Statement by His Excellency Iyad Ameen Madani, Secretary General of the OIC at the 4th Istanbul Process Meeting on the follow-up of Implementation of HRC Resolution 16/18

Date: 24/03/2014

His Excellency Dr. Ibrahim Alnaimi, Chairman Doha International Centre for Interfaith Dialogue, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, It is with great pleasure that I participate in this Fourth Round of the Istanbul Process Meeting on the implementation of Res 16/18 and want to sincerely thank the government of Qatar and the Doha International Centre for Interfaith Dialogue for hosting this event. In today’s increasingly interconnected world, where fast flow of information and human migration has transformed socio-cultural boundaries, religious intolerance and incitement is a recipe for disaster. Combating religious discrimination and intolerance, therefore, remains a formidable challenge of our times. If not addressed squarely, such intolerance will have serious repercussions for the unity, stability and coherence of our societies. Its long term impact on the multi-cultural fabric of current international order as well as regional and international peace and security are even more problematic. One of the contemporary manifestations of such intolerance is Islamophobia, which constitutes a matter of vital concern at the OIC. Recent manifestations of this menace have resulted in scores of killings and human sufferings in Central African Republic and Myanmar. Distinguished Participants, For over a decade the OIC sought to maximize protection for religious minorities by introducing a specific UN resolution on “combating defamation of religions”. First introduced in 1999, the resolution was adopted by consensus but gradually lost support, mainly from Western countries, on the grounds that it: a) unduly limits freedom of expression; b) seeks to protect religions or set of beliefs instead of individuals and communities; and c) focuses mainly on Muslims and Islam. Over the years, discussion on this resolution became overtly intense and controversial, which led to a gradual decrease in support of this resolution both at the Human Rights Council (HRC) and the UN General Assembly and marginalized the whole debate of Islamophobia and religious intolerance. In order to make progress on this subject, the OIC embarked on a different approach by approaching the issue from the lens of existing human rights law. At the 15th Session of the HRC, the OIC Secretary General outlined an Eight-point approach for action at the national and international levels, aimed at addressing the issue of religious intolerance. The US Secretary of State, in acknowledging the importance of the eight points towards building a consensus asserted that “it is time to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and pursue a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs”. The positive momentum to address the issue of combating religious intolerance was duly reflected in a new OIC sponsored resolution on the subject, commonly known as Res. 16/18, which was adopted by consensus at the 16th session of the HRC in March 2011. Res 16/18 provides for various substantive, administrative, political and legislative actions to be taken at the national and international levels to address the concerns relating to freedom of religion or incitement to hatred and discrimination. Since then the resolution has been adopted by consensus both in the HRC and UNGA sessions every year. In July 2011, the OIC Secretary General along with former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, held a meeting in Istanbul on the subject of combating intolerance, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence on the basis of religion or belief. Foreign Ministers and officials from 28 countries from around the world and international organizations as well as the EU High Representative were invited to participate. The joint statement issued at the end of the Istanbul meeting called upon all relevant stakeholders across the world to take seriously the call for action set forth in Res 16/18; and to continue to strengthen the foundations of tolerance and respect for religious diversity as well as enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world. The Istanbul meeting was a timely initiative and was dubbed the Istanbul Process. It aims at ensuring a sustained and structured process of engagement with a view to following up on the implementation of Res 16/18. The process provides for a three pronged approach namely: conducting a series of events at multiple venues, to discuss and assess implementation of Res 16/18, at the level of experts; reporting to the HRC through the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, based on the findings of experts as reached through the process of technical engagement; and monitoring the implementation of resolution 16/18 by the HRC through the available reporting mechanisms. The implementation of events held under the framework of the Istanbul process lies in developing a better understanding of stakeholder’s different perspectives, interests and concerns and accordingly devising a suitable plan of action based on positive and effective good practices shared in these meetings. Distinguished Participants, To date, three Expert Meetings have been held under this Process, respectively hosted by the United States, in Washington D.C., in December 2011, the United Kingdom, in association with Canada, in Wilton Park, London in December 2012 and the OIC, in Geneva, in June 2013. During the First meeting in Washington, the focus was prohibiting discrimination based on religion or