On the April 22^nd 2009, secular activists won a major victory for human rights and free speech when three special investigators representing the U.N. Human Rights Council declared that “defamation of religion” is not racism. The proposal to label religious criticism as racism was put before the U.N. Human Rights Council at the on-going Durban II conference on race and discrimination, by the 57 nations led by Pakistan, all members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC had attempted to include the language in the declaration of the conference but had to back down after condemnation from the West. Past conferences have been controversial, with anti-semitic slogans screamed at times. The U.S., Canada and Israel did not attend this year’s conference because of these reasons.

The issue was on the table again on June 16^th, when the Pakistani delegate Muhammad Saeed Sarwar made an appeal to the U.N.H.R.C. claiming that criticism of Islam, which they label as “defamation of religion”, is a new form of racism, intolerance and xenophobia, constituting discrimination. A representative from the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Roy Brown, responded the next day with the following statement.

We were dismayed to hear again in this very debate an attempt to link defamation of religion to racism. Mr President, if I believe that a particular religion has no merit; that it is founded on a pre-scientific worldview, and that the application of many of its tenets is contrary to internationally accepted standards of human rights, then that is my opinion and I have the absolute right to express it. And, Mr President, it has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.

To read the IHEU’s original statement on racism at the conference, go here.

We have chronicled in detail the past attempts that this group of Islamic nations have carried out through their campaign to eliminate much-needed criticism of religion.

Read the full story

Share on Facebook

Are anti-blasphemy laws really on the rise? Consider this: Since the founding of the UN in 1948 till the year 1992, there was no mention of blasphemy in any form under the Declaration of Human Rights. The articles 7, 21, 18 and 19 could have been interpreted to reject the idea that blasphemy is a crime. Jump to half a century later; every year from 1999 to 2006 has seen new resolutions to restrict “Defamation of Religion” introduced through the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) by member nations, mostly Islamic. Since 2005, the UN General Assembly has passed a similar resolution every year. I’ll come back to the UN resolutions in a bit, but first I’d like to consider some recent developments in India.

Read the full story

Share on Facebook

“Section 49-O” of the Constitution of India!

T.V.Manoj

(With valuable inputs from Somu Rao, Goa Science Forum)

One of the most nauseating scenes Indians witnessed after the horrific Mumbai terror attack on November 26 was the parade of India’s supposedly apolitical class in front of every other 24/7 television channels, airing their illiterate opinions on politics and governance. Some wanted the country to ‘nuke’ Pakistan. Some others wanted presidents’ rule - American style! Yet another group wanted to abolish politics in the country altogether and the army to rule the country! They paraded as if - as N.Ram, editor-in-chief of The Hindu group of publications pointed out in a lecture given at a meeting recently organized by Samudaya, a progressive theater group based in Bangalore, - these reactionary forces would govern the country with their placards!

Read the full story

Share on Facebook

In this series of articles I write about the forced enforcement of religious laws. 

Inscription on the Vidhana Soudha in Bangalore

Here are a few stories that have a common thread running through them.

•         Two teenage girls, their mother and maternal aunts were shot and buried while still breathing- their crime? The girls wished to marry persons of their choice- their mother and aunt supported them.
•         A married woman in her twenties was shot dead after being pulled out of her lawyer’s office; the lawyer was also shot at but had a providential escape. Reason- the victim had gone to consult the lawyer about divorcing her husband who was inflicting cruelty on her. The only eye witness to her murder by her husbands people was her mother, who later testified that she had seen or heard nothing. The dead woman’s father justified his daughter’s murder on the grounds of family honor!
•         A married woman was escorted by her friend’s son nearly half her age. That was construed of as spending time with an alien man. The punishment? The boy’s sisters were raped by the woman’s husband and his brothers.
•         Genital mutilation is carried out on many pre-pubertal Muslim girls in some African countries to prevent them from “enjoying sex”! Since it is forbidden in all civilized countries some parents try to take their girls back to the home country where it can be performed.
•         A couple was ordered to be separated by the village panchayat. The reason? According to some religious rule they were of the same gothra and hence were considered as brother and sister and hence their marriage amounts to incest.
•         A girl commits suicide after she was harassed by a local “sena”, for speaking to a neighbor belonging to another community. Her pleas that he was twice her age and had got her a job fell on deaf ears.
•         An auto rickshaw driver was assaulted with deadly weapons because he was transporting a woman belonging to another community, late at night. Her pleas that she was being taken to a hospital in an emergency were ignored.
•         A boy and a girl belonging to different minority communities were traveling together. They were attacked by a boy belonging to the girl’s community, supported by a local sena whose members belonged to the majority community!                                                                                                    

Each of these incidents has one thing in common- the treatment of women as a commodity. The constitution of India, it being a secular democratic republic, guarantees fundamental rights to all the citizens. We have the right to follow a religion of our choice, or to not have one. The right to marry a person of any community (though same sex marriages are not allowed!). The right to live with any person with whom we may choose to live, whether married to that person or not. These rights do exist on paper and for those who can afford the due process of law. But, according to the various Senas and Dals belonging to various religions, the constitution of India has been suspended in our district.

Click Here for Part - II

Share on Facebook

Apar Gupta

Division of Atheism and State: Absence of Status and Tacit Discrimination

One of the frequent themes in my introduction to Hinduism is the reference to the number of deities. The figure which adds up to 330 million is seen with incredible surprise by people belonging to monastic world religions. What does not surprise people is the deficiency in the Indian Legal System to accord any status to atheism, as an individual choice or a rational movement. The understanding is universal, law and atheism suffer a disconnect. Though the absence of recognition in law is discrimination itself, it is not limited to law. The result is a broader social discrimination against atheists. Read the full story

Share on Facebook