Примеры использования Concept of defamation на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Switzerland noted that the concept of defamation of religions was not recognized in international law.
Some of the paragraphs in the resolution can be interpreted as being relevant to the debate on the concept of defamation of religions.
The European Union did not regard the concept of defamation of religions as valid in the context of discourse on human rights.
The Durban Review process, which culminated in the adoption of the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference on 24 April 2009,makes no reference to the concept of defamation of religions.
To what extent the concept of defamation of religions can be derived from existing international human rights law framework;
Mr. Bené(Observer for the Holy See)said that his delegation welcomed the efforts of the sponsors to move away from the concept of defamation, which remained an unclear legal term in the current human rights framework.
The concept of defamation of religions was inconsistent with human rights law, which protected individuals, but not religions or belief systems.
He concurred with both his predecessor and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia andrelated intolerance that the concept of defamation often triggered confusion and should be abandoned.
Spain informed that it does not recognize the concept of defamation of religions because only individuals, and not religions, can be rights holders.
The concept of defamation of religions was not consistent with international human rights law, and therefore with Brazilian legislation, which was based on the protection of the right of the individual to freely profess the religion of his or her choice, including the right to change his or her faith.
Others have adopted specific defamation of religions,laws that extend the concept of defamation to protect religions and, in that sense, regard defamation of religions as essential to the protection of freedom of religion or belief.
The report his predecessor had prepared for the ninth session of the Human Rights Council on combating defamation of religions had, after reflecting on the latest forms of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia, made a central recommendation to Member States, in the specific context of the Durban review:to move from the concept of defamation of religions to the notion of incitement to racial and religious hatred, as a way of grounding their debate on concrete human rights principles.
Ensure that the concept of defamation and disturbance of public order is in line with the human right to freedom of expression in law and practice(Germany);
Mr. Sammis(United States of America), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting,said that his delegation, despite its concerns with the concept of defamation, had tried over the past year to address the root concerns behind the draft resolution.
He hoped that it would be possible to clarify the concept of defamation of religions, in order to ensure that its interpretation respected the right to freedom of expression in all its aspects.
The United States of America, recalling its contribution of 12 August 2009 to the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on defamation of religions(A/HRC/13/57), submitted to the Human Rights Council at its thirteenth session,confirmed its position that the concept of defamation of religions was inconsistent with international human rights law since religions were not protected under human rights law and Governments had the obligation to protect freedom of expression.
However, the concept of defamation of religions seeks to convey the idea that a religion itself can be a subject of protection under human rights law, thereby potentially undermining protection for individuals.
His delegation would vote against the resolution because prohibiting speech did not promote tolerance and because the concept of defamation of religions continued to be used to justify censorship, criminalization and even violent assaults and deaths of political, racial and religious minorities around the world.
According to another State, the concept of defamation of religions is not supported by international law and a religion itself cannot be a subject of protection under human rights law as this would potentially undermine protection for individuals.
States opposing the adoption of the resolution voiced concern that it could lead to a stifling of freedom of expression or argued that the concept of defamation of religions was inconsistent with human rights law, which protected individuals and not religions or belief systems.
In many countries, the concept of defamation was dealt with extensively under civil law, but including it in the criminal code was highly dangerous as the police could invoke it whenever they were accused of brutality.
In his latest report to the Human Rights Council(A/HRC/14/23), the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion andexpression recalled that the concept of defamation of religions did not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which referred to the protection of the reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, could not be said to have a reputation of their own.
Those who claimed that the concept of defamation of religions had no international legal basis overlooked the fact that the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy committed all States to promote a culture of peace and respect all religions and beliefs, and to prevent the defamation of religions.
Furthermore, the European Union was convinced that the concept of defamation of religions was not compatible with a discussion on human rights and that it was misplaced to combine the two.
While I understand the concerns behind the concept of defamation of religions, I believe that, from a human rights perspective and in the light of the Durban Review Conference, it should be addressed as an issue of incitement to religious hatred within the existing framework of international human rights law, with reference to articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These criteria could not be equally applicable to a concept of defamation of religions that would protect ideas, as this would be contrary to the notion of freedom of religion or belief.
In this context,I understand the underlying concerns behind the concept of defamation of religions and believe that the most appropriate approach to address them, from a human rights perspective and in the light of the Durban Review Conference, is through the legal concept of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
Although domestic legislation did not recognize the concept of defamation of religions, there was a long-standing unwritten rule to respect religious sensitivities, including in the media.
For example, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty submitted that the concept of defamation of religions is not recognized in international human rights law and that it would be inconsistent with the foundation of international human rights law.
He supported the call for States to move away from the concept of defamation and towards advocacy against racial or religious hatred, as well as to foster awareness of religious belief and mutual understanding.