Mick Hartley

Philosopher Peter Singer adds his voice* to the chorus condemning the "defamation of religion" resolution at the UN Human Rights Council:

Germany opposed the resolution. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, a German spokesperson rejected the concept of "defamation of religion" as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions.

Many non-government organizations, both secular and religious, also opposed the resolution. Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said that that his organization saw the resolution as weakening "the rights of individuals to express their views."

This seems like a sound argument. While attempts to stir up hatred against adherents of a religion, or to incite violence against them, may legitimately be suppressed, criticism of religion as such should not be. The resolution happens to be non-binding, but if nations were to enact laws putting it into effect, there would be no doubt that it would interfere with freedom of expression.

But he then moves on to highlight what he sees as German double standards:

Coincidentally, in the same week that Germany and the World Jewish Congress rejected the idea that defamation of religion is an affront to human dignity and upheld the right to freedom of expression, Germany's highest court issued its ruling on a case brought by a Jewish organization, and two Jewish individuals. The court ruled against the right of the United States-based animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to exhibit posters that juxtapose photographs of victims of the Holocaust with photographs of animals in factory farms and at slaughterhouses.

The posters bear the heading: "To Animals, All People are Nazis" – a line from the Polish-born Jewish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer. According to the court, Germany's laws on freedom of speech did not protect PETA's campaign, because to make "the fate of the victims of the Holocaust appear banal and trivial" was an offense against human dignity.

PETA was, of course, not arguing that Holocaust victims' fate was banal or trivial. On the contrary, it was using the Holocaust – which we would all agree was utterly horrific – to suggest, as Isaac Bashevis Singer did, that there are parallels between the way the Nazis treated Jews and the way we treat animals. The conclusion PETA wants us to reach is that both the Holocaust and the mass confinement and slaughter of animals are horrific. A free society should be open to discussing such a claim.

Irrespective of the merits of PETA's campaign, however, those who stood up for free speech at the United Nations Human Rights Council should be able to see that the fact that some forms of speech cause offense is not sufficient reason to censor them. If PETA is not allowed to state its case against our abuse of animals in the way that they judge best, because doing so might offend some people, then criticism of religion could also be prohibited on the same grounds.

If, on the other hand, a religion's adherents have no right to protection against criticism of their religion, then, even in Germany, Holocaust victims and their descendants (and I am one of them) should not be protected against advertising campaigns that, though not intended to incite hatred or violence, may cause them offense.

I'm not sure about this. Singer says that the case was brought by a Jewish organisation and two Jewish individuals, which might lead one to think that this was, like the UN resolution, about people who consider themselves to have been offended, or at risk of being offended, and are trying to use the law to prevent this. But the actual decision handed down by the court was based on the ruling that to make "the fate of the victims of the Holocaust appear banal and trivial" was an offense against human dignity. Not an offense against particular people, or communities (Jews), but against human dignity as a whole. The problem is: the trivialisation of the Holocaust.

It might seem as though this is another case of that infamous German prohibition against Holocaust denial. Perhaps Singer wants us to make that connection. But whatever you think of that – and I would agree with the view that, although it's understandable, in the end it's probably counter-productive in that it allows people like David Irving to portray themselves as free speech martyrs – this is something else.

The point is: this is about an advertisement. If a PETA spokesperson wanted to make the claim in an article or book that our treatment of animals is comparable to the Nazi treatment of Jews, there'd be no problem. As far as I'm aware, writings by animal rights campaigners who invoke the Holocaust - like Peter Singer – aren't banned in Germany. The problem arises when they decide to base an advertising campaign on that comparison, with posters juxtaposing "photographs of victims of the Holocaust with photographs of animals in factory farms and at slaughterhouses". I have no problem seeing that as, precisely, a trivialisation of the Holocaust. This is, after all, a campaign to promote the aims of PETA – to provoke people into making donations and so forth. Whether it should be a question for the German high court – well, that's up to the Germans.

So no, I don't see this as a freedom of expression issue on a par with the UN "defamation of religion" resolution. There's no ban on comparing our treatment of animals with the Nazis. There is a ban now, in Germany at least, on using that comparison in adverts to raise money for animal rights organisations. Personally I don't think that's unreasonable.

[* That link is to the Daily Star. I see that the article appeared at the Guardian CiF on Wednesday, but considering it always takes about five minutes for a Guardian page to load, and then you've got all those annoying comments, you're probably better off with the Star.]