The motion called for countries to review their laws and plug gaps that may “impede the prevention and prosecution of acts and advocacy of religious hatred.

Here is how countries voted:


  1. Belgium;
  2. Costa Rica;
  3. Czech Republic;
  4. Finland;
  5. France;
  6. Germany;
  7. Lithuania;
  8. Luxembourg;
  9. Montenegro;
  10. Romania;
  11. UK;
  12. US


  1. Benin;
  2. Chile;
  3. Georgia;
  4. Honduras;
  5. Mexico;
  6. Nepal;
  7. Paraguay


  1. Algeria;
  2. Argentina;
  3. Bangladesh;
  4. Bolivia;
  5. Cameroon;
  6. China;
  7. Cuba;
  8. Eritrea;
  9. Gabon;
  10. Gambia;
  11. India;
  12. Ivory Coast;
  13. Kazakhstan;
  14. Kyrgyzstan;
  15. Malawi;
  16. Malaysia;
  17. Maldives;
  18. Morocco;
  19. Pakistan;
  20. Qatar;
  21. Senegal;
  22. Somalia;
  23. South Africa;
  24. Sudan;
  25. Ukraine;
  26. UAE;
  27. Uzbekistan;
  28. Vietnam;

Did the countries which vote on July 12th against the UNHRC resolution condemning religious hatred and bigotry vote for the same reason, i.e., "freedom of speech"?

I am especially curious about Costa Rica.

  • Given that you've asked 3 questions so far about this, can you post the actual full text of the resolution? Hard to to say exactly what countries objected to without knowing what the resolution said. UN resolutions can range from relatively neutral to quite aggressive/prescriptive and sometimes countries don't like the idea of being stuck with implied bills. Or, in this case, with required changes to their legal frameworks. Again, without having full text, all speculation. Jul 15, 2023 at 16:58
  • I added a "need detailed answer" post notice to this question because it's the kind of question that attracts speculative answers, which then receive a ton of upvotes from new users who don't understand that we don't allow speculation. If you want to answer, then source your answer from an official statement from the UN delegation of these countries explaining their reasoning for the vote. Do not bother writing answers based on conjecture and indirect evidence what their motivation might have been,
    – Philipp
    Jul 15, 2023 at 17:23
  • India on the side of Pakistan and China - that too not abstaining, damn!
    – whoisit
    Jul 17, 2023 at 17:38

1 Answer 1


Yes, pretty much - every country that explained their decision to vote against cited freedom of expression concerns. Montenegro was the only country to vote against which did not speak in the debate either on July 11th or July 12th.

Belgium presented the joint position of the member states of the European Union (Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg & Romania), which was that the text of the resolution did not reflect the balance between freedom of expression and incitement to hatred which had been struck previously in the Rabat Action Plan, the Istanbul Process and the Beirut Declaration. The states also considered that the resolution was not in keeping with international human rights law, yet made a fundamental alteration to international human rights.

The United States also considered that the resolution broke the "delicate balance" between freedom of expression and freedom of belief that had been struck in resolution 1618, and conflicted with their "deep and long-standing positions on freedom of expression".

The United Kingdom was of the opinion that the resolution conflicted with international human rights law which "provides us with narrowly defined parameters in which freedom of expression can be limited".

Costa Rica's delegation submitted that the resolution did not uphold the "delicate balance" between freedom of opinion and expression and the freedom of religion, "in particular preambulary paragraph 6 and operative paragraphs 1 to 3".

  • 'The United Kingdom was of the opinion that the resolution conflicted with international human rights law' quite surreal given everything else that's going on...
    – Jontia
    Jul 18, 2023 at 19:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .