app to write evolution writers on ipad 05 05
irish evolution writers 1 help 05 05
NEED SOMEONE TO WRITE DISSERTATION INTRODUCTION ON VIDEO GAMES PLZ 08 31
cover letter examples for college teachers 05 12
how to write nomenclature in thesis 05 10
OPEN UNIVERSITY CV EXAMPLE 09 02
espace diamant snow report 05 13
quickbase custom reports using tableau 05 09
gcse ocr gateway chemistry c1 c2 c3 past papers 05 12
essay conclusion generator free 05 02
UNIVERSITY THESIS ABSTRACT 09 03
essay hooks about freedom 05 02
evolution writers trail gta 4 walkthrough ps3 05 05
three ancient writing materials 05 05
sunday evolution writers wanted 05 05
research evolution writers outline guide 05 04
has anyone used evolutionwriters com 05 03
juvenile delinquency research paper title 05 13
ENGINEERING MATHEMATICS 2 QUESTION PAPERS CALICUT UNIVERSITY 09 03
stearamidopropyl dimethylamine synthesis essay 05 09
indicateurs de lieu descriptive essay 05 14
global warming essay in malayalam language translator 05 08
UNIVERSITY ASSIGNMENT INTRODUCTION EXAMPLE 09 02
AMERICAN DRAGON JAKE LONG PROFESSOR ROTWOODS THESIS STATEMENT 08 26
ARTICLE ABOUT PRIVATE UNIVERSITY 09 03
TYPE MY DISSERTATION METHODOLOGY ON SOCIOLOGY ONLINE 08 24
UNIS COMPUTER DEFINITION 09 04
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT IB HISTORY EXAMPLES 08 30
MG UNIVERSITY CMS COLLEGE 09 03
WHEN PREPARING A REFERENCE LIST USING APA STYLE 08 30
RELIGIOUS STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN 09 01
computer science academic cv 05 15
UNI ASSIGNMENT PLANNER 09 04
hp printer help paper jam 05 03
NURSING PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT DISSERTATION TITLES 08 26
wendys post game report 05 10
genetically engineered food essay journal 05 08
sun valley community church worship presentation 05 12
AUSCHWITZ THE FORGOTTEN EVIDENCE SUMMARY REPORT 08 30
abs cbn reporter binugbog ng include scope 08 19
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE KARIAVATTOM 09 03
evolutionwriters support 05 03
4 major types of essay 05 02
committee on the rights of persons with disabilities reports clip 05 12
help with divorce evolution writerswork 05 05
evolution writers mario 5 4 help 05 05
do my essay on diet for me 05 08
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY REVIEWS 09 03
evolution writers 53 05 05
kasturirangan committee report malayalam translation of quran 05 15
The Ailey School (Alvin Ailey American Dance Crew) ​let's continue with with Stephanie Mary she is a lecturer in public law at the University of Sussex she was a PhD from Brunel University and LLM in international human rights law from Duke University and an LLB from the University of Manchester she previously worked as an associate tutor at the University of East Anglia and as a research assistant and hourly paid lecturer at Brunel University sethius research research focuses on the rise of religious minority in international law [Applause] but my voice I do apologize but today I'm going to be focusing on international human rights law but specifically the concept of a declaration of religions and this concept was introduced into the UN between 1999 and 2010 and a series of resolutions adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights its success of the Human Rights Council and also the UN General Assembly the resolutions outlined with their underlying motivation was to protect the rights of Muslims specifically in the West in the way giving intolerance and hatred but this concept of defamation of religions from international human rights perspective remains undefined so my paper is going to consider this concept it argues that on the one hand these resolutions can be seen as an attempt to plug a gap in the international human rights frame but on your vanity they can be seen as an attempt to introduce blasphemer blasphemy laws and legitimize Bassem you know within the UN so first I'm going to briefly set out the background in the content of the resolutions and they're not go on to analyze from these two different factors so in 1999 so note before 2001 on the terrorist attacks Pakistan acting on behalf of the organization of the Islamic Conference introduced or attempted to introduce a resolution to the UN on defamation of Islam their aim it said was to counter new manifestations of intolerance and misunderstanding not to say hatred of Islam and Muslims the draft the draft phone was widely criticized specifically for introducing an imprecise term that is defamation of Islam and it for exclusively focusing on it so instead be drafted and turn that nation of religions which is equally imprecise and modified but the content of the resolutions I will argue provides more clarification over its intended meaning the original 1999 resolution which was adopted focuses on the negative stereotyping of religions the Association of Islam with human rights violations and terrorism and the role of the media in fighting acts of violence then a phobia intolerance and discrimination what Islam and any of that religion so firstly we can note that although it's referring to other religions it only the single that Islam so we've still got pretty much the original problem but the focus is predominantly on intolerance and sena phone however focusing on one religion to the exclusion of others and recognized hosting on Islam rather the Muslims as a human as a as humans or as a group it's particular problematic on the human rights perspective so do these resolutions plug a hole in the human rights framework I would argue at least reduce the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of violence the yen noted that the most serious common manifestation of Kentucky forms of racism it's the rise of Islamophobia and the deterioration of the situation of Arab and Muslim minorities in the