The UN Human Rights Council voted Wednesday to sentence recent Koran burning incidents, however many international locations declined to again the decision, fearing it encroached on free speech.

Despite overwhelming condemnation of the Muslim holy e book being desecrated, the vote introduced extra division than unity, with international locations from Europe and the Americas saying a bit extra work may have resulted in a stronger, unanimous determination.

Pakistan and different Organisation of Islamic Cooperation international locations introduced ahead a debate and backbone after an Iraqi refugee burnt pages from the Koran exterior Stockholm’s foremost mosque final month. The incident triggering a diplomatic backlash throughout the Muslim world.

The United Nations’ prime rights physique backed the OIC decision on countering non secular hatred by 28 votes in favour, with 12 in opposition to and 7 abstentions.

Argentina, China, Cuba, India, South Africa, Ukraine and Vietnam backed the decision.

“Islamophobia is on the rise. Incidents involving desecrating the holy Koran have happened again and again in some countries,” China’s ambassador Chen Xu stated.

“These countries have done nothing to implement their professed respect for the protection of freedom of religious belief.”

Despite backing the decision, Argentinian ambassador Federico Villegas admitted: “We would have liked to have reached a text with more consensus and clarity.”

Britain, the United States, European Union international locations together with France and Germany, plus Costa Rica and Montenegro, voted in opposition to the decision.

Benin, Chile, Mexico, Nepal and Paraguay had been among the many abstentions.

Mexico’s ambassador Francisca Mendez Escobar stated: “Not all criticism of religion amounts in and of itself to an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Paraguay’s ambassador Marcelo Scappini Ricciardi stated {that a} decision which all international locations may again was “clearly possible”.

“If we cannot agree on such an essential topic, that does not show us in a good light,” he stated.

Chile’s ambassador Claudia Fuentes Julio added: “Some of its provisions would seek to limit freedom of expression.

“Chile deplores that the constructive recommendations made through the negotiations weren’t duly mirrored within the textual content.”

Despite the vote passing to applause, there were few cheerful notes sounded in the chamber.

US ambassador Michele Taylor said that with more time and discussion, a consensus could have been reached.

“Unfortunately our considerations weren’t taken significantly,” she said.

“I’m truly heartbroken that this council was unable to speak with a unanimous voice today in condemning what we all agree are deplorable acts of anti-Muslim hatred, while also respecting freedom of expression.”

Lack of courage claim

And there was little sense of triumph from Pakistan’s ambassador Khalil Hashmi, speaking for the OIC.

Hashmi insisted the resolution was not looking to curtail free speech, but had been aimed at striking a prudent balance.

“Regrettably, some states have chosen to abdicate their accountability to forestall and counter the scourge of non secular hatred,” he said.

“A message has been despatched to billions of individuals of religion internationally that their dedication to forestall non secular hatred is merely a lip service.

“The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the holy Koran.

“They lack political, authorized and ethical braveness.”

The wording of the resolution condemns all manifestations of religious hatred, including “public and premeditated acts of desecration of the Holy Koran”, and underscores the need to hold those responsible to account.

It urges states to adopt laws to “handle, stop and prosecute acts and advocacy of non secular hatred that represent incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.

It additionally needs the UN rights chief Volker Turk to determine gaps in international locations’ legal guidelines in gentle of the decision.