Legal News

?Defamation of Religion? ? The New International Legal Craze?

By Dan Slater

There he is, unruly stache and all — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famous promoter of the marketplace of ideas, an oft-cited linchpin of First Amendment jurisprudence. As we’ve reported before, that marketplace doesn’t seem to be doing too well abroad. In France, actress Brigitte Bardot has racked up convictions for provoking racial hatred by writing that Muslims are destroying France. In Canada, Maclean’s, a leading newsweekly, is on trial for publishing an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatens Western values.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, photographed in 1900, served 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court and had the nickname the “Great Dissenter” because of his liberal views. (AP Photo)

Is liability for “defamation of religion” catching on? The United Nations hopes so, reports Maclean’s. (HT: Volokh Conspiracy) According to Maclean’s, Pakistan brought the first “defamation of religions” resolution, entitled “Defamation of Islam,” to the UN Human Rights Council in 1999. (The title was later changed to include all religions, notes Maclean’s, although the texts of all subsequent resolutions have continued to single out Islam.)

In March, the Islamic nations were successful in introducing a change to the mandate of the UN’s “special rapporteur on freedom of expression” (an official who travels the world investigating and reporting on censorship and violations of free speech) to now “report on instances where the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.” The issue, reports the magazine, is expected to be a focal point of the UN World Conference Against Racism next year in Geneva.

“Islamophobia is a problem,” said Angela Wu, the international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm. “But this is not a practical solution, and it destabilizes the human rights agenda.” Added Wu: “The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 04, 2008 (boomark / email).