Unlearning Intolerance
Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance
Seeking Consensus Amid Differences
By Namrita Talwar
|
In a break from tradition, the General Assembly passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Christianophobia as part of a broader text against religious intolerance.
The adoption of resolution 59/199, “Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance”, marks the culmination of arduous negotiations, especially involving the Netherlands, which sponsored the draft on behalf of the European Union (EU), members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and Israel. On the recommendation of the Third Committee, the Assembly adopted the resolution by a recorded vote of 186 to none.
“Religious intolerance is an issue that affects us all and needs to be combated”, Peter-Derrek Hof of the Netherlands told the UN Chronicle. Ireland had been the main sponsor of the resolution at the fifty-eighth Assembly session; however, “as eliminating religious intolerance is one of the priorities of the EU, we decided to sponsor the resolution this year”, he said.
“Eliminating religious intolerance is one of the priorities of the European Union.”
Peter-Derrek Hof
|
|
The drafting of the momentous resolution started in Brussels in July 2004, where EU officials worked on modifying its language. After initiating some linguistic changes, the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, introduced revisions to the text that launched informal discussions and debates among delegates on the wording and its outcome during the Third Committee meetings at UN Headquarters in New York. The text was essentially similar to that of 2003, except for changes made to paragraph 9, which recognizes with deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence directed against members of many religious communities, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia.
“We do not know whether there is a 20- or 30-per cent rise in violence directed against religious communities”, Mr. Hof said. However, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had indicated a rise in
towards religious minorities, and “in our own European experience we have noted an increase in such incidents”, he added. The language of the draft was consistent with the Commission of Human Rights resolution, which had spelt out the names of religious communities facing incidences of violence and hatred against its people. The 2004 resolution is similar to that of the Commission, “where the language was agreed upon through consensus”, Mr. Hof commented.
Yet, paragraph 9 of the resolution was also the cause of disagreement in the debate that drifted consensus among some Member States. “The initiators of the resolution decided to put in the element of anti-Semitism, which was the reason why my delegation and a few others felt it was unnecessary going down that road which detracted from the good resolution that we had previously”, Astanah Abdul Aziz of Malaysia told the Chronicle.
“Anti-Semitism relates to racial discrimination, while Judaeophobia relates to religious intolerance.”
Astanah Abdul Aziz |
|
Although, the text mentioned two other main religious groups—Islam and Christianity—she said it was a disparity in the “terminology” that did not go very well with her country. “They spoke about Islamophobia and Christianophobia, but for the other religion, they placed anti-Semitism, as opposed to Judaeophobia”, she added. “Anti-Semitism” related to race, and for that reason the elements relating to racial discrimination did not fit in the resolution since the text concerned religious discrimination, Ms. Abdul Aziz said. “This was the only element that was being discussed throughout the whole resolution.”
“Recognizes with deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence directed against members of many religious communities in various parts of the world, including cases motivated by
Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia”
—Operative paragraph 9 of resolution 59/199
|
|
Zina Kalay-Kleitman of Israel, speaking to the Chronicle, said she was pleased to support the resolution as it took into account the resurgence of anti-Semitism, a phrase that refers to hatred of people practising the Jewish faith. “Anti-Semitism and its meaning are well known and indisputable; it is not open to revisionist or cynical interpretation”, she said. In the previous years, Israel had abstained from supporting the resolution due to its failure to mention anti-Semitism, Ms. Kleitman added.
“Anti-Semitism and its meaning are well known and indisputable; it is not open to revisionist or cynical interpretation.”
Zina Kalay-Kleitman
|
|
However, most OIC members held on to their positions. “We didn’t have a problem with the Judaic religion, so it should be Judaeophobia”, Ms. Abdul Aziz emphasized.
Unable to break the deadlock, some Member States requested the Third Committee to vote on operative paragraph 9, which the Assembly adopted by 105 to 35, with 19 abstentions. The proposed amendment, suggested by the OIC, required changes by adding “and other”, so that it would read “religious and other communities”. Malaysia proposed that the word “anti-Semitism” be changed to “Judaeophobia”, but the Assembly rejected the amendments.
In explanation of vote, the representative of the Netherlands said that the European Union opposed the amendment because it would skew the paragraph, as it was intended to counter religious intolerance only. As for paragraph 9, the new order made no sense. “I think it is disappointing that the Commission on Human Rights accepted the paragraph by consensus and that countries having a problem with it now did not have a problem six months ago when the Commission approved it”, Mr. Hof added. He regretted the need to vote on the text, saying that the lack of consensus defeated its very purpose. But even as it brought out a split in consensus among Member States, the resolution as a whole was adopted unanimously.
|
|
The Outreach Division of the UN Department of Public Information (DPI) launched a new educational outreach initiative through its “Unlearning Intolerance” series of seminars, which aim at exploring different manifestations of intolerance and opening up ways in which education and civil society can help overcome it. The seminars are the latest educational outreach programme involving civil society and one of the most successful in generating interest in the work of DPI and the United Nations at large.
The first meeting in the series, held at UN Headquarters on 21 June 2004, focused on “Confronting anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”. The day-long event engaged experts, religious leaders and wider civil society members in a discussion on how best to meet this challenge. The second, entitled “Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”, took place on 21 December. Both were well-received by the audience and members of the world press. “These seminars are excellent in bringing out concerns facing these issues on regional and international levels”, Peter-Derrek Hof of the Netherlands told the Chronicle.
Opening the first seminar, Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted that it was a good place to start, because throughout history anti-Semitism had been a unique manifestation of hatred, intolerance and persecution. “The rise of anti-Semitism anywhere is a threat to people everywhere. Thus, in fighting anti-Semitism we fight for the future of all humanity.” Echoing similar sentiments at the second seminar, on confronting Islamophobia, he spoke of the “fear of the ‘other’”, which “is so widespread and ferocious that we may be tempted to think of it as an immutable attribute of the human animal”. He added: “But people are not hard-wired for prejudice. In some cases, they are taught to hate. In others, they are manipulated into it by leaders who exploit fear, ignorance or feelings of weakness.” |
Go Back Top
| |
Print 
