[WCUSP] Fwd: [womeninblack] RE by Mary Wentworth : URGENT : a call against UN resolutions on 'defamation of religions'

[Odile Hugonot Haber]

TO ALL/importnt message below, sorry for adding my two sense worth to it....

For the National Board i am doig research on AIWID
I can see that women'rights and women's organizations
have less and less funds available. The climate is more
corporate and religious fundamentalim is gaining gound everywhere.

Even in WILPF the word "feminism" is controversial. Why?

Cynthia Sheehan is getting burned out; it is part of the same back-lash,
war and militarism have always destroyed women organization
and the climat of civil-ization we bring to society,love, maternity,
education, poetry, arts.

Men kill ! PATRIARCHY is well and alive. Why men do not have a movement
for women's equality, we fought in the abolition movement's against slavery
and for the civil's rightsmovement also. We need to work for the children that
are being decimated everwhere, starving, abandonned, abused.
WORK FOR LIFE.

Odile Hugonot Haber

Read: STOP THE NEXT WAR NOW
Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism
Edited by Code Pink Co-founders
Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans
EDITOR: INNER OCEAN


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: lieve snellings <lieve.snellings at pandora.be>
Date: Jun 5, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: [womeninblack] RE by Mary Wentworth : URGENT : a call against
UN resolutions on 'defamation of religions'
To: womeninblack at listas.nodo50.org



----- Original Message -----
From: Mary L Wentworth

We women need to get on the same page. SIAWI is really describing
patriarchy and its use of religions, whether that religion is Islam,
Christianity or Judaism, to deny women basic human rights.
For those who have not read my essay on patriarchy, email me and I
will send a copy (or post a hard copy if you prefer).

Mary Wentworth

On Monday, June 4, 2007, at 10:59 PM, mahl wrote:


please circulate widely
marieme
(version en français sur siawi.org)



A CALL FROM SIAWI (SECULARISM IS A WOMEN'S ISSUE) AGAINST UN
RESOLUTIONS 61/164 AND A/HRC/4/2.12 ON 'DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS'

3 June 2007
URL: http://www.siawi.org/spip.php?article96


Secularism, i.e. separation of religion from politics, has been
regularly attacked since its inception by the Catholic Church and
ultra conservative political forces in Europe, even in France. During
the past two decades, Muslim fundamentalists revived the struggle
against secularism and developed multiple strategies at national,
European and international levels. What is at stake is the evolution
of the concept of secularism, in which the state, instead of being
unconcerned with religions (apart from fulfilling its obligation to
guarantee its citizens the individual freedom of practicing their
religion), would be obliged to ensure equal political representation
of religions. Again, the defence of secularism is a subject of burning
topicality. Secular space goes shrinking and in many countries it has
become un-conceivable to dispense of a religious identity, even more
so if one belongs to the population of migrant descent.

Muslim fundamentalists rely on the notions of minority rights,
religious rights, cultural rights to demand the right to interfere in
state affairs in the name of culture and/or religion. They master the
art of manipulation of human rights concepts. Numerous are their
recent attempts to replace the general law ( by definition changeable
by the will and vote of the people) by religious laws ( by definition
immutable and imposed in the name of god to presumed believers).
Canada barely escaped the introduction of religious arbitration courts
in family matters, thanks to wide national and international women's
mobilization (2006). Similarly France owe to a determined popular
resistance and especially to women's resistance its final decision not
to modify its secular law on religious symbols in schools (2005).
However at the same time, a German woman judge relies on what she
thinks is 'sharia' law in a case of divorce (April 2007) and Britain
allows in certain cases 'traditional' courts to substitute themselves
to the Kingdom 's legal courts (2007).

Let us take note of the fact that it were mainly women who were
targeted by these legal measures - and this if course made it more
acceptable to governments, always willing to trade women's rights for
social peace. Up to the point of accepting that dearly acquired
women's rights now written into laws may not apply to some categories
of citizens, due to their ethnic background ( the land of origin of
their parents or grandparents) or to their supposed religious
affiliation. These women citizens would thus be excluded from the
democratic process and frozen into an alien 'nature', excluded in fact
from citizenship.

Let us note too, without surprise, that catholic and Jewish
authorities sided with Muslim fundamentalists ' efforts. During the
nineties, women already witnessed their unholy alliance against
reproductive rights during the UN World Conference on Population and
Development in Cairo and during the UN World Conference on Women in
Beijing.

It took a new turn when the same politico-religious forces questioned
freedom of expression at international level. In this case, women are
not their primary targets, and one may hope that other forces will
join, even if late, their struggle for preserving total secularism of
the state.