world particularly in the wake of events of the 11th of September 2001 and I'll give you the human rights regime is ill-equipped to deal with especially when hate speech is targeted at religious minorities by private actors so what is the human rights framework we have article 20 paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights this requires that states prohibit advocacy of national racial or religious sentiment that constitutes incitement to discrimination hostility or violence so hate speech alone isn't sufficient it must reach this special of being in some so to single out an issue identified in the resolutions the negative rejection of Islam values and traditions by the media would fall well short of the standard will never find to be a violation at the ICCPR if we compare this to racial hatred the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination sets a much lower threshold than this incite incitement specially the justification or promotion of hatred is sufficient or discrimination that's article 4 and I say it also requires that states have positive obligations to undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to or acts of discrimination so the act itself is problematic from the perspective of myself I'm not suggesting that race and religion are identical concepts here but there is no equivalent in relation to religious minorities for religious intolerance within the UN Framework is the UN declaration on religious intolerance to declaration it's non-binding soccer more essentially and also it doesn't contain it in the future now the discrepancy between the treatment of racial and religious minorities was recognized by the UN Human Rights Council to be problematic and it established in 2006 and ad hoc committee to explore how to deal with this in its solution is to extend three existing standards particularly through the concept of intersectional discrimination now these Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had already been doing this through its case law and this has been consolidating in general recommendation number 35 which recognizes that there was intersection
between ethnic origin and religion when it comes to certain groups but this doesn't provide belief when hatred is aimed and intolerance is a purely religious principle the Muslims had nonetheless attempted to bring claims before the committee with varying degrees depending on whether a tolerance is named adenosine but both their religion and their subsistence or whether it still contained at them as a religious group so for example in Pearson and M PS n and their mark and that politician may do Robert to statements about Muslims on the website in a book near an interview the committee said that as the impugn statements specifically refer to the Quran to Islam and to Muslims in general without any reference whatsoever to any race college central national ethnic origin it didn't have the jurisdiction so smoothly pure readers intolerance or hatred isn't covered within the human rights framework unless it meets the threshold and incitement in article 20 contracting and from that perspective I would argue that the defamation of religions my solutions actually seek to form a legitimate purpose they seek to make it where they recognize them Muslims in Western Europe are subject to increasing intolerance and there's a bit of a gap here protection can be improved but that's it there is also quite a lot of compelling evidence that this is just an attempt to introduce a blasphemy law through the back door and in particular sushi of Islam criticism firstly the content of the resolutions it's not entirely about Mosley's the negative stereotyping of religions also despite being framed as defamation of religions we're still just seeing Islam and Muslims being singled out the OIC member states according to Belknap treated death and their subsequently tweeted defamation of religions as synonymous in its blasphemy this is my particular favorite point to Pakistan which is the primary proponent of the defamation of religions resolutions also refused to lend its to a Human Rights Council resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and a discrimination based on religion religion or beliefs it's virtually identical to the defamation of religions resolutions but it didn't use the term defamation of religions and didn't think those are the main differences so this would suggest there's some added value to the concept finally a number of the resolutions attempted to extend the limitations clause to freedom of expression to legitimize classily laws and I'm going to come back to this and talk about this in more detail so if we accept the defamation religions is synonymous with blasphemy then to what extent is that the compatible between divisive blasphemy laws see to shield religions and oh or just a religion in this case it's called criticism this simply put falls outside the scope of the concerns of international human rights law it seems to me quite right but human rights protect humans they don't protect millions blasphemy also doesn't violate human rights standards or very rare very violent human rights standards it doesn't infringe somebody's ability to manifest their religion this was recognized by our jagiya the former Special Rapporteur on religion or village defamation of religions may have found people to quote her and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in the resolutions also seemed to indicate with the concept overly protects Islam and Muslims impressive sorry Dober suggests that the supporters of these resolutions blocked efforts to extend protection to other religious groups so we have a discriminatory implication where does this leave religious minorities in majority Muslim volunteers if this concept