Barry Duke, the Angry Atheist

Search

Search

1. 

   As someone who produced dozens of nativity plays as a teacher and a Sunday School leader, that title ‘A Gay…

2. 

   The defence of a Christian view never seems to be settled by debate: exchange of facts, reference to historical events.…

3. 

   But …… Rwanda is a safe place: Parliament says so.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/contentsSafety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 S 2 Safety…

4. 

   Religion can survive only on the most unquestionable assumptions. The statements made on Sundays on the BBC as if they…

5. 

   Yes, if I’ve got anything remotely like a phobia, as an ex-fundy, its bibles, churches, tracts etc. I like to…

MEMBERS of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) this week voted in favour of a resolution for the “deliberately and publicly” burning of the Quran or “any other holy book” to be prohibited by law.

The UK-based National Secular Society (NSS)—which, along with Humanists UK, played a key role in the abolition of blasphemy laws in England and Wales in 2008 reacted immediately to the vote. Its Chief Executive Stephen Evans said:

Equating the desecration of religious books and symbols with incitement to violence is a pernicious attempt to impose blasphemy laws by stealth. The Islamic nations behind this resolution have long been more interested in protecting religion than protecting individuals.

Speech and expression must be viewed in context. Crude attempts to impose blanket prohibitions clearly risk capturing and silencing legitimate expression and dissent.

He added:

Democratic societies must find ways to combat intolerance and hatred without further restricting freedom of expression to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious groups.

The UK voted against the resolution. In a statement the followed the vote, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said:

We do not accept that, by definition, attacks on religion, including on religious texts or symbols, constitute advocacy for hatred.

Other states opposed to the motion included France, Germany and the USA, but they were outvoted 28 to 12.

The resolution follows a high profile incident in Sweden last month, when Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika burned a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm.

Momika is an atheist formerly from Iraq’s persecuted minority Christian community.

The resolution was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has long supported efforts to curtail “blasphemous” speech.

The OIC is an intergovernmental organisation of 57 states and claims to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world”.

Although it stopped explicitly campaigning for a global blasphemy law in 2011, it has repeatedly spearheaded attempts to install “backdoor” blasphemy laws.

The resolution passed was amended to include the explicit provision that burning the Quran and other holy books should be banned. The original resolution did not include this statement.

The NSS reported that allegations of Quran desecration are regularly used in Islamic theocracies to persecute members of minority communities.

Image via YouTube

During the debate on OIC’s resolution, the UK’s representative to the UN Simon Manley, above, said some members of the OIC:

The exercise of the right to freedom of expression is not unlimited. But it is something we hold dear, and which can only be limited under very clear, narrowly defined parameters under international human rights law.

UNHRC resolutions are not legally binding, but can be used to pressure states to change their laws.

Humanists UK points out that, although blasphemy laws in England and Wales no longer exist, censorship on the basis of religious offence is still a problem.

We see particular problems with censorship of adverts for causing ‘religious offence’ by the Advertising Standards Authority.

It pointed out that blasphemy laws remain in force in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as in many other parts of the world.

Humanist UK said:

Blasphemy laws are a violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression, and are used around the world as a means of harassing, victimising, and discriminating against religion and belief minorities, and therefore impede the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Please help me keep The Angry Atheist going with a donation.