Statement by Ambassador to the General Assembly Richard Croker at UN General Assembly 94th plenary meeting 77th session.

Thank you.

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. Photo by Mr Bullitt, Wikimedia commons.