Pressure was made on the European Union for the concept of blasphemy
to be introduced in the language of the European Constitution. As per
their strategic plans devised in their December 2006 meeting in Mecca,
the countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference have been
lobbying the UN and the Human Rights Council. They were supported by
several catholic countries. Together, they finally succeeded : the UN
and the HRC passed resolutions ( see below the article by Jeanne
Favret Saada) demanding from states 'vigorous measures' to forbid the
'spreading of ideas and documentsŠ/Š defaming religions'. Will be
considered defamation 'any action against religions, prophets and
creeds'. States should modify accordingly ' their constitutions, laws
and educational systems'. All this in the name of Human RightsŠ

Once more we witness the ideological confusion between protecting
individuals from racism, discrimination and intolerance and
legitimizing the most backward forces in religions. Indeed 'Muslims'
or supposed Muslims must be protected against the first plague, but
against the second as well which will force them to bend to rules they
have not chosen and the international community to watch the abuse in
silence, in the name of respect for creeds. The experience of those of
the Muslim countries who lived under the boot of religious extreme
rights show that freedom of consciousness, freedom of thought, freedom
of movement, freedoms of expression are rights that denied in the very
name of religious rights. And it is then also in the name of religious
rights and cultural rights that international human rights
organizations including the Commission of Human Rights at the UN
abstain from intervening. The experience of these countries also shows
that citizens are denied the right to define for themselves their
religion and their culture, while the most damageable forms from the
point of view of human rights were then imposed on them. There is
another confusion between extreme right politico-religious forces
which pretend to be under attack when one does not follow them in all
their interpretations and follies - and religion itself. To oppose
fundamentalist is thus equated to an attack on the religion they claim
to represent, be it Christianity, Islam or other- and there are
numerous recent examples of such situations. It is criminal for the UN
and for the HRC to support such a manipulation of human rights
concepts.

We call on all freedom loving forces to become fully aware of the
seriousness of the situation, in particular women who are first
targeted when secularism recedes.

The HRC ( see below) calls on NGOs to suggest adequate ways of
implementing these resolutions. No doubt fundamentalists of all creeds
will seize the opportunity to support laws that will destroy
liberties. We call on NGOs and individuals not to let them occupy the
floor and to clearly take a stand viz the HRC.

Beyond, we call for an increased vigilance and for citizens
organizations in each of our countries, to stop the changes in their
'constitutions, laws and educational systems' that would put an end to
secularism, i.e. to change identity as citizens for communal identity.

 SIAWI
 May 5, 2007
 www.siawi.org

   ---------------

 From: Marie-Dominique Perret
 Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:19 AM

Subject: Invitation to contribution

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights presents its
compliments to non-governmental organizations and has the honour to
refer to the General Assembly resolution 61/164 of 19 December 2006,
entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions", which requests the
Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the
resolution to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session.

Non-governmental organizations are invited to forward contributions,
with regards to initiatives on global dialogue for promotion of a
culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and
religious diversity, to this report to the Anti-Discrimination Unit by
13 July 2007. All contributions should be forwarded to Mrs.
Marie-Dominique Perret (fax + 41 22 92 890 50 or e-mail:
mperret at ohchr.org ).

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights seizes this
opportunity to renew to non-governmental organisations the assurance
of their highest consideration.

   -----------------

UN: Towards an offence of "defamation of religions"
by Jeanne Favret-Saada * (www.siawi.org - 1 May 2007)
 URL:http://www.siawi.org/spip.php?article97

In February 2006, as the "Muhammad's cartoons" affair was raging, the
Organisation of the Islamic Conference unsuccessfully called for the
inclusion in the Human Rights Council Charter of the following
principle: "freedom of speech is incompatible with defamation of
religions and prophets." It also requested UN General Assembly to pass
a resolution condemning « defamation of prophets and of religions".

It did not succeed but on 8 September, in resolution 60/288 relating
to its strategy of struggle against terror the General Assembly
gracefully recommended States to undertake combating « defamation of
religions ». It did not say how, nor did it say in what the initiative
would curb terror. A few days later, President Pervez Musharaf of
Pakistan bestrode the new Trojan horse urging the GA to ban
"defamation of Islam". We hoped the fate of the brand new notion would
be stopped, but it was forgetting OIC's obstinacy and UNO's unlimited
capacity to solve insoluble conflicts by wrapping them into cotton. In
other words, by producing a shapeless discourse placing side by side
dissenting postures of parties at issue, and authenticating these by
linking them to former UN resolutions.

