention. International human rights law called for the protection of several indivisible rights. Despite normative stipulations, there was a clear pattern of deliberate desecration, leading to expressions of religious hatred. One speaker said that the desecration of a book sacred to billions was not an exercise of free speech: it was an affront to humanity’s common dignity. This was an inflection point; there was much at stake in this interconnected world. Silence was no longer tenable. Promoting the culture of peace, mutual respect, inter-cultural tolerance and harmony were a start, but combatting religious hatred and its incitement were duties that States must address. States should join ranks and lend support to the proposed resolution.

Some speakers said that the world was witnessing alarming trends and acts. The values of civilizations and unions ran against all forms of religious hatred and the desecration of scriptures. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination placed an obligation on States to counter the expression of hatred and all acts linked thereto. The enjoyment of rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, carried with it specific rights and duties. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action recognised that religion, spirituality and belief played a central role in the lives of billions, and warned against the dissemination of hatred and religious intolerance.

Some speakers said that hate speech that could initially seem harmless could lead to tragedies. Religious hatred fortified discrimination and stigma: if left unchecked, it could harm peace and development, laying the ground for tensions and widespread human rights violations. Only through cooperation and dialogue, and the adoption of appropriate domestic legal frameworks could these phenomena be fought successfully.

The escalating anti-Muslim phenomena across the world was a matter for great concern for many speakers, who pointed out how it undermined respect, tolerance, and mutual understanding. The international community should stand firm against this rampant scourge, which was sheltered under the banner of freedom of expression, whilst remaining far from it, and take all acts necessary to combat Islamophobia and prevent its recurrence. States were committed to protecting the right of freedom of religion and belief, including to combat acts that offended religious sentiment. Promoting dialogue between cultures and religions was key to ensuring peace throughout the world.

No State could claim to strengthen and promote human rights whilst at the same time tolerating acts of discrimination, and attacks on peace and on the acceptance of others that claimed to be acts of freedom of expression. Over the past decades, the international community had invested much diplomacy to advance a common understanding of how article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be interpreted, and how it related to freedom of expression as set out in general comment 34 by the Human Rights Committee. Human Rights Council resolution 16/18, the Istanbul Process, the Beirut Declaration on ‘Faith for Rights’ and the Rabat Plan of Action were among the most important results of these endeavours. They all shared the premise that the threshold for unlawful incitement must be set high, based on an analysis of the context, and that limitations of freedom of expression must remain the exception.

Only an independent judge could decide, taking into account the specific context and purpose, if an act was incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence against persons. For these reasons, generic prohibitions such as blasphemy laws were a clear violation of the Covenant, a speaker said. The subject of this debate and of the resolution submitted was not religious, but implied that of respect for human rights, and in particular freedom of belief, which could not be sacrificed against freedom of expression. When Governments respected the right to freedom of religion or belief, including the right to not have a religion, then societies benefited.

In Western countries, there was still discrimination and segregation on religious grounds - national legal frameworks should be strengthened, as should be national institutions, to prevent recurrence of these acts. Hate speech must come to an end, as should discriminatory opinions and views expressed to political ends. The limits of this exercise had been recognised in international instruments and international rules. No country had the right to proclaim being a guarantor of religious freedom across the world.

The fight against radicalisation, extremism, obscurantism and violence must in no way be selective: these demonstrations must be unequivocally condemned. Speakers called upon the Council not to be divided and to show unity and a common will by asserting the wisdom that should guide its positions on such sensitive subjects. States must take clear and urgent action to ensure that such acts were not repeated, and all statements that expressed dismay at these acts were welcomed. It was the shared responsibility of Governments, the international community, groups and of individuals to respect the rights and dignity of others and help each other to achieve the highest level of development and prosperity.

One speaker pointed out that human rights protected individuals, not religions or religious systems. It was not up to the United Nations to determine what was holy or not, it was up to individuals to determine their beliefs, and to live up to them up to the limits of the law - this was a requirement for living in tolerant societies. Exercising freedom of expression required self-discipline, not incitement to war, hatred, or distinction. Hatred bred hatred, and violence bred violence - they should not have a place in the global village. All forms of censorship should be carefully monitored - freedom of expression, pursuant to international law, was not an absolute, whilst nevertheless requiring protection. Restrictions on the right must be carefully assessed as per international agreements. In combatting religious intolerance, all must be mindful that that combat must not limit other rights. Actions should be based on the relevant international norms and standards.

With regard to the draft resolution, although many called for its adoption, others pointed out that the Council must unite in calling for respect, cooperation and dialogue, upholding both freedom of religion and of expression. What was needed was dialogue, and there should be further meaningful negotiations to find consensus on the resolution. The Council’s precious consensus that it had maintained for over 10 years with regard to the freedom of religion and belief must be preserved.

Some speakers appealed to all constituencies, to Muslim leaders and to all those who wanted to protect freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion, to engage in dialogue across religions and beliefs, urging all to continue to work together to promote a shared understanding of how increasingly pluralistic societies could be inclusive, tolerant, welcoming and flourishing. Interfaith dialogue was a way to build bridges and counter stereotypes, to build strong and resilient societies, based on empathy and understanding.

Freedom of religion and speech were foundational human rights, a number of speakers said. The Council was discussing the alarming rise in premeditated and public acts of religious hatred and although desecrating any religion’s holy book was despicable, when the acts took a life or wrongfully accused another, with the intent to harm them, that could not be tolerated. Human rights were the responsibility of the State. Freedom and inclusive pluralistic societies were the responsibility of all.

Some speakers said that the “desecration” of religious books and symbols in and of itself was not an act of incitement. Context was vital when assessing whether a particular expression reached the prohibited threshold under article 20 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and ignoring that with blanket bans like anti-blasphemy or religious defamation laws paved the way for mass censorship and the silencing of legitimate expression and dissent. Such bans often targeted people from minority religions or beliefs whose very existence may challenge the convictions of majority religious communities or highlight the instrumentalisation of religion by those in power.

It was clear that international human rights law protected individuals and not religions, and that prohibitions on the defamation of religions were contrary to the rights to freedom of expression and religion or belief. These prohibitions fuelled division and religious intolerance by shutting down interfaith dialogue, and could facilitate and legitimise horrifying human rights violations against religious minorities.

In 2011, the Council adopted resolution 16/18, a speaker said, which was a landmark achievement that set out a consensual action plan for addressing religious intolerance and replaced divisive calls to combat defamation of religions in favour of a positive agenda driven by the understanding that the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and equality were mutually dependent and reinforcing. The speaker said that the current draft resolution was not the solution to the problem, but rather would undermine existing efforts to combat religious intolerance. By evoking language on the defamation of religions, this resolution seriously risked disrupting the consensus achieved in resolution 16/18 and posed a great threat to the future of this action plan in addressing religious intolerance.

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.