In a first for the United Nations Human Rights Council, a resolution moved by Pakistan and Palestine, which urged countries to prevent religious hatred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Quran in some Western countries was passed by a 28-12 margin, and among the supporters of the resolution were countries from Africa and the Middle East, China and India.

The resolution said measures must be taken to “prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Pakistan ambassador Khalil Hashmi explained that the resolution “does not seek to curtail the right to free speech” but it tries to balance between rights and “special duties and responsibilities.”

United States ambassador Michele Taylor told the council a day earlier that the United States “strongly condemns the acts that have precipitated today’s discussion, including the desecration of Holy Quran on June 28” – a reference to the burning of the Holy Book by an extremist in Stockholm and which led to protests from Muslim communities – but added that she was “heart-broken” that no consensus could be reached on the issue. She said that “in condemning in what we all agree are deplorable acts of anti-Muslim hatred, while also respecting freedom of expression.”

The division was indeed sharp on those who supported the resolution and those who opposed it. Pakistan ambassador Hashmi stated the case of those who moved and supported the resolution when he said, “The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Quran or any other religious book. They lack political, legal and moral courage to condemn this attack, and it was the minimum that the council could have expected from them.”

There are two important aspects to the passing of this resolution. First, it was a move by countries from outside the Western world, and it condemned religious intolerance and violence in Western countries. It has usually been the case that in the UN Human Rights Council, it was the ostensible liberal democratic countries of the West which would move resolutions condemning acts of intolerance in Third World countries. The West has always projected itself as the paragon of tolerance. The growing Islamophobic sentiment in Western countries exposed the shallow claims of tolerance of Western democracies.

Second, many of the Third World countries, despite the many differences they had among themselves, voted together against intolerance in Western societies and the implicit racism behind this. India and Pakistan, south Asia’s arch rivals who do not see eye-to-eye on most issues, voted together. India supported a resolution moved by Pakistan. There are political motives in this apparent unity of the Asian and African countries, but it was a determined stance against Western democracies and their attitude of superiority.

The resolution was not just against religious hatred targeting Islam and Muslims, but religious hatred per se, and the desecration of the holy book of any religion. It displayed the fact that in Asia and Africa, respect for religion is not confined to one’s own religion, but to religions of others as well. This is indeed the true measure of tolerance compared to the ostentatious tolerance in the West.

In many ways, the social and political evils that Western democracies had condemned in Asian and African countries are now raising their ugly head in Western countries. And the African and Asian countries which have been subjected to hypocritical sermons by Westerners are now taking a stand which condemns hatred and violence. And the stance of the Afro-Asian countries also shows that true tolerance implies respect for all. The passing of the resolution in the Human Rights Council is a small but significant victory for the Afro-Asian countries against the domineering Western countries.