The Values of Freedom of Expression and of Freedom of Religion or Belief as Protected by the United Nations in Postmodern Society
by John B. Taylor
Laws and punishments are not the only ways of ensuring respect for fundamental freedoms. A change of attitude can bring new life to values prescribed by religions and human rights principles.
One of the main features of postmodernism since the 1970s is its deliberate rejection of values. In terms of their critique or abandonment of all claims to absolute truth, whether by religion or reason, postmodernists have merged reality and image, fact and fiction, in a form of meaningless, value-free culture that can, at worst, leave us with little more than materialism and hedonism. In response to such a potential moral and philosophical void, one must reaffirm the values expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
There is a profound interconnectedness between the right to freedom of expression, so dear to the postmodernists, and the right to freedom of religion or belief, which many postmodernists usually ignore. These two fundamental freedoms are also among the issues that have provided the most challenging and fruitful agenda items for the dialogue of cultures, which should be engaging adherents of both religious and secular worldviews.
The last twenty years have been a time to take stock of how optimistic expectations of material development and political independence have often been eroded by structural injustices in economics and governance, but also by a moral and ethical vacuum that can be found on every continent. It has been a time for partners in dialogue to be self-critical that they have too often done too little too late, and have been settling for a stale coexistence. Dialogue calls for active cooperation more than for theoretical comparisons.
This article is written from the perspective of having served since 2001 as the representative of the International Association for Religious Freedom (IARF) at the United Nations, Geneva. The hundred-year-long tradition of the IARF, with its self-critical commitment to practicing and protecting "belief with integrity," has involved me in making contributions to many difficult issues, ranging from responsible use of freedom of expression to preventive educational measures to overcome intolerance.
1. Freedom of Expression
It may seem strange to start with the example of freedom of expression as a positive value for our times. Abuse and irresponsible use of this fundamental freedom by journalists, novelists, politicians, and religious leaders have created deep tensions, caused great hurt, and even led to violent reactions. All communities of religion or belief have suffered, and those who have caused the pain have themselves come from a wide spectrum of religious and secular traditions.
The publication in 1988 of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses (1988) is a prime example of postmodernism. While many defended his right to use satire to pose existential questions about the authority of scripture, there was disgust at what seemed his tasteless fantasizing, which ranged from midair passenger plane explosions to the domestic life of the prophet Muhammad. Many criticisms were made by those who had not read the book; I had to overcome great reluctance to read it, only to find my own prejudices confirmed, in that the book titillated rather than stimulated and was calculated to inhibit rather than challenge discussion about perceptions of truth, as some of its defenders claimed for it.
Death threats are more repellent than lack of literary taste or cultural sensitivity, but the controversy has also revealed phobias and prejudices on both sides. This debate has lasted for nearly twenty years and has overshadowed memories of Rushdie's brilliant earlier work about communal violence, Midnight's Children, as well as deterring many from discovering his charming and subtle later works like Haroun and the Sea of Stories or Shalimar the Clown.
In September 2006 deep distress was caused, not only to Muslims but to many others, by an insensitive and inept comment from the lips of Pope Benedict XVI. Many moderate Muslims condemned in the same breath the one who caused the offense as well as those Muslims who overreacted with violent threats or actions. However, it was not only the unexplained quotation of harsh medieval polemic that caused offense but also an argumentation that co-opted reason as a peculiarly Christian heritage and ignored the vital contribution of Muslims to stimulating the whole debate about reason in medieval Europe.
These incidents should create a desire to seek to define rather than censor freedom of expression and to see that it is a right that should be enjoyed responsibly without provoking offense and stimulating violent reaction. Moderate individuals, whether secular or religious, may need to acknowledge that they sometimes have double standards and tolerate insults to Muslims that they would, belatedly and rightly, never permit against Jews or others. The defenders of free speech may concentrate on condemning the violent anger of a few Muslim extremists while ignoring the pain carried silently by the majority of moderate Muslims.
