Memorandum submitted by the British Humanist
Association
ABOUT THE
BRITISH HUMANIST
ASSOCIATION
The British Humanist Association (BHA) is the
principal organisation representing the interests of the large
and growing population of ethically concerned but non-religious
people living in the UK. It exists to support and represent people
who seek to live good and responsible lives without religious
or superstitious beliefs. It is committed to human rights and
democracy, and has a long history of active engagement in work
for an open and inclusive society.
The BHA's policies are informed by its members,
who include eminent authorities in many fields, and by other specialists
and experts who share humanist values and concerns. The BHA itself
is deeply committed to human rights and advocates an open and
inclusive society in which individual freedom of belief and speech
are supported by a policy of disinterested impartiality on the
part of the government and official bodies towards the many groups
within society so long as they conform to the minimum conventions
of the society.
INTRODUCTION
We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence
to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office Human Rights Annual Report 2007[7].
In this memorandum, we take the opportunity to focus on one area
covered by the FCO report specifically—that of the UN Human
Rights Council (HRC). We have serious concerns that the HRC has
been dominated by undemocratic, political and religious interests,
and that the HRC is no longer fit for purpose. We contend that,
following an amendment to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur
on Freedom of Expression, that the HRC now sanctions serious restrictions
on freedom of expression and belief.
SUMMARY
— We are convinced that the HRC is
no longer fit for purpose.
— We believe that the recent amendment
to the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression's terms of
reference are an affront to the very notion of human rights and
prove that the HRC is no longer fit for purpose.
— We cannot see how the present structure
of the HRC can allow it to fulfil its mandate.
— We urge the Foreign Affairs Committee
to recommend that the UK concert with other democratic nations
an agreed policy, first of attempting to bar from membership of
the HRC any nation that has not ratified without reservation the
key human rights instruments, and second (supposing the first
action fails) of simultaneous withdrawal from the HRC accompanied
by the creation of an independent human rights monitoring body.
THE WORKINGS
AND STRUCTURE
OF THE
UN HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
As noted in the FCO report, the HRC should be
as "open, effective and non-political as possible" (p45).
However, as is also discussed in the FCO report, due in particular
to the domination of the HRC by the Organisation of the Islamic
Conference bloc, the HRC is neither open nor effective, and it
is highly politicised. Indeed, the FCO report makes clear a number
of times that the focus of the HRC thus far has often been narrow
in scope, concentrating on particular issues of interest to the
alliance of Islamic countries in biased and punitive ways.
As the FCO report details, since the HRC's establishment
in 2006, much of the involvement of the UK and other EU member
states with the HRC has been in attempting to counter the disproportionate
and highly political aims of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
bloc. This is clearly counter-productive and counter-intuitive
to the very reason for having an international institution for
the protection and promotion of human rights, which must be balanced,
effective, united and impartial. The HRC's predecessor, the UN
Commission on Human Rights, had to be replaced after being similarly
subverted by Islamic interests. We consider that the HRC is no
longer fit for purpose.
FAILURE OF
THE UN HUMAN
RIGHTS COUNCIL
TO UPHOLD
AND PROMOTE
FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN
RIGHTS
As detailed in the FCO report, the EU has continually
fought attempts made by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
bloc and its allies to restrict freedom of expression and freedom
of belief, especially in the context of proposals to restrict
and outlaw the defamation of religion. The freedom to criticise
beliefs is a fundamental human right, as enshrined in the principles
of freedom of expression and speech.
At an HRC meeting on 28 March 2008, a resolution
to continue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression, Ambeyi Ligabo, was moved by Canada. The special rapporteur
recently submitted to the HRC a report on violations of press
freedom which included a statement that the limitations to freedom
in existing human rights instruments "were designed in order
to protect individuals against direct violations of their rights.
These limitations are not intended to suppress the expression
of critical views, controversial opinions or politically incorrect
statements. Finally, they are not designed to protect belief systems
from... criticism".
However, an amendment was moved and carried
by an alliance of Islamic governments and allies including China,
Russia and Cuba, to his terms of reference to oblige him in future
"to report on instances in which the abuse of the right of
freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious
discrimination ...". In diplomatic language, this warns him
off defending the freedom of speech of anyone critical of Islam.
In the debate it was further suggested that limiting freedom of
speech was a way of avoiding violence by Islamic extremists.
A news release from the Organisation of the
Islamic Conference referring to the amendment states:
"The OIC attaches great importance to freedom
of expression and opinion. It believes that the right to freedom
of expression forms the bedrock for the exercise of all fundamental
rights. However, it firmly believes that rights carry with them
certain responsibilities. These should not be abused to achieve
negative objectives. Insults and defamation of religions and holy
books cannot be justified on the pretext of freedom of expression.
They undermine the principles and purposes of the UN Charter to
promote friendly relations amongst nations. The OIC regrets that
in recent years certain individuals and organizations have abused
this right to malign and insult specific races and religions.
Such acts constitute violations of Article 3 & 4 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
and Article 19 & 20 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights that prohibit any advocacy of racial or religious
hatred. In this connection, the OIC, once again, condemns printing
of insulting caricatures and making of hate documentaries against
Islam and Muslims.
The OIC also stresses the responsibility of States
to curb this trend. Incitement to hatred on religious and racial
ground and defamation of religions by individuals, groups or State
must not be tolerated"[8].
Following from this outrageous abuse on human
rights, now mandated by the HRC, it is clear that the role of
the HRC has been compromised and is no longer fit for purpose.
The HRC cannot be considered as able to fulfil its obligations
to uphold human rights, nor to work to protect against abuses
of human rights by individual member states in an open, balanced
and impartial way.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is clear that before the UK or any other
EU member state participates in the HRC, at the minimum there
needs to be serious reform of the structure, membership and workings
of the HRC.
We urge the Foreign Affairs Committee to recommend
that the UK Government concert with other democratic nations an
agreed policy to tackle this disastrous situation.
An initial attempt may be advisable to seek
an agreement in line with the UK and EU's position as set out
in the FCO report, that there are expected standards of membership
of the Council and that no state guilty of systematic violations
of human rights should serve on the Council (p51). Such violations
must include severe restrictions on freedom of expression and
belief, such as punishments, including physical punishment, incarceration
and the death penalty, for the defamation of religion or apostasy—penalties
common across some of the member states of the Organisation of
the Islamic Conference bloc where these basic human rights are
illegal and criminalised. At the very least, no nation that has
not ratified without reservation the key human rights instruments
should be allowed membership of the HRC.
If, given the power structure within the UN,
this attempt fails, we would suggest simultaneous withdrawal from
the HRC by all democratic nations committed to human rights. A
Human Rights Council without the support of any of the democracies
would be a laughing stock and able to do less damage than it can
at present. It would cease to serve the purposes it now serves
for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and in due course
it might be possible to reclaim it for human rights. This drastic
action should be accompanied by the creation of an independent
human rights monitoring body.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the problems associated with
the domination of the HRC by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
bloc and their allies as recognised in the FCO report have not
only become more severe since the FCO report was published in
2007, but that there is no future for the HRC without serious
and immediate reform of its workings, structure and membership.
We recommend that the Foreign Affairs Committee
scrutinise the HRC and the UK's involvement in and with it, as
part of its inquiry into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human
Rights Annual Report 2007.
April 2008
7 Hereafter the report is referred to as the "FCO
report" Back
8
Organisation of the Islamic Conference, "The OIC supports
the function of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
and Opinion". News release, 20/04/2008. http://tinyurl.com/6krod6 Back
| 
