Robert C. Blitt

The Bottom Up Journey of 'Defamation of Religion' from Muslim States to the United Nations: A Case Study of the Migration of Anti-Constitutional Ideas

This chapter is intended to elaborate on the existing academic literature addressing the migration of constitutional ideas. Through an examination of ongoing efforts to enshrine “defamation of religion” as a violation of international human rights, the author confirms that the phenomenon of migration is not restricted to positive constitutional norms, but rather also encompasses negative ideas that ultimately may serve to undermine international and domestic constitutionalism. More specifically, the case study demonstrates that the movement of anti-constitutional ideas is not restricted to the domain of “international security” law, and further, that the vertical axis linking international and domestic law is in fact a two-way channel that permits the transmission of domestic anti-constitutional ideas up to the international level. In reaching the findings presented herein, the chapter also adds to the universalism–relativism debate by demonstrating that allowances for “plurality consciousness” on the international level may in certain instances undermine fundamental norms previously negotiated and accepted as authoritative by the international community. From this perspective, the movement in favor of prohibiting “defamation of religion” is not merely a case study that helps to expand our understanding of how anti-constitutional ideas migrate, but also indicative of a reenergized campaign to challenge the status, content, and stability of universal human rights norms. August 2011 Update: A final version of this article appears in Special Issue Human Rights: New Possibilities/New Problems (56 Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 1), 121-211 (Austin Sarat ed., 2011) and is available for download through the publisher, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. ISSN: 1059-4337 ISBN: 978-1-78052-252-4

The Wolf Act Amendments to the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act: Breakthrough or Breakdown?

This article takes a critical look at the major changes brought about by recent amendments to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). The first section briefly traces IRFA’s key features and operation since its enactment, including an overview of the statute’s institutions and reporting and sanctioning mechanism. This section also highlights the ongoing debate regarding IRFA’s legitimacy and offers a summary of the major criticisms leveled against the statute, as well as the responses raised in its defense. With this background in place, the article turns to an analysis of the legislative history surrounding the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (Wolf Act) between 2015-2016. This bipartisan legislative initiative envisioned a wide range of amendments intended to address some of IRFA’s past shortcomings. Among the changes initially put forward, IRFA’s narrow focus on states would be expanded to include violent nonstate actors responsible for violating freedom of religion or belief. In addition, the original bill called for boosting the responsibilities and profile of IRFA’s institutional actors, increasing funding for the promotion of international religious freedom activities, mandatory religious freedom training of State Department officials, and a significant reduction of executive discretion. As a review of this legislative history will demonstrate, however, many of the proposed changes would be either diluted or altogether deleted, the victim of bad design or competing political interests. The final content of the Wolf Act as enacted represents an ambivalent renewal of IRFA’s original promise “to use and implement appropriate tools in the United States foreign policy apparatus…to promote respect for religious freedom by all governments and peoples.” Some of this ambivalence may be alleviated or partially remedied based on how IRFA’s primary institutional actors turn to the task of implementation. At the same time, securing a more definitive assertion of the central role of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy as envisioned in the original Wolf Act will likely require a renewed, more concerted and committed second effort by Congress.

Equality and Nondiscrimination Through the Eyes of an International Religious Organization: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Response to Women's Rights and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rights

This article draws on women’s rights and sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to explore how the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) represents, interprets and seeks to impact the right to equality and protection against discrimination as enshrined under international human rights law. The study is a novel one inasmuch as the OIC is neither a state nor a religious group per se. Rather, the OIC stands out as the only contemporary intergovernmental organization unifying its member states around the commonality of a single religion. In this capacity, the organization maintains no direct obligations or rights under key instruments such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Nevertheless, as part of its mandate representing 57 predominantly Muslim states, the OIC has increasingly asserted a role for itself on the world stage as “the collective voice of the Muslim world.” This new assertiveness is particularly evident in the context of debates surrounding the content of human rights norms in international fora such as the United Nations, where the OIC has sought to develop common policy positions and encourage its members to vote as a bloc on issues of concern. Against this backdrop, the article concludes supporters of universal human rights norms need to better understand how the OIC’s mission to “protect and defend the true image of Islam” may impact international debates over the substance of equality and nondiscrimination norms, and develop appropriate responses to these efforts as a means for ensuring universality is not undermined.The paper begins with a brief introduction to the OIC, and proceeds to explore its relationship with the principles of equality and nondiscrimination by examining its founding document and other relevant primary sources. With this understanding in place, subsequent sections examine the OIC’s contemporary understanding of these principles as manifested in rights debates surrounding women and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) individuals and related SOGI issues. Throughout this examination, the role of the OIC’s newly established Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) is considered as a means of appraising whether a shift in the OIC’s position may be forthcoming. The paper concludes with several recommendations for concerned policymakers and human rights activists.