There is a vicious circle, often a spiral of violence, whereby fear and insecurity, a sense of humiliation, and loss of dignity, can lead individuals or states to justify the use of violent reaction or repression as revenge or preemptive action against more violence. Even those who consider themselves moderates can be caught up in a wave of outrage and revulsion--not only after terrorist attacks but also after disproportionate state responses. Public outrage and violent reactions have been provoked on both sides, not only by political events and policies, but also by misuse of freedom of expression.
Neither freedom of expression nor freedom of religion or belief is an absolute freedom that overrides other freedoms, rights, and responsibilities. What is perceived as satire or caricature in one culture can appear as scandalous and gratuitously wounding slander or blasphemy in another culture. One of the responsibilities of global citizenship is to consider how modern communications can reach a much wider audience than the author intended, thereby leading the author to respect a wide range of cultural sensitivities.
Many societies rightly legislate against intentional incitement to racial hatred but see apology as a more appropriate response than censorship when unintentional hurt is caused by irresponsible use of freedom of expression. When apology is refused or is insincere, public opinion may be the arbiter and individuals may decide not to read a certain book or newspaper or see a particular film, play, or opera. An author or director may be seeking to transmit a serious message, which could include a criticism or rejection of religious values, but if he or she offends public taste, that message may be lost. If the intention is merely to shock or titillate, then the person must allow others to express their disgust and failure to be amused. Decisions by those responsible for a public order to ban a defamatory book or to shut down an offensive production may be dictated not so much by the fear of violent reprisals as by the desire to demonstrate that rights entail responsibilities.
2. Freedom of Religion or Belief
The second value, which is a central concern of the United Nations and of the IARF, especially in the face of the challenges of postmodernism, is the reaffirmation of the right to freedom of religion or belief, noting that belief may well be secular, agnostic, or atheist. This argues for going beyond confrontation and conflict between religious and secular worldviews and for a recognition that all must exercise their freedom to hold to their religion or belief without denying that right to others.
More than twenty-five years ago, on November 25, 1981, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. However, there has been too often, not least in Europe, inconsistency in affording to all communities the protection offered by the 1981 declaration and by the fundamental rights specified in 1948 in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That article reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
One of the special procedures that has been developed by the United Nations for ensuring that such international principles are adhered to is the appointment of experts named "special rapporteurs"; some forty such appointments have been made, including those for the mandates on freedom of expression and also on freedom of religion or belief. The last two special rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief have been Muslims: Professor Abdelfattah Amor from Tunisia and Ms. Asma Jahangir from Pakistan. Both have been scrupulously fair and impartial in the reports that they have compiled for successive meetings of the Commission on Human Rights and now the newly appointed Human Rights Council.
The work of the IARF with the independent expert appointed as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief started when many governments and NGOs encouraged the deeper analysis of a survey that the rapporteur had commissioned in the early 1990s in order to determine the extent of provision of religious and interreligious education in schools in some eighty countries. This study contributed to the convening of a consultative conference held in Madrid in November 2001 on creating a preventive strategy through school education against all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.
In the aftermath of 9/11 it was clear that ignorance of other religions and cultures lay behind many violent actions and reactions. A firm consensus was reached that the teaching of tolerance should be promoted, and this consensus was approved by the 2002 sessions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly. The teaching of tolerance was seen as being no less relevant in those countries that forbade religious teaching as in countries that prescribed such teaching. Tolerance was defined not as passive or grudging toleration but as a dynamic value that must be implemented, in the words of the preamble to the United Nations Charter, signed in 1945, as a determination "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors."
As part of the follow-up to the Madrid Conference, some nongovernmental organizations took particular initiatives. As an IARF representative at the United Nations in Geneva, I was able to invite Muslim and Christian educators to meet in Geneva in June 2002 on the theme "Religious Principles and Educational Methods for Muslims and Christians to Protect and Promote Freedom of Religion and Belief." We first reviewed scriptural and traditional bases for religious tolerance and then shared experiences of different approaches to religious education and education in other disciplines. We acknowledged the frequent failings and misuse of religious education but also affirmed that religious education in terms of learning about and learning from each other has great potential for preventing intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.
