On Friday, Fox News and Jennifer Lawinski took a critical look at a General Assembly Resolution 62/154 on religion, which was first adopted in 2007. The resolution, "Combating the Defamation of Religion," intends to prevent speech that offends religion. Fox News, although certainly not the highest authority on issues concerning the United Nations, does provide interesting background on the question of how freedom of speech and human rights can be protected while restricting language that may offend religion. Lawinski's analysis is based on a July 2008 U.S. government statement that looks at examples of how the "blasphemy resolution" has threatened Westerners , such as when a British teacher was jailed in Sudan in 2007 for offending Islam when she allowed her students to name a class teddy bear Muhammad. The former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, argues that passing the resolution each year gives it clout, and interestingly, the article takes a step back and questions (after interviewing the Founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) whether it is even possible to defame ideas. The argument is that only people can be defamed or libeled. Religious people may well agree that it is for God to punish blasphemy and not the state. The reasoning is that if people or the government prosecutes blasphemy or "ideas" then the government stops being democratic and in the case of a Muslim country , gets closer to implementing Sharia. For this reason, the article begins its analysis by saying, "Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam." On the other side of the story, the goal for the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council in passing the resolutions on religious defamation has been the prevention of acts that incite religious and racial hatred.
