Statement by Ambassador to the General Assembly Richard
Croker at UN General Assembly 94th plenary meeting 77th
session.
We have been clear in our position: the UK fully rejects
intolerance and discrimination. We denounce hatred on the basis
of religion or belief, and we condemn the recent incidents of the
burning of the Holy Qu’ran. Defending freedom of religion or
belief for all is a priority for the UK and we shall continue to
stand up for the rights of all individuals and promote mutual
respect.
As we stated during the urgent debate at the Human Rights Council
in Geneva just weeks ago when combatting religious intolerance,
there is a balance to strike – and across different societies,
this balance is struck in different ways. Determining at what
point freedom of expression becomes unacceptable, and when
unacceptable speech or action should be prohibited, is a complex
issue.
However, international human rights law provides us with narrowly
defined parameters in which freedom of expression can be limited.
We do not accept that, by definition, attacks on religion,
including on religious texts or symbols, constitute advocacy for
hatred. Furthermore, the framework in place already defines what
kind of speech must be prohibited, and what must not be
restricted.
Whilst we completely reject acts seeking to incite
discrimination, hostility or violence, we need to recognise that
the primary function of the international human rights framework
is to protect individuals from the State. There are too many
examples in the world where believers – religious or not – have
ben oppressed by those who are meant to guarantee their rights.
The UK has reluctantly joined consensus on this resolution.
Whilst we thank our Moroccan colleagues for their engagement on
this resolution, we are disappointed that our efforts to find
more balanced language were not fully taken on board. We would
have preferred to redouble our collective efforts to find a
mutually more agreeable position.
We remain concerned with several elements of the text,
particularly language which could suggest limitations on freedom
of expression beyond what is well established in international
human rights law. We do not think it is necessary to agree a new
definition of hate speech which may undermine the existing finely
balanced position in international human rights law, which
already provides a clear framework. We, therefore, oppose any
future attempts to agree new definitions of hate speech at UN
level, including at the proposed conference in 2025. The UK
dissociates itself from PP13 and OP2 of the resolution.
Our hope is that going forwards we can find a way to ensure we
work together to protect and defend both freedom of religion or
belief, and freedom of expression.
