Blashphemy regulations not up to par, U.N. rep says

International and national resolutions passed to protect certain religious groups from blasphemy restrict an individual’s freedom of expression, a former United Nations representative said.

Writer and former representative of the Center for Inquiry at the U.N. Austin Dacey spoke to about 20 students in the College of Arts and Sciences building in an event organized by the student group Humanists of Boston University. The link between human rights and religious defamation has garnered increasing attention in the international political arena as the U.N. and individual governments intervene in laws concerning freedom of expression.

Dacey began the lecture with a discussion of blasphemy’s historical evolution, from the ancient Israelites’ definition of the idea as a verbal crime, to generalized heresy punishable by death in medieval times, to political treason.

“What do we do when one faith is no longer synonymous with society?” Dacey asked the audience.

In June 2008, at a meeting of the Human Rights Council of the U.N., representatives from Egypt, Pakistan and Iran used procedural tactics to block David Littman, a human rights activist, from speaking about Islamic laws violation.

The violations concerned treatment of women, and went against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established by the U.N. in 1948.

Dacey said the Council agreed to repudiate any discussion of the issue due to its religious implications, and this action is neither new nor unique in the realm of international law.New resolutions passed to limit religious discrimination also limit freedom of expression, such as an Irish bill passed in 2009 outlawing blasphemy, Dacey said.

“The ostensible motivation for such resolutions that attempt to curtail religious bigotry and discrimination is understandable but strikingly redundant, for the rights of people of faith are already protected under current laws,” he said, arguing that criminalizing offensive speech has proven to accomplish little in decreasing it.

Dacey called into question the validity of placing legal defamation in a religious context, and said the victims of malicious speech here are religious figures, such as the prophet Muhammad, who are not alive and thus cannot be harmed.

Resolutions, allowed by the U.N. and enacted by national governments, seem to be protecting religious beliefs themselves, and “ideas do not have rights under international law, individuals do,” Dacey said.

“These laws have grave consequences and pose a threat to human rights,” Dacey said, noting that Pakistan already has harsh consequences, such as imprisonment, for what is deemed to be blasphemy that it uses to persecute religious minorities.

Using the U.S. Constitution as an example of justly addressing free speech, Dacey said only words meant to provoke hatred and violence in a public place are punishable by law.

He advocates that governments model legal language after the First Amendment, not by creating special protections for religious groups.

“Believers are obligated to accept a certain degree of public scrutiny,” he said, talking about the distinction between respecting people and never offending them. “Offense is not a coherent foundation for a system of law.”

Dacey said he travels the country to speak students because students are “the great blasphemers’ and enjoy the fruits of an open society.

“I want to remind people that blaspheming is a democratic virtue and a freedom not enjoyed in many parts of the world,” he said.

Coordinators John McCargar and Tim Martinez believe these discussions are very important.

“It’s part of the college experience [to constantly question] what we consider to be right,” McCargar said.

“We should constantly be having this discussion about what constitutes a legitimate society and human rights,” Martinez said.

CAS student Catherine Elia said she found the lecture to be a good learning experience.

“It was very interesting how blasphemy is playing into the religious and secular world,” she said.