Search

This article ventures into the contentious question of whether the denial of historical atrocities is per se removed from the protection of freedom of expression and the related question if states may under international human rights law proactively combat, through criminal legislation ('memory laws'), such types of extreme speech. In so doing, the article compares and contrasts approaches employed by the UN Human Rights Committee that monitors the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with that of the European Court of Human Rights, regional watchdog of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are shifting--though not quite in converging directions. The article makes a case for a contextual rather than exclusively content-based approach. An approach in which the question of 'likelihood of harm being done to the targeted group' is guiding, best resonates with the necessity principle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article questions to what extent international human rights monitoring bodies succeed in making use of the existing structures to deal with emerging challenges of extreme speech, such as the interplay between freedom of expression and religious sensitivities in pluralist societies. It talks about an approach that has been taken by the European Court of Human Rights to religious expression cases. It also looks at the role of the prohibition of advocacy of religious hatred.

Blasphemy is a serious wrongdoing in all monotheistic world religions. Blasphemy prohibitions have been brought into being and enforced so as to protect the dominant religion specifically. Religions as such, however, are not protected by international human rights law. Human rights law protects and empowers people: every person has the right to freedom of religion or belief Human rights law does not recognise a right to have one's religion or belief at all times exempted from criticism, ridicule or insult, or a right, in other words, to respect for one's religious feelings. The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right as it carries with it special duties and responsibilities. This right can be restricted on the basis of certain grounds for limitation; however, the interest of 'religion' as such is not among those grounds. In this article it is argued that contrary to popular belief the two rights, though very much interdependent, do not in abstracto 'clash'. Moreover, with a view toward optimally guaranteeing human rights law in actual practice, the two rights do as a rule not need to be balanced - for it is precisely when the two rights are balanced without a legal necessity to do so that human rights law is undermined. The broader intent of this article is to present a human rights- based assessment of blasphemy prohibitions and counter-defamation (of religions) initiatives. Rather than focussing on strategies to counter defamation of religions, we should concentrate on and deal with practices that actually threaten individual human rights; that is to say, we should more effectively tackle the issue of advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report presents the proceedings of the 25th Anniversary Commemoration of the adoption of the 1981 UN Declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, which was held in Prague, Czech Republic on the 25th of November 2006. e focus of this event was on the merits of this Declaration as well as on the challenges as experienced over the past 25 years, the current key issues and obstacles as to its implementation and—whilst drawing on this document—the desired way forward: how to ensure compliance with everyone's right to freedom of religion or belief world-wide? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]