A deeply divided UN human rights council has approved a controversial resolution that urges countries to “address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred”, after incidents of Qur’an-burning in Sweden.
The resolution was strongly opposed by the US, EU and other western countries, which argued that it conflicted with laws on free speech. On Wednesday, the resolution was passed, with 28 countries voting in favour, 12 voting against and seven abstaining.
Last month, an Iraqi-born protester caused outrage across the Muslim world after tearing pages from the Qur’an, wiping his shoes with some of them and burning others outside a mosque in Stockholm during the Eid al-Adha holiday.
The Swedish embassy in Baghdad was briefly stormed, Iran held off from sending a new ambassador to Stockholm and the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) condemned Sweden’s authorities and asked the Geneva-based UN human rights council to debate the issue.
Turkey also expressed its anger, citing “vile protests against the holy book” in Sweden as one of its reasons for withholding approval of the Scandinavian country’s application to join Nato. On Monday, the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, had agreed to set aside his veto and support the application.
Several similar protests had previously taken place in Stockholm and Malmö. Swedish police have received applications for more, from individuals wanting to burn religious texts including the Qur’an, the Bible and the Torah.
Addressing the UN council last week, Pakistan’s foreign minister, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, said such acts were an “incitement to religious hatred, discrimination and violence”, and occurred under “government sanction and with a sense of impunity”. Ministers from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia echoed that view.
While strongly condemning the burnings, however, western countries defended free speech. The German envoy called them a “dreadful provocation” but said free speech also meant “hearing opinions that may seem almost unbearable”. The French envoy said human rights were about protecting people, not religions and symbols.
After the vote on the resolution, the US envoy to the council, Michèle Taylor, said that with more time and open discussion, a consensus could have been reached.
“Unfortunately, our concerns were not taken seriously,” she said. “I’m truly heartbroken that this council was unable to speak with a unanimous voice today in condemning what we all agree are deplorable acts of anti-Muslim hatred, while also respecting freedom of expression.”
Pakistan’s envoy to the UN in Geneva, Khalil Hashmi, said the resolution did not seek to curtail free speech but was instead aimed at striking a balance. “Regrettably, some states have chosen to abdicate their responsibility to prevent and counter the scourge of religious hatred,” he said.
“A message has been sent to billions of people of faith across the world that their commitment to prevent religious hatred is merely a lip service. The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the holy Qur’an. They lack political, legal and moral courage.”
The resolution condemns all manifestations of religious hatred including “public and premeditated acts of desecration of the holy Qur’an” and urges that those responsible be held to account.
Some liberal commentators in Sweden have argued that the protests should be regarded as hate speech, which is outlawed when aimed at an ethnicity or race. Many others, however, say criticising religion – even if believers find it offensive – must be allowed and that Sweden must resist any pressure to reintroduce blasphemy laws.
Swedish police have previously tried to ban Qur’an-burning protests but have been overruled by the courts on free speech grounds. Last month’s was allowed on the grounds that the security risks “were not of a nature to justify, under current laws, a decision to reject the request”.
Sweden’s government issued a statement afterwards, saying it strongly rejected “this Islamophobic act”, which “in no way” reflected its opinions. But that drew strong criticism from free speech advocates who noted the individual who carried out the protest had stayed within the bounds of the law and exercised his constitutional freedom of expression.
Officials in Stockholm are concerned the situation may escalate as with the controversy over the publication of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad by a Danish newspaper in 2005.