Hence, Resolution 61/164 "Combating defamation of religions" during UN
GA of 17 December 2006, where the already famous "defamation of
religions" appears lately, after perfect considerations on racism,
xenophobia and discrimination, issues that UN righteously combats
since its creation. The UN GA did not define the new notion («
defamation of religions ») it described it as "a possible cause for
social disharmony", likely to provoke "human rights violations". This
prompted the Secretary General to table eighteen measures to combat
this new scourge. Although remarkably weak, the measures made
nonetheless « defamation of religions » enter the UN language. Above
all, measures held as a self-evident truth that freedom of the
expression should henceforth be coupled with "responsibility" and then
be "submitted to legal restrictions that would take into account
respect for religions and beliefs".

If not clearly stated, the intention is however obvious: "defamation
of religions" is identified as one of the admitted reasons for curbing
freedom of expression (propaganda in favour of war; incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, Article 20 of the International
Pact on civil and political rights).

It is indeed uneasy to interpret a UN resolution: scores of them are
being passed every year which will remain a dead letter; during the
same session, one resolution is incompatible with several others; the
wording of decisions proper are often so vague that it is impossible
to translate them into action. Nevertheless an obstinate enough
pressure group may advance its cause over the months to the point that
States are required to make decisions. As concerns « defamation of
religions », we are not there yet but getting closer to it. On 30
March 2007, the notion resurfaced at the UN Human Rights council
(Geneva), through the voice of Pakistan - this time on behalf of OIC.
Here is a Human Rights Council which still has doubts on human rights
violations in Darfur but which passes with certainty a resolution
urging "the international community" to combat "defamation of
religions" (A/HRC/4/L.12) and mainly defamation of Islam.

In the statement of grounds it is clearly stated: "the Council
expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism,
violence and human rights violations. It notes with deep concern the
intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the
ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath
of the tragic events of 11 September 2001".

Objections of legal common sense are numerous: defamation offence
(attacks on honour or reputation) should only concern persons, not
undetermined beings such as religions; and as regards persons, the
offence of discrimination against individuals on account of their
religion is already enshrined in Article 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, why this odd notion of
"defamation » ? Maybe because the demand followed the « Muhammad's
cartoons » affair, in which OIC accused European press to "defame »
the Prophet ; then, OIC found it obvious to broaden the notion of
"defamation" from Muhammad-the-person to the Moslem religion. Despite
the legal flimsiness of the notion, we have to look out for the
political meaning of Resolution L. 12 of last March 30. For it is
explicitly paving the way for the adoption at the United Nations of
regulations aimed at curbing freedom of expression: sooner or later
the "irresponsible" use of the freedom will be punished as a racist
act. The council "invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms
of racism, to regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of
religions and in particular on the serious implications of
Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights. It requests the High
Commissioner to report to Human Rights Council at its sixth session on
the implementation of the present resolution."

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Council « strongly urges States to take
resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of ideas and material
'defaming religions' and to prohibit the dissemination of racist and
xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers
that constitutes incitement to hatred, hostility or to racial and
religious violence ». Here, identity between "defamation of religions"
and the prior reasons for curbing freedom of expression is fully
affirmed.

Therefore, States are requested to modify their Constitutions, laws as
well as educating systems thereon. "The Council also strongly urges
States within the framework of their own legal and constitutional
systems to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred,
discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of
religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and
respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement
legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat
religious hatred and intolerance."

Finally, the Council « strongly » urges States to closely control all
public officials « including members of law enforcement bodies, the
military, civil servants and educators, so that in the course of their
official duties, they respect different religions Š and that training
is provided to this effect. » On 47 States, 24 voted in favour of the
resolution : Member States of OIC backed by China, Cuba, the
Federation of Russia, South Africa, Mexico, the Philippines, Sri Lanka
and Mauritius. 14 countries voted against, and 9 abstained.

If we could trust our governments and international bodies we would
not pay attention to the inept resolutions of 2006 and 2007. But at
least we should be explained why it had been necessary to pass them
and what is looming for freedom of expression.

* Jeanne Favret-Saada is a researcher in anthropology. She has
recently published a book on the "Muhammad's cartoons" affair, "How
you produce a world crisis with twelve small drawings", Comment
produire une crise mondiale avec douze petits dessins, Paris, 2007,
Les Prairies ordinaires.
_______________________________________________
womeninblack mailing list
womeninblack at listas.nodo50.org
http://listas.nodo50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/womeninblack
this is the international WiB mailing-out list, for the INTERACTIVE
WiB e-list, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/interactiveWiB
_______________________________________________
womeninblack mailing list
womeninblack at listas.nodo50.org
http://listas.nodo50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/womeninblack
this is the international WiB mailing-out list, for the INTERACTIVE
WiB e-list, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/interactiveWiB