The OIC’s Global Free Speech Agenda and Its Cost to UK Integration

Unpacking the Contradiction: The OIC, Diplomatic Clout, and the Human Rights Reality

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) acts as a powerful diplomatic group. It includes 57 nations across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. This scale gives it huge influence in global forums like the UN. This collective strength is dedicated to promoting Muslim interests on the world stage.

A fundamental tension exists at its core. The OIC is often led by states whose domestic human rights practices directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This clash is most visible in the OIC’s consistent efforts to restrict freedom of speech globally. They do this under the guise of protecting religion.

1. The Campaign to Censor: The “Defamation of Religions” Push

For many years, the OIC led one of the most controversial diplomatic campaigns at the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). This was the push for resolutions titled “Combating Defamation of Religions.”

The objective was clear. They wanted to establish international legal norms. These would make criticising or insulting religion—especially Islam—an internationally recognised offence. Western states widely viewed this as an attempt to introduce a global “blasphemy law.” This directly conflicts with the right to free expression.

The Strategic Pivot and Resolution 16/18

The OIC faced persistent international resistance. They then strategically pivoted. They moved away from targeting the speech itself (“defamation”). Instead, they focused on protecting individuals from incitement to hostility. This led to the passage of HRC Resolution 16/18 (2011).

Resolution 16/18 technically focuses on promoting tolerance. However, critics argue that Western states adopting the resolution lent key diplomatic legitimacy to the OIC’s core concern. This concern is the need for states to actively address religiously offensive speech. This pivot secured a crucial platform for the OIC’s agenda in international policy discussions.

2. The Contradiction in Practice: Diplomacy vs. Domestic Reality

The OIC’s diplomatic leverage comes from the sheer number of its 57 member states. Yet, many of the bloc’s most influential leaders have severe domestic governance issues. Their records are frequently cited by international human rights watchdogs for severe violations. This creates a profound hypocrisy at the heart of the OIC’s advocacy:

• Political Repression: Countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are key OIC voices. Yet, they are consistently cited for extreme repression of political dissent. They impose severe restrictions on civil liberties and maintain systemic gender inequality.
• Freedom of Expression: Many member states across Asia and Africa maintain and actively enforce explicit domestic blasphemy and apostasy laws. This includes nations like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sudan (as listed in the OIC index). This leads to harsh penalties and persecution for speech that challenges religious authority.

This reality highlights the core contradiction. A diplomatic body campaigning for international speech restrictions is primarily composed of states that already deny fundamental civil and political rights to their own citizens.

Conclusion: The Setup for Domestic Failure

The OIC’s success has shifted the international narrative toward religious “offense.” This has significant downstream consequences. It is especially true for host countries attempting to accommodate Muslim communities.

This diplomatic pressure encourages host governments to prioritise feelings of comfort over fundamental rights. This policy choice does not foster successful accommodation. Instead, it leads to problems of censorship and the perception of persecution for free expression.

To understand how this international pressure translated into domestic policy failure—specifically how the UK’s repeal of blasphemy laws led to a de facto replacement that harms both free speech advocates and the goal of religious accommodation—read our full opinion piece: The Stealth Blasphemy Law: How UK Policies Fail Religious Accommodation.

SEO Items

Tags: OIC, Blasphemy Law, Free Speech, Human Rights, Diplomacy, UN, Religious Freedom, Censorship, UK Politics Categories: Geopolitics, Civil Liberties, Rights & Freedoms, Religion and Society, Editorial Focus Word Count: 322 Time to Read: 1 minute 37 seconds