Illegal to Blaspheme proposal

If that occurs, Muslim countries and their allies in the developing world would stand a decent chance of mustering the simple majority needed in the General Assembly to adopt such a treaty.
Click to expand...
Won't apply in the USA.

Gods? Screw 'em.
 
The only thing less useful than GA resolutions are hypothetical GA resolutions.
 
Last edited:
God is a punk ass, know it all, S.O.B, fat, ugly, turd face!!!

and his miracles suck.

:)
 
Phrost said:
And this is why nobody takes the U.N. seriously.
Click to expand...

Um no. The reason certian groups of people don't take the UN seriously is that individuals with access to the media dislike certian functions of the UN.

This proposal has been floating around for years and in terms of total UN activitiy (say compared to the WIPO) it isn't significant.
 
Even if this gets passed, how many UN resolutions are currently ignored? I know Australia only adopts those deemed in the national interest, and I'm certain other nations are the same.
 
I am a firm believer in Schadenfreude.

As such, part of me hopes that this passes, all the Islamic nations adopt it, and it comes around to bite them all in thier posteriors when they try to opress non-Islamic minorities in thier own countries.

Fortunately, the majority of me knows what a stupendously bad idea this is and that the Islamists will exploit in much worse before the above has a chance to happen.
 
geni said:
Um no. The reason certian groups of people don't take the UN seriously is that individuals with access to the media dislike certian functions of the UN.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory section is over there.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the UN will continue to lose credibility when it wastes times on proposals that will be either ineffective or damaging to the well being of society.

geni said:
This proposal has been floating around for years and in terms of total UN activitiy (say compared to the WIPO) it isn't significant.
Click to expand...

That's a dumb argument.

Stalin only spent a small portion of his life authorises the mass murder of his own citizens. In terms of total Stalin activity it wasn't significant.
 
GreyICE said:
That's an odd glitch, it reversed the order of your paragraphs.
Click to expand...

Great. I take it that you are going to defend the claim that we shouldn't be concerned about this proposal because it constitutes only a small part of what the UN does.
 
gtc said:
Great. I take it that you are going to defend the claim that we shouldn't be concerned about this proposal because it constitutes only a small part of what the UN does.
Click to expand...

Not my claim. I'd happily defend my actual claim that hypothetical GA council resolutions are one of the few things on earth less relevant than actual GA council resolutions.

I'd also happily defend the claim that a resolution that has been around for a few years and hasn't generated significant activity in the GA is probably one of those dud useless resolutions that's 'dying in committee.' (Yes, that happens in the UN. A lot)

I'd also happily defend the claim that comparing a resolution dying in committee to Stalin's genocide is a tad... hysterical.
 
Sounds like potentially a huge threat to freedom of speech. Currently we have the right to criticize religion or atheism for that matter without risk of being punished.
 
Last edited:
Jesus wept, not this again!

For the clueless...

UN General Assembly Resolutions are not legally binding.

The only UN Resolutions which are legally binding are those passed by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Any other treaty can only come into force under International Law one way - by a minimum number of nations both signing and ratifying the treaty. Given that it would be unconstitutional for practically any western national to ratify such a treaty, I think it's safe to say such a treaty could never be codified as International Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom