Leon Langdon joined Humanists International as an Advocacy Officer in September 2023. He brings a wealth of experience from his prior roles at the UN Security Council and in the NGO and education sectors. At Humanists International, he focuses on advancing the organization’s work at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and supporting member organizations in navigating UN human rights mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review. Langdon holds a law degree from University College Dublin and a master’s in international relations from New York University.

In this interview, Langdon delves into pressing developments at the UNHRC, including the contentious non-renewal of Resolution 16/18 and the adoption of a resolution targeting the desecration of religious books. He highlights Humanists International’s advocacy to uphold freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) and freedom of expression while combating blasphemy laws that disproportionately target minorities and undermine human rights. Langdon underscores the importance of frameworks like the Rabat Plan of Action in addressing hate speech without eroding free expression.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me, Leon. As an Advocacy Officer at Humanists International, you’re at the forefront of critical global issues. Let’s start with a broad question. How would you characterize recent UN Human Rights Council developments regarding efforts to combat religious hatred?

Langdon: The current trends are troubling. For context, over the years, there has been a consensus between the most significant actors in this arena: the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the European Union (EU), which often acts on behalf of the West, including the United States.

These organizations have historically agreed on how best to balance the right to freedom of religion or belief with efforts to combat hatred based on religion or belief. This consensus was reflected in two parallel resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council: the EU-led resolution on FoRB and the OIC-led Resolution 16/18 on combating religious hatred. Both resolutions have been renewed annually since 2011, up until this year.

The trends you’re referring to include two key developments: the introduction of a resolution addressing the desecration of religious books and symbols in 2023, its attempted renewal in 2024, and the non-renewal of Resolution 16/18 in 2024. These actions are deeply concerning as they undermine what was a hard-fought consensus on countering hatred based on religion or belief. Achieving this consensus required many years of negotiation, substantial compromise, and significant effort among the world’s major actors.

Seeing this progress eroded is undoubtedly worrying for us at Humanists International.

Jacobsen: Humanists International has been vocal about its concerns regarding resolving the desecration of sacred books and religious symbols. Could you elaborate on the organization’s key apprehensions?

Langdon: In 2023, we raised several issues regarding this resolution. We voiced our concerns during the emergency debate called at the UN and in a joint letter with numerous other NGOs.

First, we highlighted that prohibiting the defamation of religion and protecting religious ideas, institutions, and symbols not only contravenes the guarantees of freedom of opinion and expression but is also prone to abuse—most often targeting religious minorities. Ironically, these minorities are often the very groups the resolution claims to protect. Second, we stressed the long-established distinction between criticism of religion or belief and attacks on individuals because they adhered to a particular religion or belief. This difference is crucial to maintain.

Third, we noted that equating the desecration of religious books and symbols with incitement to hatred is problematic. Such acts do not always constitute incitement, and this oversimplification disregards the need for a case-by-case approach. Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process, including the Rabat Plan of Action’s six-part threshold test, provide a robust framework for determining whether an act constitutes incitement.

Ignoring this framework undermines years of work and legal clarity.

Jacobsen: Despite strong opposition, the resolution passed. In your view, why did it gain sufficient support?

Langdon: In my opinion, two factors played a role. The first is the broader geopolitical environment. This resolution was introduced in response to several incidents in Europe involving the burning of the Qur’an.

There was anger and shame about those incidents in certain states. The second factor was the assertion by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation that this would be a one-time resolution. It was brought in during an emergency debate. At the time, there was no discussion that this resolution would be renewed or that its renewal would lead to the subsequent non-renewal of Resolution 16/18. Some states, especially given the political context at the time, could sympathize with the sentiment. This is evident in the failure to renew the resolution a second time, despite the OIC’s attempts.

Jacobsen: Humanists International has actively engaged in negotiations on religious tolerance. What has been the organization’s role in shaping these discussions?

Langdon: Broadly speaking, we are one of the UN’s only explicitly non-religious or humanist organizations, and that is a vital voice we bring to the table. Within that role, we work to champion the balance between freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression. Additionally, we highlight how laws, such as blasphemy laws at the national level, can be used to undermine the rights of non-religious individuals and religious minorities.

Jacobsen: The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation often leads these resolutions. How does its approach differ from broader human rights principles?