belief and training government officials, including on how to implement effective outreach to religious communities. Discussion focused mainly on the need to ensure appropriate training of relevant government officials to tackle the issue of discrimination as well as appropriate popular awareness raising on the right to seek legal recourse against religious intolerance and discrimination. It was emphasized that effective national security policy and protection of human rights were mutually reinforcing and that profiling based on religion or ethnicity not only violates human rights, but also provides a false sense of security. The Second meeting, held in Wilton Park, United Kingdom, also focused on specific points of the Action Plan and interalia highlighted the importance of a) sharing available best practices to counter incitement; b) regular reporting to the HRC on steps taken by governments to effectively implement Res. 16/18; c) speaking out by the political and religious leaders against intolerance; d) using the freedom of expression positively to combat intolerance; and e) education as central to promoting inclusion and combating intolerance. The Third Expert meeting, hosted by the OIC, focused on concrete action points namely “Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”; “Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief”; and “Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels, can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence”. Today’s meeting, hosted by Qatar is a succession of these meetings under the Istanbul Process. It would have been more in line with the previous meetings, if this meeting had taken the same route to dwell on effective implementation of one or more of the agreed points of its Action Plans. Nevertheless, enhancing channels for dialogue, in particular interfaith collaboration goes with the aim of combating religious discrimination and fostering tolerant and equal societies. Resolution 16/18 also acknowledges that open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence. Through these meetings the OIC aims to initiate discussion on defining clearly the bounds of hate speech or acts that may fall under that category because there is a clear divergence of views on this important subject between two main convictions. There are those who are ready to speak out against intolerance and discrimination but are clearly not ready to determine the threshold between freedom of expression and hate speech and least to even discuss its criminalization. Lack of such clarity or even an effort to delineate or discuss this important shortcoming continues to be a source of concern for many. Consensus on Res. 16/18 would thus remain fragile unless it stands the test of full and effective implementation through open and candid discussions to determine where freedom of expression ends and incitement to religious hatred begins. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right. OIC’s position is firmly grounded in Article 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provide clear limitations, including the duty of the State to prohibit by law, “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. In this spirit, the OIC has been active in engaging in constructive debates at the international level to further delineate boundaries between the free speech and the hate speech, including incitement to violence. It is also important to highlight that OIC has always upheld the principle of openly discussing all ideas, values or beliefs in an environment of tolerance and respect. Its position on the need to protect the sanctity of religions and their symbols is not to accord exceptional protection to a particular set of values, but to avoid defamatory stereotyping and insults that result in negative profiling of their adherents and lead to undue discrimination, hostility and violence against them. Distinguished Participants, Islam like other religions recognizes the role of critical thinking. However, there must be a distinction between criticism or constructive discussion, which is a legitimate part of freedom of expression, and sheer disrespect, defamation, insult and negative stereotyping that falls into the category of inciting religious hatred. This is a very important aspect of the larger discourse that requires careful consideration. In many societies religious convictions or spiritual values constitute an essential part of individuals’ daily lives and is the backbone of their individual and communitarian identities. Hence, an attack on their religion or disrespect of their religious beliefs is an attack on their individual and collective identity and dignity. It is essential to draw a line between free speech and hate speech. While interfaith and intercultural dialogue can help better understanding, it must also be complemented with integrated international efforts to combat incitement to religious intolerance, discrimination and hatred through effective legal means. I would also like to propose that while focusing on the interfaith dialogue as a mean to advancing freedom of religion, we must also look at the broader picture and try addressing interrelated issues such as causes, tools available to address the problem with particular reference to the loopholes and grey areas. Interfaith and intercultural dialogue must also be complemented with integrated international efforts to combat incitement to religious intolerance, discrimination and hatred through effective legal means. The Istanbul Process serves as an avenue for such an integrated approach. I thank you all.

Other Press

No press releases assigned to this case yet.