Freedom of speech? Not against religion!

[Sionnach Glic]

UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

By FRANK JORDANS - 2 days ago

GENEVA (AP) - The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries - with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela - had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said.

"It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone," he said.

Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said.

Opponents of the resolution included Canada, all European Union countries, Switzerland, Ukraine and Chile.

"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said.

India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Its resolutions are not binding, but are meant to act as recommendations for U.N. member states on issues of human rights.

Earlier, a coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the Geneva body's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

U.S. diplomats resumed their observer role in the council after President Barack Obama took office, though it is unclear whether Washington will stand for one of the 18 council seats up for election in May.

Esther Brimmer, Obama's nominee for the job of Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs, told a Senate hearing Tuesday that the council was a "major disappointment, diverted from its mission by states with some of the worst human rights records."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Further proof the UN sucks, eh?

[Teaos]

The UN can go fuck themselves.

[Aaron]

Why the fuck would you have anyone but a Western country on the HRC? Every other country has a shite record.

[Tsukiyumi]

I don't care if the law says I have to go to Mosque daily. If I want to say something about a religion, I will.

[stitch626]

Unfortunatly, freedom of speech is a grey area. Where is the point when it goes from free speech to inciting a riot? It is hard to tell, especially for politicians it seems.

Just how far are they going to take this? I'm fine with being against hate language. But if someone wants to say they don't like religion x for reason y, I have no problem with it.

[Sionnach Glic]

Unfortunatly, freedom of speech is a grey area. Where is the point when it goes from free speech to inciting a riot? It is hard to tell, especially for politicians it seems.

As far as I'm concerned, freedom of speech ends the moment you begin inciting hatred towards some group. You can criticise something without inciting hatred of it, however.

For example:

Guy criticising religion with freedom of speech: "Islam is logical unsound because of scientific reasons X, Y and Z, and has been shown to have a terrible track record for human rights in cases 1, 2 and 3."

Guy criticising religion without freedom of speech: "Fuck the Muslims!"

The whole idea that any sort of criticism is automatical inciting hatred is just fucking retarded. This is just one more reason why the UN is completely FUBAR.

[Mark]

And just how do they propose to enforce this?

[stitch626]

Maybe this is a poor attempt to revive the economy. Fines for "hateful" speech.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

There is one bit of truth in this in that Islam =/= terrorism. Still, while tolerance and understanding is in order, this is simply too broad a way to attack the problem. Where exactly does discussion stop and incitement of hatred begin? Surly this point differs for each individual, to boot! In a multi-religious nation like the US, such a law would be a political timebomb: one group feels it isn't getting the same protection as others and...

Confucius say: do not use bazooka to swat mosquito.























IOW: What a bunch of f*cking morons

[Sionnach Glic]

And just how do they propose to enforce this?

They can't. From what I understand, only decisions made by the Security Council are binding for members of the UN. Everything else (more or less) is purely voluntary.

In other words, it's just the UN making itself look fucking stupid for the sake of looking fucking stupid.

[Captain Seafort]

In other words, it's just the UN making itself look f***ing stupid for the sake of looking f***ing stupid.

More like various shithole countries making themselves look stupid (huge surprise ), and dragging the UN into the mess.

[Teaos]

Which is what the UN is all about.

[Sionnach Glic]

In any case, the end result is that the UN looks fucking stupid.

[Sonic Glitch]

In any case, the end result is that the UN looks f***ing stupid.

And this is news....how?

[Lazar]

They can't. From what I understand, only decisions made by the Security Council are binding for members of the UN. Everything else (more or less) is purely voluntary.

Exactly - the Security Council is the only UN organ that has any enforcement power, and you have to get all of the Permanent 5 (the US, Britain, France, Russia and China) plus 3 others to agree to take action. So the General Assembly can pass some crazy shit, and nobody really cares.