A digital recording of the proceedings during which the delegations of each country presented their explanations as to their votes may be found here.
Mexico's position was that while the delegation agreed with the general sentiment of the resolution, it was of the opinion that further debate was needed on some of its elements. In particular, they wanted to determine that not all criticism of religion should be regarded as incitement to discrimination.
We would like to begin by reiterating that Mexico deeply laments the
incidents that gave rise to this emergency debate and we firmly reject
any acts of discrimination, intolerance, hostility or violence
committed against a person on the grounds of their religious faith or
beliefs. We would like to thank the sponsors for having taken into
account some of the suggestions made by our delegation. That said, in
the draft there are still elements which should be the subject of a
more in-depth discussion within this council. Although we do agree
with the sponsors that the exercise of freedom of expression entails
duties and responsibilities, it is important to reiterate that not all
criticism of religion amounts, in and of itself, to an incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence.
Mexico reaffirms that the rights to freedom of religion and belief
including the right to not follow a religion as well as the freedom of
opinion and expression are inherent in all human beings as rights
holders. The topic we are discussing today requires broad dialogue with
states belonging to all regional groups. It would have been desirable
to take into account all views to ensure that this text would have
tackled this important topic in a balanced, comprehensive and integral
way as we have achieved over a decade and we would have wanted to
ensure that we may enshrine the full respect for all human rights in
it. Therefore, Mexico will abstain with regard to L 23.
Chile's position also rested on freedom of speech concerns, as well as the fact that their attempts to amend the resolution to be in line with international standards were rebuffed.
Chile believes that the facts underpinning this draft resolution are
of the utmost seriousness and we urge all people to respect the
practices, places of worship and symbols of all religious groups. My
country firmly condemns any act amounting to an incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence against any group of people,
including those who are part of a religious community. That said, we
believe that this draft resolution is not consistent with other
initiatives that tackle in a better way freedom of religion and which
better reflect the importance of combating intolerance,
discrimination, and incitement of violence such as the recently
approved resolutions 52/6 and 52/38 of this Human Rights Council.
From our perspective, this fresh resolution does not meet all the
standards of international obligations of states and some of its
provisions would seek to limit freedom of expression in a way that
goes beyond what is foreseen by Article 16 and 19 of the ICCPR. For
these reasons Chile has decided to abstain.
Finally, Chile deplores that the constructive suggestions made during
the negotiations were not duly reflected in the text of this
resolution. We were seeking to bring this text into line with
international standards and we believe that this council should be a
forum for open dialogue in which we seek consensus. Only thus can we
make resolute progress towards better protecting and promoting human
rights around the world.