• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression

Altfish

Veteran Member
The 2014 World Humanist Congress, gathered in Oxford, UK, on 8-10 August 2014, adopted the following declaration on freedom of thought and expression:

All around the world and at all times, it is freedom of thought and freedom of expression that have proved the most essential conditions for human flourishing, but every generation must face new threats to these fundamental freedoms. Knowing this, we maintain:

The right to freedom of thought and belief is one and the same right for all. The human right articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated elsewhere is and should be a single right, indivisible, protecting the dignity and freedom of all people by protecting their right to their personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs, religious or non-religious. As Article 7 of the Declaration says, ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.’

No one anywhere should ever be forced into or out of a belief. Freedom of thought implies the right to develop, hold, examine and manifest our beliefs without coercion, and to express opinions and a worldview whether religious or non-religious, without fear of coercion. It includes the right to change our views or to reject beliefs previously held, or previously ascribed. Pressure to conform to ideologies of the state or to doctrines of religion is a tyranny. Laws that prescribe or criminalise beliefs contravene human dignity and must be abolished. Every citizen of every state has the right to demand the repeal of such laws, and all states should support those, wherever they are, who demand that their social freedoms and personal liberty be upheld.

The right to freedom of expression is global in its scope. The human right articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to ‘seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’. No parochial nationalism or state insecurity should prevent the global human community from fulfilling the promise of our new technologies, our mass media, our social media, and our personal access to transnational networks. States should invest to allow their citizens’ participation in this global conversation.

There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply respect for those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be self-restraint alone. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it. Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished.

States must not restrict thought and expression merely to protect the government from criticism. States that criminalise criticism of government policies or officials as treasonous, or as threats to security, are not “strong governments” championing the best interests of the public, but censorious bullies exercising tyranny in their own interests. States should ensure in the law of the land, in their education systems, and in the conduct of their national life generally, that freedom of thought and expression are actively promoted and pursued to the real benefit of every member of society.

Freedom of belief is absolute but the freedom to act on a belief is not. As responsible members of a community we accept that our freedom to act must sometimes be restricted, if and only if our actions would destroy the rights and freedoms of others. Freedom of belief cannot legitimise overriding the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law. These balances can be hard to strike but with a focus on freedom and human dignity, we believe legislators and judiciaries can strike them in a progressive manner.

We assert the principles of democracy and secularism as providing the firmest foundation for the development of open societies where freedom of thought and expression will be protected and promoted.

We commit ourselves in all our work to uphold and promote existing rights to freedom of thought and expression within the international human rights framework and to resist national and international restrictions on the right of individuals to think for themselves freely and to openly express their views without fear.

We urge each of our member organizations and humanists worldwide to uphold these values in their own lives; to promote in their communities greater public understanding of the rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression for all; to urge their governments to promote these values; and to join with humanists and others globally in defending and advancing them to the benefit of all humanity.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It seems self evident to be true...
However Few states and fewer religions follow it completely.

There is a very long way to go for all of us.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
A strong message, overall. Surprisingly poorly worded in places, but I suppose that it's now a humanist value to support them in however they want to word it.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
These sorts of declarations sometimes have remarkable influence on cultures -- but over decades or centuries. Very little is likely to change soon because of it. Especially since it seems to me, at least, that it is directed to some large extent at the Muslim world. Or at least those elements in the Muslim world who are calling for the suppression of thought and expression on religious grounds (But perhaps the authors had just as much in mind the suppression of thought and expression that is, to one extent or another, found most places).

Also, I see the declaration as a re-affirmation of some of the principles of the European Enlightenment. That is, it's origin lies in the 1600s. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it goes to show how long and arduous it can be to promote such principles, and to make them common ideals -- let alone realize them.
 
Last edited:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
These sorts of declarations sometimes have remarkable influence on cultures -- but over decades or centuries. Very little is likely to change soon because of it. Especially since it seems to me, at least, that it is directed to some large extent at the Muslim world. Or at least those elements in the Muslim world who are calling for the suppression of thought and expression on religious grounds (But perhaps the authors had just as much in mind the suppression of thought and expression that is, to one extent or another, found most places).

Also, I see the declaration as a re-affirmation of some of the principles of the European Enlightenment. That is, it's origin lies in the 1600s. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it goes to show how long and arduous it can be to promote such principles, and to make them common ideals -- let alone realize them.

These are both good points. But, I wonder whether the formation of such declarations has an impact on cultures, or whether cultures which are already primed for such ideas tend to produce such declarations.
 
Top