only protects the Islam from from criticism what if the manifestation of their religion is deemed to be offensive by Muslims and this is particularly the case in relation to the Ahmadi in Pakistan where actually the group principles have been the underlying concepts of their religion are deemed to be offensive Pakistan hides behind its blasphemy law in order to discriminate against this group so the protection of Islamic blasphemy also has to protect tension to interfere with human rights but as with all blasphemy laws the main concern early speedom of expression article 19 of the ICCPR sets out the right to freedom of expression but it is not unlike in the u.s. and absolute rights so we have permissible limitations and these are respect for the rights and reputations of others protection of national security public order public health or - so we do this there's no room for criticism of religion to be legitimate unless it incites intolerance and then reaches that special set out in article 12 paragraph 2 but the defamation of religions resolutions attempt attempted to insert into this limitations clause respect for religious or and beliefs now obviously you can't amend the treaty or its way so it has no legal effect but from a human rights perspective such an addition would be massively problematic the religions cannot be immune from criticism even if it is deemed offensive by members of that community it may also be legitimate criticism and as we've heard criticism is essential to democratic society and most Human Rights bodies like the whole of displacement even if it was inserted it wouldn't serve the purpose of protecting Muslims in the West the key here is that even if this was inserted into the limitations clause there's no obligation on States to use it so unless all Western countries suddenly decided to adopt a blasphemy laws and having got rid of them and then only to protect Muslims then this would it's unlikely then before then violates the expression in this way instead I suggest that actually this much and it's just purely there to protect their works in that sense you have restricted blasphemy laws that this proportion of the impact nonislamic minorities but of course that's not the concern of the chasity muslim minorities now the human rights committee has completely they short demolished this insertion in general comment of a third avoid addressed indirectly the issue prohibitions displays lack of respect for a religion or other belief system including blasphemy laws are incompatible
with the common going on to say it would be impermissible for any such laws that discriminates in favor of or against one or certain religion or belief systems so in short no matter how hard they would like to introduce that it's it is going to be deemed to be incompatible by the human rights committee and this was affirmed by the rabat plan of action on the prohibition of advocacy a national racial or religious hatred which also emphasized into a religious dialogue debates and also criticism most of which could be constructive healthy and needed to open so from a human rights perspective this interpretation of defamation of religions is particularly troubling if it's seeking to just shield one religion from criticism but i would also argue that the distinction between the intolerance against Muslims that have outlined in the first part and criticism of Islam is not actually that clear-cut and there's a blurry line between the two DN a--'s particularly criticized the intellectual legitimization of Islamic over defamation provides the intellectual justification and legitimizing disciplines that supports all forms of discrimination I would agree with this statement if you think of the example of the English Defence League they make regular and sustained attacks on Islam as a religion then obviously often supported by stereotypes and misinformation but it speaks to a sector of society and the reason they do this is that legitimizes and justifies intolerance against Muslims so this certain things definitely fall into the black sea pups and certain things fall into an intolerance box but there's a middle ground here that is not so clear so when does criticism of a religion becomes problematic funky pecking the right suspect or learner suggests that intent should be focused but as we've heard I would agree intent is almost impossible to proof so perhaps not so much in the example that I gave but as a general role the perception and reaction of the VFX community also is not a good gauge when they're particularly vulnerable and sensitive they will be one of the ones sensitive to all forms of criticism legitimate or otherwise now don't pretend have an answer but the focus I would suggest in human rights law must remain on the protection of people rather than the protection of religions these resolutions in many respects aim to provide a solution to a real issue which is intolerance against Muslims but they also can be interpreted and they are being interviewed to shield Islam as a religion I would suggest that the terminology defamation of religion particularly unhelpful and we need to move again away from this and the shift recently in these myths in the terminology of these resolutions to resolutions that focus on intolerance negative test area typing and stigmatization is been welcomed especially because it's supported by the OFC member states and it doesn't seem Latins long a special attention what we need to do is adopt an approach focuses on human beings rather than protecting religions and hopefully these will allow an appropriate balance to be found that allows freedom of expression to be respected but also recognizes the vulnerabilities [Applause] Sy Syms School of Business, Washington Heights, Manhattan.
https://Dissertation.space