Once again we find ourselves in this Council confronted with situations which are real and cannot be denied, but the way proposed to face them is a confusing one, since the solutions proposed as a means of solving them imply compromising other values.
There is no doubt about the existence of discrimination based on religion and, unfortunately, this phenomenon is not limited to a particular part of the world, nor is it related to a degree of development – although this may sometimes be the case -. And, therefore, we consider it pertinent for this Council to carry out an in-depth examination of the topic of discrimination based upon religion or belief.
Art. 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that the law – and this refers to the law of each country – shall prohibit any discrimination and shall warrant to all persons equal and effective protection against any discrimination, among others, that based upon the religion he or she has or chooses not to have.
I believe that this provision constitutes the common, universal principle to base our work upon, but we are referring to the rights of people, to the subjects of the international human rights law and these subjects are individual human beings, they are the ones to whom these rules apply. Human beings are to be protected in the exercise of their rights, one of which obviously is the right to believe or not in a religion, the freedom of expression which is inherent to the rights to have a religion or not to have one. A religion cannot be professed in the absence of the freedom to express it. Subsequently, if there is a severe limitation to the freedom of expression and opinion, we are in a society which restricts the right to believe or not in a religion.
Thus, it is not religions which are the subjects of human rights. These subjects are the individual human beings. This is a view I think many countries share and I believe this is the concept that is to be inferred from our international instruments.
Art. 20, par. 2 of the International Covenant also explicitly establishes that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. It is in this direction that the international community should make way, by focusing on the prohibition of any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
This has been, in fact, the clear outcome of a Seminar held by the High Commissioner’s Office some years ago in a quiet academic context. Therefore, Chile, as a country whose citizens enjoy the fullest extent of religious freedom, where representatives of all religions existing in the country attend national celebrations, as a country that respects any religion or belief and whose Parliament includes members of different creeds as well as non-believers, will vote against this draft resolution, since the reach of this draft goes beyond the right of freedom of religion while entering in a legally vague formulation that falls or may fall into the error referred to at the beginning, of limiting the freedom of expression and opinion. With this we do not want to say that anyone is free to defame others, but it only means that we should be most aware of the fact that the means of protecting a particular right may create a context in which that right cannot be enjoyed.
Those countries already sharing this position should continue to work with the others in order to identify the causes of the problem, but I believe that this resolution is not going to lead us towards a universally valid formula, in particular, because many of us believe that it leads towards questioning freedom of expression and opinion.
I would like to ask, in this Council, observance of the greatest respect, which I am afraid has flawed somehow at the beginning when it was manifested that certain positions had already been pre-adopted as a consequence of pressure or of other circumstances. I believe we should analyze the arguments, we should analyze our history. This debate on religions, on prohibitions of religions, my country has already gone through that in the 19th century and a solution was found at the beginning of the 20th century.
I believe it is time for us to be able to have an exchange of experiences rather than an exchange of accusations. And I believe we are ready to keep on working on all this in order to eliminate discrimination based on religion and many of the phenomena mentioned here, in this Council, which are real and which require a solution, but the one suggested by the concept of defamation of religions, as reflected in this draft, is mistaken.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
