Statement of Angela Wu for the Durban Review conference

Mar 26, 2009

U.N. Sub-Committee for the Elimination of Racism sponsored the Global Movement Against Racism in Support of the Durban Conference Program, which took place in New York City March 26, 2009, in the ECOSOC Chamber of the United Nations Building.

First of all, I apologize that I cannot be here with you all today.  I was very much looking forward to this discussion, and to learning from these distinguished panelists.  My colleague Bani Dugal has been kind enough to offer to read a statement of what I might have said had I been here.

I think we can all agree that the issue of racism is an extremely important one in the world today.  Despite the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi, racism is still ever-present. We must make sure in our discussion here today and as we prepare for the significant Durban Review Conference, that we focus on racism.

It is therefore unfortunate that the concept referred to as “combating the defamation of religions” has consistently been brought up in the context of the Durban process. Religious discrimination does often coincide with acts of racism, but we must distinguish between that sociological occurrence and the conflation of legal protections against racism and religious discrimination.

The conflation of race and religion diminishes the uniqueness of both race and religion.  Race is something we simply can’t change.  It is not something we chose or are able to alter.  Religion on the other hand, even as it has communal and public expression and purpose, is something that exists in the forum internum and calls to choices of the conscience.  Treating racial and religious discrimination as the same thing confuses racist hate speech with discussion of -- sometimes controversial -- truth claims.  Whereas one can easily identify and narrowly define racist hate speech, it is not nearly so simple to define what falls into the category of "defamation of religion," which can include any controversial truth claim the powerful do not like.

For those who may not be familiar with this concept, the issue of “defamation of religions” was not addressed as such at the first Durban Conference, but it has been an issue raised annually by the Organisation for the Islamic Conference at the Human Rights Council since 1999 and here at the General Assembly since 2005.  Just a couple hours ago, my colleague in Geneva reported back to me that the resolution has passed once again today.  These resolutions have sought to address a very real problem of religious discrimination, in particular against Muslims.  But you will note that this resolution began long before the Danish Cartoon debate and even before the tragic events of September 11th.  When it was first proposed, the resolution was entitled “Combating the Defamation of Islam.”  However, “Defamation” laws do not protect Islam or any religion or philosophy or idea for that matter.  They protect the people who hold those ideas.  The believer, the artist, the poet, even the ideologue.  Not the belief or the art or the poems -- or the ideology.

The criminalization of peaceful religious speech is being used around the world to advance political agendas. The abuse of anti-blasphemy and anti-defamation of religions laws in countries around the world only silences those who do not agree with the majority.

Most of this conversation should take place within the context of incitement to religious violence.  Here I am in agreement with the High Commissioner on Human Rights and a host of Special Rapporteurs, including the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, the Special Rapporteur on Racism, and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.  We must not create overly broad laws that criminalize peaceful speech.  We already have the tools we need to address issues of religious conflict because of existing provisions in international law on incitement to hatred and to violence.  The defamation of religion movement serves no purpose but to undermine the entire human rights system by protecting ideas instead of people -- the very people, dissenters among powerful majority voices, whom human rights were designed to protect.

After threats of boycott and a great deal of conflict, the newest Durban text has deleted its references to “defamation of religions.”

A host of other interests similarly divisive were introduced at Durban I, which lead Australia to declare afterwards that "far too much of the time at the conference [had been] consumed by bitter divisive exchanges on issues which have done nothing to advanc ethe cause of combating racism."  The problem of racism today is too important for the conflation with religion to enter into it and water down the power that a Durban II focused on real issues can have.  One of the greatest challenges we will have is to make sure that work against racism at Durban II will not be derailed by other agendas.

I thank the Sub-Committeee for the Elimination of Racism for this opportunity to contribute and am eager to continue this important dialogue.

For any inquiries, please contact: awu@becketfund.org