UN resolution against 'defamation of religion'

[RelentlessPunishment]

Hi everyone

Has the proposed UN resolution 16/18 Against Defamation of Religion been discussed here? I can't see a search function on the forum so I thought I'd ask. I was going to add this to one of the threads on blasphemy, but then I thought it's not really about blasphemy as such so I thought I'd start a new thread.

I'm very touchy about free speech and thought and I was wondering what you all made of it.

Thanks

LoT

 

[PixyMisa]

It's been mentioned, but I don't recall a thread on it.

This article on Forbes covers it pretty well. It's a blatant attack on freedom of speech coated with a honey-like substance to slide it through a dim-witted General Assembly.

 

[Beerina]

Just shows the fail nature of unrestricted democracy, unfettered by constitutions that limit government's power.

Any old demagogue can come along, and as long as they can get a transient majority, they can do pretty much anything they want. This only differs from historical dictatorship by a few percentage points of support by the population.

 

[DC]

what about the defamation of atheists in the 3 abrahamic "holy" books?

religious people that push this nonsense are pissing me off, really. who the heck do they think they are?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

:sigh:

It says nothing of the thing. If you read the response by the State Department, it's limited by existing Constitutional tests

 

[PixyMisa]

Within the US. Where not all of us are.

 

[Darat]

Just shows the fail nature of unrestricted democracy, unfettered by constitutions that limit government's power.

Any old demagogue can come along, and as long as they can get a transient majority, they can do pretty much anything they want. This only differs from historical dictatorship by a few percentage points of support by the population.

Having a constitution doesn't prevent that, it's not a magic spell! A constitution may sometimes put an extra hurdle in the way depending on how the governance is set up but in the end it is still the majority that will decide.

 

[Resume]

Is there a penalty for the crooks, frauds, charlatans and pedophiles when they defame the religions they represent?

 

[Beerina]

Having a constitution doesn't prevent that, it's not a magic spell! A constitution may sometimes put an extra hurdle in the way depending on how the governance is set up but in the end it is still the majority that will decide.

Yes, and that is designed to slow things down. If you want to grant the government new powers, you must go through a laborious, public, deliberative process that involves Congress and 3/4 of the States approving it.

Yes, exactly! It's about the hurdles, placed there to thwart the transient nature of demagoguery.

If it's a good idea for a law, the vast majority of people will think so, not just 50.01%. And they will think so 10 years from now as well.


Our political strife derives from people taking advantage of their transient majorities, and that's wrong. My .sig has been buffed by an evolutionary process and the constraints of size. Look what's been first for years now.

 

[Polaris]

It's been mentioned, but I don't recall a thread on it.

This article on Forbes covers it pretty well. It's a blatant attack on freedom of speech coated with a honey-like substance to slide it through a dim-witted General Assembly.

I am somewhat familiar with Astroglide. I wouldn't call it "honey-like".

 

[westprog]

Having a constitution doesn't prevent that, it's not a magic spell! A constitution may sometimes put an extra hurdle in the way depending on how the governance is set up but in the end it is still the majority that will decide.

There's also no guarantee that a constitution will get things right. The constitution is just a document written by a group of people, and interpreted by another group.

The American Civil War was triggered because the democratic wishes of the majority were in conflict with the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the minority. The guaranteed right in question was the right to own slaves.

 

[Puppycow]

It's been mentioned, but I don't recall a thread on it.

This article on Forbes covers it pretty well. It's a blatant attack on freedom of speech coated with a honey-like substance to slide it through a dim-witted General Assembly.

Whether it passes or not, it will have no practical effect:

(Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)

There is the following response appended:

To the Editor:

Abigail R. Esman’s Dec. 30, 2011 op-ed, “Could You Be a Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure,” mistakenly states that U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is discriminatory or involves the “defamation” of religion.

First, the resolution does not accept the approach espoused in the “defamation of religions” resolutions, which the United States has opposed for more than a decade. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom declared Resolution 16/18 to be a “significant step away from the pernicious ‘defamation of religions’ concept.”

Second, the resolution calls for prohibition of speech in only one area – the criminalization of incitement to imminent violence. The concept of barring incitement to imminent violence tracks U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, specifically the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, which held that only in very narrow circumstances can speech be limited. The Court said that “constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Subsequent U.S. case law has reaffirmed this ruling and made clear that, underBrandenburg, the government may only restrict free speech when it is specific in its call for violence (or other lawless action) and specifies an imminent timeframe. This test has been the U.S. standard for over 40 years and does not, as Esman writes, place “limitations as well on speech considered ‘blasphemous.’”

Contrary to Esman’s claims, drawing a caricature of the prophet Muhammad that resulted in violence by Muslim extremists would not constitute “incitement to imminent violence” under the Brandenburg test. The incitement to imminent violence test does not provide a heckler’s veto; an individual who finds something insulting may not restrict another’s freedom of expression. Authorities may react to speech that is likely to produce imminent violence, not mere advocacy of violence or provocative speech. Therefore, Esman is not correct in claiming that by supporting criminalization of incitement to imminent violence, the United States has “agreed not to provoke.” The United States was following and promoting its own constitutional standard, as it has been doing in regards to freedom of expression in international fora since the time of Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

[Leumas]

I made some comments relating to this topic by mistake in another thread. The comments are actually related to both threads in any case.

Here is what I said (with a few corrections)... also the video is quite interesting.

The problem is that what is deemed insulting when it comes to religions is very nefariously and malleably all encompassing. It is not out of nothing that they always keep moving the goalposts in any discussion.

BLASPHEMY is considered so not just for profaning the god, rather it is the mere act of DENYING this god.

If I use profanity against a person directly, then sure, that is insulting and rude. But if I use profanity against a god, shouldn't that be considered insulting to the god not the person?

People are offended if I say Allah is a repugnant despot...sure....but they are EQUALLY offended if I say that Allah does not exist. In Islam I would have my head hacked off for saying either.

In Judaism if it were to be enforced the same fate awaits me for saying that YHWH is a despicable bungler just as much as if I say he does not exist.

In Christianity I once would have been burnt to death after a few sessions of agonizing torture just for saying the Earth is a globe let alone that Jesus was a cowardly fool (in some countries they STILL do).


Something I never understood is why do people feel compelled to fight god's duels for him?


In the good olden days when a man insulted another they threw down the gauntlet at each other and fought it out MAN TO MAN. Why do people feel that their god is such a COWARD that he needs THEM to fight his fight and defend HIS honor? Are people so unsure of the abilities of their God so as to have to defend him from a blasphemer themselves?

Why don't they reason like Abraham or Elijah: "If a god cannot defend HIMSELF then he either doesn't exist or is a false god".


So now we have religious fundamentalists who are quite dubious about the powers of their gods, sneaking in a GLOBAL LAW decreeing that man should be allowed to defend the honor of his gods despite the fact that these gods are quite obviously not OFFENDED by virtue of their silence. And if their silence is due to inability to act whether out of feebleness or nonexistence then shouldn’t this be a sign that they should be seeking out other gods.


Should a man be able to jail someone for telling him that his CAR is ugly or inferior or that he obviously does not have a car as evinced by the empty garage and driveway and parking lot and the lack of a title deed in the municipality records?

This UN law is tantamount to allowing man to LEGALLY castigate another for saying that his favorite fiction story is rubbish and its protagonist is just fiction. Should we make it law to punish people who say Michael Jackson was hideous and Elvis Presley was not the King because it offends their worshipers? And these guys were actually real.

I think this UN resolution, which has been endorsed by the USA, is in fact quite an ominous portend that we are marching ever so steadily BACKWARDS.

Why doesn't the UN also pass a resolution forbidding the Saudi royal baboons from prohibiting women to drive and being able to go out in public un-chaperoned and un-palled.


Watch this video and see where we have come from and where we are INSIDIOUSLY heading back. Western countries were pretty much like this FOSSILIZED (in brains and culture) country called Saudi. Our western Kings and Churches behaved very much in the same hideous manners depicted in the video (but without the jets and SUVs).

Do we want to go back to this heinous state of arbitrary power of the SYSTEM over the individual? It seems we are precipitously heading in that direction … proving the aphorism that “history repeats itself”.


Isn’t this resolution tantamount to a GLOBALLY RATIFIED FATWA?

 

[McHrozni]

Reaffirming the commitment made by all States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to, inter alia, religion or belief,

Reaffirming also the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective protection of the law,

Reaffirming further that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, inter alia, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, which shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching,

How many predominantly Islamic states don't fail these three?

McHrozni

 

[Gazpacho]

How many predominantly Islamic states don't fail these three?

Why does it matter?

 

[Gazpacho]

Just to move things along a bit, here is the English text of the resolution. The active sections are 5-9. Everything before that is "sense of the committee" commentary.

Isn’t this resolution tantamount to a GLOBALLY RATIFIED FATWA?

No it isn't, Leumas. Take some deep breaths.

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

Thanks for all your feedback guys and girls. I was hoping you'd put my mind at rest, but I think I'll carry on being concerned about it. I live in Australia and my understanding is that we have 'implied' freedom of speech, and no-one seems sure what that means. I'm not even sure legal experts do. We certainly don't have anything like the American constituition to protect us.

Gazpacho, I think it matters if the islamic UN block sponsoring or pushing this resolution don't measure up to the standards they're demanding from western countries. At the very least it's rude and at most it's sinister.

I think there's a growing interest in the resolution. I think more and more is coming up on Google all the time. Here's an LA Times op-ed that resonates well with me: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphemy-20111210

And what's happening to Hazma Kashgari, who was critiquing/blashpeming within his own religion and culture, only seems to confirm to me my deep suspisions about the intentions of islam (assuming a religion can have intentions, which is quite an assumption, especially when you're talking to intellecutally rigourous skeptics). I think his situation should cause international outrage, but I've hardly heard anything about it in the MSM. I think Amnesty International have picked up on it though.

Anyway, I won't start ranting. In summary; Thanks again, and I remain paranoid about this UN resolution.

 

[Gazpacho]

Gazpacho, I think it matters if the islamic UN block sponsoring or pushing this resolution don't measure up to the standards they're demanding from western countries. At the very least it's rude and at most it's sinister.

It's not a demand, and it isn't being "pushed" by any "islamic block" onto any other specific group of countries. It's an appeal from career diplomats to the governments of the world, not excluding their own.

It should hardly need to be pointed out that this resolution is meaningful only because there are countries that do not currently meet its goals.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

If you read the response by the State Department, it's limited by existing Constitutional tests

Which is a statement not even worth the toilet paper I wipe my butt with.

That's how the executive branch usurped the power to declare war, without congress. The Korean War was the first instance of it, with Truman following a UN Security Resolution and not a congressional declaration of war.

That was the fear of many with the UN in the first place. They were right. The State Department ignores the constitution at will, using whatever it can to justify whatever it wants, so this statement of theirs is ********.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not swear in your posts, and do not attempt to evade the autocensor.

 

[Gazpacho]

********.

Just what do you think is going to happen because of this resolution? And does your scenario assume that Obama is a sekrit Muslim?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited moderated content.