Human Rights as universal values: Address by Ms. Navi Pillay United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

University of Jordan

Amman, 8 December 2010

Distinguished Faculty,
Dear Students,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very pleased to deliver this address at the University of Jordan, the only university in the region that has established a Human Rights and Human Development Centre.  Jordan should be very proud of this commendable initiative to educate, through the Masters program of the Centre, the human rights workers of the future.   We will always need fresh energy and ideas to promote the vision of the UN Charter of a world in larger freedom where human rights, development and security go hand in hand.

Today, I will share with you some thoughts on the relationship of cultural identity and values with universal human rights norms, including the interaction between freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I am always inspired by the keen minds of students and look forward to engaging in a dialogue with you.

Let me begin by noting that many affiliations, either natural or chosen, or both, converge to produce the individual make up of each and everyone of us.  I stand before you as a woman; a daughter of Africa; a child from an ethnic and religious minority who grew up in South Africa at the time when it was one of the most segregated societies in human history.  I am also a human rights advocate engaged in the quest for justice and equality.
 
Each segment and each phase of life brings its own unique perspective in shaping our present and future. My journey has taken me across the world, and there have been many differences in the cultural signposts that have marked my experience.   I feel enriched by the complex texture of human diversity, without which our world would be dull and uninspiring.

But for all the differences that we claim as our own, there are many more traits that are the common, universal markers of humanity, those fundamental markers that transcend origin and the trajectories of individual lives and recognise no barrier of gender, race, class, or language.

These are also the traits and values that underpin human rights.

I am speaking of the entitlement of every one of us to justice, dignity, freedom from fear and want, and to equality and respect.   

I am well aware that the recognition of these entitlements and rights, as well as of the prerogatives and limitations of those who wield power, have roots in every civilization in the world.  In this part of the globe, they were expressed as early as in Hamurabi's Code of laws.  In pre-Islamic Arabia, the Helf-al-Fudul was a pact of the nobles of Mecca to redress injustice.   And, in Islamic tradition, the Diwan Al-Mazalem was a precursor of modern national human rights institutions and the ombudsman concept. This demonstrates that human rights are a universal patrimony, rather than the construct of particular civilisations.

The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives to the universal principles of human inherent worth and dignity a legal expression that transcends the specificity of cultures, traditions and affiliations. Who among us can claim not to understand or not to subscribe to simple universal values such as “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights?”

The simple perfection of this assertion is self-evident.  And yet, there are some who would deny the universality of our rights, and who seek to use the arguments of tradition and culture to drive a wedge between communities across the world.
 
UNIVERSALITY AND TRADITIONS

I often remind these sceptics that far from being partisan to some cultures, but irrelevant to others, the Universal Declaration stems from the knowledge and wisdom of an inspired group of scholars who came from diverse backgrounds, regions and legal traditions.    Two of the 17 legal scholars who drafted the Declaration were from neighbouring countries, Egypt and Lebanon, and another one was from Iran.  Their combined efforts and diverse customs produced, as the United Nations General Assembly noted, “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.”

Let me elaborate on this point: I do not believe that, in and of themselves, universality and specific traditions are mutually exclusive. We also have to recognise that traditions are not uniform and immanent constructs.  No society, regardless of its geographic location or level of economic development, can be said to be represented by a single and comprehensive set of shared values covering all social matters. Indeed, traditions change over time, and values are interpreted differently by various actors in society. 

There are traditions that promote hatred just as there are traditions that sustain tolerance.  There are traditions of repression and traditions of liberation. There are traditions of deprivation and exclusion, just as there are traditions of social justice.  Our task, and that of the world community, is to sustain squarely and unequivocally those traditions that protect and nurture individual and collective rights, create space for personal autonomy and growth, and promote justice.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER RIGHTS

Since time immemorial, religions have sought to express not only the human relationship with the divine, but also the values and practices of tolerance, compassion and solidarity that should underpin human beings’ interaction with one another.

Scholars and institutions have often laboured to find a balance between competing rights, a task that is particularly demanding when beliefs and freedom of religion are involved. This balancing endeavour entails addressing difficult questions such as how to distinguish religions from human interpretations of religions? Who speaks for religions?  How can religious beliefs and human rights be synergic and mutually reinforcing?

I submit to you that human rights principles have the potential to provide a sound basis to reach equilibrium among different freedoms and entitlements.

Since the outset of the contemporary human rights movement, the drafters of the Universal Declaration recognised the need to clearly define what freedom of religion is and what it entails.  The Universal Declaration states that such freedom includes the freedom to change one’s religion or belief and the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance, either alone or in community with others, either in the private sphere or in the public domain. This was also reaffirmed by the Human Rights Committee, the body that implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In its General Comment 22, the committee emphasised that the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another includes, by extension, the freedom not to practise any religion.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights elaborated these concepts by stipulating that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The convention outlines strict conditions for possible limitations to the enjoyment of freedom of religion.

In general, human rights law emphasizes the inter-relatedness and the interdependence of rights and freedoms.

Indeed, according to human rights law, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are mutually dependent and reinforcing. Freedom of religion cannot exist if freedom of expression is not respected.

Likewise, freedom of expression is essential to creating an environment in which a constructive—and sometimes critical—discussion about religious matters could be held. Indeed, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the pre-eminent intergovernmental human rights body, reaffirmed the positive role that freedom of expression and opinion plays in strengthening democracy, and combating racism and intolerance.

Free and critical evaluation in open debate is surely the soundest way to probe whether religious interpretations adhere to, or  whether they distort the original values that underpin religious belief.

IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH ABSOLUTE?
 
Freedom of speech is not absolute; human rights law allows for certain restrictions. These restrictions, however, are limited both in nature and in circumstance. They must be determined by law and should be applied cautiously in order not to jeopardize the enjoyment of rights.  Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that limitations may be invoked solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 20 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights explicitly forbids incitement to religious hatred.

The 1948 Genocide Convention goes further and lists “public incitement to commit genocide” among punishable acts. The Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as well as that of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, reiterate this provision of the Genocide Convention verbatim. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court upholds this provision and provides for liability for anyone who “directly and publicly incites others to commit the crime” of genocide.

The advocates and drafters of these conventions were painfully aware that hate speech, if not acted upon promptly, may create a threatening and discriminating environment for the followers of a religion who, consequently, may become afraid to openly express their beliefs.  Worse, they can be targeted for violence.

International law holds that incitement to hatred and violence are not acceptable forms of freedom of expression. When I presided over the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, we issued a judgment to that effect, known as the Media case which made the prohibition of incitement clear in respect of incitement to ethnic hatred and violence. Mutatis mutandis, the same principle applies to incitement to religious hatred.

This said, I hasten to add that opinions which criticise human interpretations of religious traditions or teachings, even when forcefully expressed, do not necessarily constitute incitement to religious hatred.  Every case must be examined on its own circumstances and specific context.  Absent such context and a factual basis grounded in international law, the demarcation line between freedom of expression and hate speech may become blurred.  It is for this reason that my Office will organise a series of expert workshops next year.  These consultations will take place in various regions to examine actual implementation of the prohibition of incitement to hatred.  Our goal is to enhance the understanding and implementation of such international obligation.

In addition, there is the risk that national laws against hate speech can be interpreted loosely or applied selectively.  As a result, many members of religious minorities suffer from discrimination, intolerance, and even violence.  This problem underlines the need of devising effective safeguards against all discriminatory practices.

COEXISTENCE IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The growing and ultimately enriching variety of backgrounds merging in communities around the world--physically or virtually through modern technology--also presents a mounting challenge to States as they seek to promote and ensure mutual respect, social harmony, equal opportunity and fairness of treatment for all.

Against this background, the demarcation between freedom of expression and hate speech, especially in relation to religious issues, has come increasingly under focus and has permeated debates at international human rights fora, as well as created friction among diverse communities.  The divergence of views around the concept of combating defamation of religions is instructive in this respect.  Some States regard this concept as key to protecting religion from attacks.  Others view it as potentially conducive to a curtailment of freedom of expression.

For its part, the Human Rights Committee has expressed concern regarding hate speech by political or prominent personalities, discrimination of persons of Muslim background, attacks against ethnic and religious minorities, or the publication of material prejudicial to followers of certain religions.

Let me also underscore that international jurisprudence characterises freedom of religion both as an individual and a collective right, but the law does not shield religions or beliefs as such from critical thinking with regard to its interpretation and application.  

Indeed, as we seek to protect deeply held religious beliefs and the profound sense of identity that they bestow upon their followers, we must also assert and protect the right to uphold and advocate contrary views that question mainstream thinking.  I believe such a balance is both needed and possible.

Of particular importance is the existence of a fully independent judiciary to ensure accountability for restrictions of freedom of expression as well as expressions of hate speech leading to violence and crime.

PROTECTING FREEDOMS: THE WORK OF HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS

It is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and religious persuasions or affiliation to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. In addition, it is incumbent upon all of us to promote tolerance to foster understanding for diversity, so that even contrasting views and convictions can be freely and respectfully expressed in the public arena.

Various initiatives on inter-religious and cross-cultural understanding remind us that we must never give in to impotence or simply exonerate ourselves from action, no matter how disheartened we may become when reading or hearing almost daily accounts of religious intolerance, discrimination or even persecution all over the world.

All too often, however, what captures headlines are the misunderstandings, frictions and conflicts, rather than the many instances of peaceful coexistence and mutual support among religions and belief systems.

Our own communities or those that exist next to us may be affected.  We know that our neighbours’ plight today can become our suffering tomorrow.  The UN human rights protection mechanisms are acutely aware of these risks and seek to expose and counter them. This is the main function of the treaty monitoring expert bodies (treaty bodies), as well as the independent experts of the Human Rights Council known as Special Rapporteurs.  Former Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir, the highly respected  independent expert on freedom of religion or belief, detailed allegations of human rights violations against Bahá’ís, Buddhists, Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and members of other religious or belief communities.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council bolsters the work of the independent expert mechanisms as it examines the human rights record of all UN Member States at regular intervals.  The UPR is another avenue for addressing issues of religious freedom.  This issue and related matters came up in reports and discussions regarding the vast majority of the countries reviewed, as they represent sources of concern worldwide.

The Human Rights Council is the premier intergovernmental body for the promotion and the protection of human rights, while my Office, as part of the UN Secretariat, is the leading international catalyst for the promotion and protection of human rights.

As the UN Secretary-General noted, since its creation in 1993, OHCHR has grown to become a powerful engine for change.   We seek to elevate the profile of human rights and peaceful coexistence everywhere.  In so doing, we cooperate with States and civil society. The OHCHR’s field presences in fifty-six countries, as well as the increasing and deepening interaction with UN agencies, provide additional layers of understanding of both general and local human rights conditions, and bolster the impact of our action.  In this part of the world, the Regional Office for the Middle East in Beirut works in 10 countries to promote human rights protection. The State of Qatar hosts another type of regional office which covers 25 countries in the region. It is called the United Nations Human Rights Training and Documentation Centre for South-West Asia and the Arab Region, situated in Doha, and it is tasked to undertake human rights training and documentation activities with a variety of partners in government, the UN, national human rights institutions and civil society. I encourage all human rights actors in the region to establish contact with these offices.

The promotion of dialogue within and among communities, as well as beyond national borders, and awareness-raising activities constitute some of OHCHR’s important tools which, combined with legal protection and safeguards, could create real paths towards equality of treatment and fairness in perceptions and actions.  

This is why we emphasise the need for human rights education not only in centres of learning such as this university, but in all schools and communities and at all levels.  We view this endeavour not only as the learning of human rights principles and the mechanisms for their protection, but also the acquisition of skills to make human rights a daily practice.  Indeed, the realization of the universal aspiration to peace, justice, human rights and social progress can only be attained if we all contribute to build a platform of equality, non-discrimination and tolerance.   

As I noted, in this pursuit we are the road companions of a variety of partners.  Several other UN entities are involved in activities fostering interreligious and intercultural dialogue.  These include UNESCO, the United Nations Population Fund and UNAIDS.  The General Assembly has held high-level meetings on interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation for peace.  The United Nations has also made 2010 the International Year on the Rapprochement of Cultures. 

Let me also draw your attention to another meritorious initiative of the UN Secretary-General, namely, the Alliance of Civilizations, which was created with the two-pronged purpose of fostering understanding and cooperative relations among nations and peoples across cultures and religions, and of countering the forces that fuel polarization and extremism. 

Crucially, a year ago the review conference of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance reached agreement on a Outcome Document which is of great relevance to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, as well as to harmonious interaction among diverse communities.  The document reaffirms the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and stresses its compatibility with existing international law that prohibits incitement to hatred.  This should help bridge the artificial divide on sensitive issues related to religions which could fuel a self-fulfilling prophecy of clashes of civilization.

The initiatives that I have just mentioned show that a number of mechanisms are already in place at the international level to address religious freedom and foster interreligious dialogue.  It is vital that religious issues are not used to fuel discrimination and violence, but rather to unite people and communities.  In this context, religious leaders should help find solutions for problems which affect all individuals, irrespective of their religion or belief.

Civil society’s activism provides and continues to represent the connective tissue between international initiatives and the reality on the ground.  These advocates don’t shy away from raising their voices loudly and courageously against injustice, and for their work they deserve not only our tacit support but also a concrete and vocal commitment to protect them.

On December 10, Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we will pay homage to the human rights defenders, including religious leaders, who are at the forefront of the fight against discrimination.

All of us, men and women of good will, States, international organizations, scholars and human rights defenders alike have one objective: to nurture a world of tolerance and mutual respect, to end discrimination and to embrace diversity.

We must take up the cause of the human rights of others because if we do not, we must accept that no one will speak up when our own rights are at risk.

Thank you very much.