We agreed on principles of seeking the self-fulfillment of the student, the avoidance of imposing value judgments, and the adoption of openness and critical enquiry combined with respect for people's beliefs and rights. We proposed that in teaching one's own faith, the wider context of religious pluralism be taken seriously; that textbooks be fair and balanced; that teachers be trained adequately; and that various methods including role-playing, visits to places of worship, and the use of audiovisual materials and modern media be developed. We urged that parents and local communities be involved in relevant and sensitive religious education. Similar meetings to follow up Madrid were held by the IARF with Hindus and Buddhists from India and Sri Lanka, with adherents of African religions in South Africa, and with Amerindians in Costa Rica.
Rights imply responsibilities, notably to honor and protect the rights of one's neighbors in the world. This does not imply a conditional attitude, requiring reciprocity, but may rather invite people to active tolerance--not just passive toleration--and lead to the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination. There are those who would like to press for a morally and legally binding United Nations Convention on the Freedom of Religion or Belief, but it is not clear whether such a convention would go beyond or fall short of the Universal Declaration or the 1981 declaration.
It is paradoxical that both of those declarations were achieved at a time of determnedly atheistic policies in many parts of the world, whereas, in the present climate of reaffirmed religious and cultural identities, there are strong pressures of religious conservatism that might undermine existing international standards. It may, therefore, be more strategic to concentrate on educational methods and spiritual attitudes that seek to turn back ignorance and arrogance, prejudice and stigmatization, phobias and acts of intolerance, and discrimination.
In order to create conditions in which freedom of religion or belief can be enjoyed and to eliminate all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, it is necessary to have good religious education: education about one's own tradition, education about the traditions of others, and an openness to learn from religion, both from its positive values and sometimes from the failings of its followers. One of the main obstacles that stand in the way of such learning is the sometimes irrational fear of what is different or unfamiliar.
Islamophobia, Christianophobia, and other such phenomena hurt the objects of the phobia or hostility, but they can also paralyze those who express the phobia. Both victim and perpetrator can be blocked from seeking constructive solutions to the fears, tensions, and suspicions that separate them. While some forms of antidiscrimination may call for acts of legislation or for international resolutions, it may be counterproductive to press for punitive action when educational energies and dialogical encounters may provide better solutions.
Legislation, whether in Turkey, Tunisia, or France, or political pronouncements, whether in Britain or Australia, that seek to forbid or to restrict the wearing of religious dress, notably head scarves by schoolgirls or full veils by Muslim women, have often had the reverse effect of their intended encouragement of integration or facilitation of professional opportunity for immigrant women; they have instead led to the increased wearing of such head coverings, whether to affirm religious loyalty, cultural identity, class status, or what the wearer may feel to be female dignity and self-respect.
Conversely, repressive or punitive legislation in some Islamic countries, or pressure by parents to require or enforce dress codes, can also infringe fundamental freedoms; nor is it acceptable when a teacher puts her own insistence upon complete veiling ahead of her professional duty to put first the interests of the children who need to see her face.
Laws and punishments are not the only ways of ensuring respect for fundamental freedoms. It is a change of attitudes that can bring new life to values that are prescribed by our religions and by international human rights principles. The change from phobias to dialogue and respect will come through education, through regular meeting and cooperation, and from spiritual renewal. Postmodernism cannot destroy values that compose the very identity of our respective and our common civilizations.
John B. Taylor studied and taught Islamics at Cambridge University, the University of the Punjab, McGill University, the University of Birmingham, and Harvard University. After ten years as secretary-general of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, and six years with the Conference of European Churches, Dr. Taylor has served since 2001 as the representative of the International Association for Religious Freedom at the United Nations Office at Geneva.
This article was originally published in the July-September 2007 issue of Dharma World.
Home
Copyright (C) 1997-2008 by Kosei Publishing
Co.
All rights reserved.
Privacy
Policy
