Saying I have a fundamental right to Internet access is different from saying I have the right to harass people with it or conduct international espionage with it. "interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other states, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature" is not something I’m typically allowed to do without the Internet, either. That said … the implications of that line in the context of actions taken by China and by the US and UK with respect to Internet freedoms and national security respectively are indeed worrying.
While “*intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief” *is quite broad … it is somewhat out of context. It is also, while broad in the extreme, not unlike harassment laws that restrict free speech.
Now for that context. The quote comes from the resolution title: “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.”
The body of the document is made up of things like
Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship,
Concerned about actions that wilfully exploit tensions or target individuals on the basis of their religion or belief,
Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by discrimination against persons belonging to religious minorities, in addition to the negative projection of the followers of religions and the enforcement of measures that specifically discriminate against persons on the basis of religion or belief,
And the actual recommendations:
- Calls upon all States:
(a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief;
(b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society;
© To encourage the representation and meaningful participation of individuals, irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;
(d) To make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;
- Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in this regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;
- Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full respect for and protection of places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;
- Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a panel discussion on this issue at its seventeenth session, within existing resources.
Then the document is done (source). So they express concern over religious violence and intolerance, and then leave a series of recommendations that … sound entirely reasonable. I don’t see anything in there that criminalizes an individual’s right to speak against religion.
The second article you link to is genuinely disturbing to me, as I already alluded to. I wasn’t able to find a more favorable context–or a more reliably complete one–so I’m forced to take it as-is. And it is worrisome. I guess we’ll learn more as December gets closer.