Langdon: The OIC’s approach elevates religion, including religious books and symbols, to a pedestal, whereas international human rights law places the human being at the center. Religious books and symbols do not enjoy protections under international human rights law; people do. Moreover, these laws are often used to undermine human rights. Their subjective nature makes them prone to weaponization. This can take two primary forms.

Firstly, these laws are used to attack religious minorities who are expressing their freedom of religion or belief. In such cases, the majority in power often claims that the minority’s actions amount to blasphemy. This undermines their freedom of expression and violates their right to freedom of religion or belief.

Secondly, these laws are weaponized for political purposes. Accusations of blasphemy provide a convenient means for individuals to attack or undermine political opponents. Once an accusation is made, the state apparatus is often deployed against the accused, resulting in significant abuse of power.

Jacobsen: The annual resolution on combating religious hatred was withdrawn this year. What were the reasons behind this decision, and what does it signify?

Langdon: According to the OIC, Resolution 16/18 was withdrawn because Western countries had not done enough to combat hatred based on religion or belief. As I mentioned, this is a huge shame and part of the troubling trends we’ve discussed. Ultimately, it undermines the hard-fought consensus that had taken many years to achieve and had been in place for over a decade.

Jacobsen: Lobbying is a cornerstone of Humanists International’s advocacy. How have these efforts influenced the outcome of the renewed resolution?

Langdon: To my knowledge, we were the only NGO to speak during the informal consultations, the term used at the UN for negotiating resolutions. Our advocacy efforts were, therefore, particularly significant in shaping the discussion surrounding the renewal of this resolution.

As we have yet to receive a web link from the informal consultation organizers, we had to go to Geneva and speak in the room. During the session, we presented our case to the states, explaining why the resolution should not be renewed and why the OIC should return to Resolution 16/18. We also circulated a briefing document to over 100 states and received numerous supportive responses.

Building on this, we met with state representatives in Geneva, representing countries across several continents. We presented our position to them and addressed their questions and concerns. Because advocacy and lobbying are difficult to quantify regarding outcomes, it is challenging to attribute the resolution’s withdrawal to our efforts accurately.

However, we mobilized a substantial lobbying effort at short notice, and ultimately, the tabled resolution was indeed withdrawn. Regardless of directly attributing the outcome to our advocacy, we were pleased.

Jacobsen: Blasphemy laws remain a contentious issue in international human rights debates. What are the potential risks of reintroducing blasphemy language into UN resolutions?

Langdon: At the highest level, reintroducing blasphemy language into UN resolutions undermines the consensus I’ve mentioned several times about effectively countering hatred based on religion or belief. That consensus is not merely symbolic; it provides a framework for addressing religious hatred and incitement. It includes a six-part test under the Rabat Plan of Action for determining when incitement warrants criminalization and when it should be addressed through other means.

At another level, according to Humanists International’s latest research and the “Freedom of Thought Report,” 57% of the world’s population live in countries where blasphemy is punishable by law. These laws are inherently subjective and are often used to target religious minorities, including, though not exclusively, the non-religious.

Blasphemy laws violate individuals’ right to freedom of expression and infringe upon their right to freedom of religion or belief. While we and others lobby countries to repeal these harmful laws and raise awareness through initiatives like the “Freedom of Thought Report” and our advocacy at the UN, our efforts are undermined if governments can point to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that seems to support such laws.

This week, we were encouraged to learn that UN Secretary-General António Guterres cited our submission for his report on countering hatred based on religion or belief. In his report, Guterres underscored two critical points: first, that blasphemy laws are incompatible with international law, and second, the alternative mechanisms we outlined for addressing these issues. Such affirmations from the UN help our advocacy efforts far more than having a UN Human Rights Council resolution that contradicts these principles.

Jacobsen: Striking a balance between combating hate speech and safeguarding freedom of expression is a recurring challenge. What strategies or frameworks, such as the Rabat Plan of Action, offer practical solutions?

Langdon: We support and advocate for implementing the EU-led FoRB resolution and the OIC-led Resolution 16/18, along with their follow-up initiatives. Within this framework, we emphasize the importance of the Rabat Plan of Action’s six-part threshold test, which provides a clear structure for balancing freedom of expression with combating hate speech.

We also actively support and engage in measures that address hate speech without infringing on freedom of expression. For example, we champion educational initiatives, address the root causes of hate speech, and promote positive counter-speech strategies.

Jacobsen: Leon, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it.

Langdon: Of course.