Slashdot Mirror
UN Attacks Free Speech
newsblaze writes "The UN Human Rights Council assaulted free expression today, in a 23-11 vote that urges member states to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions. The proposal came to the UN from Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference. There were 13 abstentions. South Korea, Japan, India, Mexico and Brazil, all strong democracies, allowed this to pass by abrogating their responsibility. While the resolution doesn't mention the online world, where does this subject get mentioned most, if not online?" The coverage is from NewsBlaze, which says its mission is to carry important news that other media are not paying attention to. There does not seem to be any other coverage of this vote.
Update: 03/29 00:48 GMT by KD : Reader kshade wrote in: "Actually this is covered by conventional media, even FOX news (Google News links). The absentees weren't there because they boycotted the proposal."
Update: 03/29 00:48 GMT by KD : Reader kshade wrote in: "Actually this is covered by conventional media, even FOX news (Google News links). The absentees weren't there because they boycotted the proposal."
I see your comment and raise you -- when will everyone realise that the only people who care about the UN are members of the Democrat party and France?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
With the U.N., every day seems like April Fool's Day, because the U.N. is nothing but a group of fools.
Now wait just a damn minute... I just got off another thread here where people were telling me that the IPCC was not political and the greatest scientific body since the Manhattan Project.
So, which is it?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
There is a fundamental difference between inciting hatred and and being critical of a religion.
Tell that to the people rioting in the streets over a Dutch newspaper cartoon, published more than 5 months prior - in an Arab newspaper. Tell it to the people who lost their lives in these "protests". Being critical is inciting hatred, or so it will come down. But only being critical of certain religions is disallowed. Criticism of Israel, Jews, or Christians who generally support those filthy murdering hebrew dogs is exempted. Criticize those specific groups, because they rightly deserve it. Or so says the United Nations.
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
That's absurd -- athiesm requires faith, as it can never be proven that there is no supreme being. Therefore, it is indeed a religion. Atheists are no more interested in facts than creationists; their minds are made up.
Caveat Utilitor
This isn't a troll, in light of the post it answers. Or is it forbidden to criticize US policy towards the UN?
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Most importantly for us Muslims, is that UN is bunch of coward fools, like all of Kuffaar.
The winning part of this for Muslims is that Kaafir UN succumbed to uncompromising struggle to defend the honor of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam and the honor of Muslims: with mind, with word and with hand.
The losing part is that it puts an additional pressure on the so called "Muslim" governments to implement the new law "equally" towards foreign religions in the Muslim land.
The real answer to this is that dogs are barking and caravan keeps going.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
What's the difference between the two? If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society. If not, it's fear-based.
So... the US is out then?
Oh and the UN. 'nuff said.
Actually why can't you ? Islam doesn't allow criticism of it's states. Hinduism doesn't allow criticism of it's states. The mikado (Japanese "religion") can't be criticized. Hell even the Turkish "secular religion" (which can be summarized as all hail ataturk, who was a bastard, but a lot less of a bastard than the islamic head of state) doesn't allow for criticism.
Most, if not all, other religions are at the very least largely repressive. Some, like islam, are very, very repressive, even within western states.
Unless I'm making a huge error here somewhere, Christianity seems pretty unique in allowing for the amount of freedom we have. ALL reasonably free countries are Christian, then there is a single Jewish state, and a single ex-islamic state (the state is explicitly non-islamic even if it's got a small muslim majority)
So it seems to me Christians would be very justified indeed criticizing other faiths for being repressive.
irrational extremists really care about the UN Human Rights Council.
You state this as a joke, but obviously extremists like the idea of a government body without territorial limits ... at all.
Like Ahmadinejad "we have no gays in Iran" (he probably thought he had massacred the last of them), he cares a great deal. Like all lefties care a great deal, like Hugo Chavez and others.
After all if extremists only cared about their own little household, how do you suppose 9/11 happened ? Even WWII was the result of an extremist attacking. Just about every war involving the west was. Extremists are interested in capturing the UN and expanding it's power. The capturing part has mostly succeeded. Too bad they're such incompetent losers.
The UN is fast becoming a threat to world peace, just like the leauge of nations did in 1920-1930.
Global government, of any kind, is a disaster waiting to happen.
Then why is well-regulated militia" language attached to it? The sole statement we have that gives state-of-mind context to the 2nd amendment points toward it being with greater concern toward external threats than internal. Don't argue your rationales through other (dead, influential) people's mouths.
Also, anyone who claims that "The Founders" as a group thought/realized anything coherently; well, you're not actually paying enough attention to history. Almost every line of the Constitution was hard-fought over, and not by mythical founder-figures; by men, with constituencies. It's an important document, but not a magical one, and not one designed by perfect accord between supermen.
Note that your argument for powerless government falls apart upon the Articles of Confederation. It's a cold, hard truth that you can't actually dismantle government and maintain the benefits thereof. In your privatized rivers system; well, who enforces the torts? And if someone decides to take his balls and go home, well... if he's taking the middle of the Mississippi with him, what do you do? What happens when someone owns a section of the highway, and then, through illness or injury, becomes unable to maintain it, but is unwilling to sell it?
Guess you fail again.
Clever signature text goes here.