• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global blasphemy laws?

Doesn't the UN have freedom of speech and freedom of religion in its charter? How would something like this reconcile with that?
 
Tony said:
Doesn't the UN have freedom of speech and freedom of religion in its charter? How would something like this reconcile with that?
Click to expand...
Hey, they just let Iran on the UN group for women's rights. Apparently women have the right to be stoned to death for adultery.
 
"Blasphemous libel" is against the law in New Zealand. The Catholics attempted to use that particular part of the crimes act to prohibit a TV station from airing the "Bloody Mary" episode of Southpark. Of course the Streisand effect kicked in and the show got more viewers than it ever would've.
 
zooterkin said:
what standing, if any, such a global 'law' would have I don't know, nor how it would be enforced.
Click to expand...
Quite simple,

world countries agree about a law,
found a court somewhere in Europe,

and then USA theoretically supports it but requires its own citizens to be beyond the jurisdiction of the said court.
 
3point14 said:
Surely the entire holy book of one religion is just one big work of blasphemy when viewed from the standpoint of a different religion?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly: you can't have blasphemy laws and freedom of religion.

For example: Catholicism is quite blasphemous to Mormonism and vice versa.
 
It's the typical fundie persecution complex. Blasphemy laws are exactly what they would to to everyone else if they were in power.
 
Dr. Keith said:
My thoughts exactly: you can't have blasphemy laws and freedom of religion.

For example: Catholicism is quite blasphemous to Mormonism and vice versa.
Click to expand...


As I have noted before on this forum, the Koran denies the Godhood of Jesus Christ by reducing Him to just another prophet and thus making Him a liar in the process.

The Muslem countries should be careful that they don't get what they wish for. :(
 
gumboot said:
Sounds like the article was written by a fear-monger who doesn't understand international law.

Here's how international law works:

1) Countries decide they agree with the agreement in principle and sign it, becoming signatories to it
2) Signatories incorporate the agreement into their own laws, thus ratifying the law
3) Sufficient signatories ratify the agreement and it becomes international law

It's fairly common for countries to sign international laws but not ratify them. There is nothing any country can do to make another country ratify an international agreement.

An international agreement will only become international law when sufficient signatories have ratified it - for example the two covenants of the International Bill of Rights were signed in 1966, but not made part of international law until ten years later when sufficient signatories had ratified it.

As an example, New Zealand didn't ratify the covenants until 1990 because they conflicted with some of our existing laws (such as compulsory unions).
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, the United Nations was to foster peace between nations, not become yet another ever-growing federal system to foist oppression down peoples' throats.
 
I don't expect any Western democracies to pass any laws making it a criminal offense to defame a religious symbol in a cartoon, newspaper, book, article, etc.

Freedom of speech trumps "freedom not to be offended".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom