STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR CARLOS
PORTALES, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE
EXPERT SEMINAR ON FREEDOM OF
EXPRESION AND ADVOCACY OF RELIGIOUS HATRED THAT CONSTITUTES INCITEMENT
TO DISCRIMINATION, HOSTILITY OR VIOLENCE
Geneva, October 2-3, 2008
Mr. Chairman,
I wish to congratulate the Office
of the High Commissioner for organizing this Seminar and particularly
your good self, Mr. Chairman, on your judicious conduction and your
ability to introduce issues in a most relevant way. I also wish to thank
the experts for the excellent quality of their papers, presentations
and observations which, I am sure, will illuminate the Council in its
consideration of the topic under discussion.
The legal approach of the Seminar
should also be favoured, because international law is our common ground,
upon which we are to build. Further collaboration requires clarity of
concepts. These days, I feel, have been most useful.
I agree with the need for other
approaches and the need for comprehensive policies to struggle against
discrimination and for addressing hate speech that incites to hostility,
violence and discrimination. We should continue deepening our reflection
on these matters.
Mr. Chairman,
Allow me to refer to the jurisprudence
of our regional system. A case decided by the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, based on the American Convention on Human Rights, concerned
Olmedo Bustos and others against the State of Chile.
The Chilean Court had forbidden
the exhibition of Passolini's film "The last temptation of Christ",
based on Kazantzakis' book, just cited by our friend the Ambassador
of Sri Lanka, overruling the previous authorization of the Administrative
Council of Film Censorship. A case that resembles others mentioned here.
The Inter-American Court of Human
Rights declared in February 2001 that the State acted against freedom
of opinion and expression and decided that the State should change the
law and allow exhibition of the film.
Chile promptly reformed the law
and the film was exhibited. Let me underline:
1) that
those who felt affected went to the domestic courts and lost. They
followed the international procedures, went to the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights and were given satisfaction;
2) that
the State accepted the ruling;
3) that
religious leaders (amongst them those of the majority religion in
the country) remained neutral.
Thus a conflict presented as freedom
of expression against rights of religion was solved by an International
Court.
Basing ourselves upon what has been
discussed yesterday and today, we should continue making precisions
in the context of international law (threshold definition, etc.) but
we see no ground today for additional instruments.
At the same time, we fully agree
with the need for additional approaches, such as education, inter-religious
dialogue, Alliance of Civilizations and others which should be further
developed.
In this regard, I wish to highlight
the importance of the behaviour of religious leaders in avoiding incitements
to hate, because their influence on communities.
Promotion of moderation is incumbent
upon state authorities, but should also be supported by civil society
and, in particular, by religious leaders' moderation in their comments
on others and moderation in their responses to critics of their own
points of view.
Freedom of expression, in theory,
universally agreed, but unfortunately, in practice, not universally
applied, must be considered a tool in the struggle against discrimination.
Its limitation, beyond the restrictive conditions established by international
law, would only contribute to worsen the situation of minorities and
discriminated groups. There is ample room for improvement of practice.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
