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."
...for April Fools Day. This is a joke, right?
Forgive my scepticism, but I have to wait until I see a second, less biased source before I take this at face value. The rule of reporting is to get two verifications, and I think I'm going to do just that.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Seriously, this isn't a troll, even if you disagree with me. But when is the last time the UN did a thing for the US? We get resolutions of "Give money to undeveloped countries" and "Sure, go to war, but we're not gonna do shiat"...when is the last time they actually did something positive for the US?
An organization that has devolved into "the rich countries should give aid to the poor countries", has stopped being useful to anyone but the leeches. Seriously, can anyone tell me what the UN has done for the US lately, and is there a real reputation hit we'd take from leaving it (as opposed to what we do now, which is to largely ignore it)?
I want to see the actual resolution. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on what exactly the resolution said.
If it is trying to outlaw legitimate criticism, that would obviously be bad. On the other hand maybe the news source is blowing this out of proportion and the resolution merely points out that certain generalizations about groups are harmful to free and open discussion.
It all depends on the exact wording.
When are the democracies of the world going to realize that political and economic freedom plus human rights are not protected by a body that gives equal voice to dictatorships and theocracies?
Because it is from the UN Human Rights Council, led by countries who are anything but concerned about rights.
Seems to me that the UN is following the same naming system as the American Congress with Bills. (As in every Bill of "some new right" seems to lose me more of the rights I already had)
I am amazed they didn't exclude Judaism from it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
A law outlawing free speech would crash and burn in the US.
Good troll though. =D
I forgot to add, religion is defamation of logic and reason. Which is why it would also have to be outlawed.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
That's so wrong. Most sensible countries either got rid of blasphemy laws or never had them. A religion is not a person, it cannot be offended or defamed.
This is just a way for Islamic nut jobs to protect their barbaric acts from justified criticism.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Yeah, you've got to outlaw any and all critical comments about religion. Aside from the very touchy Muslims who view almost everything said by anybody else as an Insult to Islam that you must Now Die For, all these other religions who all claim to have God (Muslin == Allah) on their side and that the truth is with them are far too fragile to withstand any actual questioning. Except for Scientology, who fights back against the least bad word in the nastiest ways possible, and the Muslims who riot in the streets and end up killing each other because someone drew a cartoon of The Prophet halfway around the world, all these strong religions with both God and The Truth on their side as just way too fragile to stand up against the least little wind of discourse.
WE MUST DO THIS NOW! POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DEMANDS IT OF US!
In fact, in order to comply with this you've got to remove this post posthaste!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Pakistan and other Islamic nation members have been consistently proposing this for years and years.
I really wished they would give it up. Religion is a choice that people make. And as such it should be open to criticism. It is really as simple as that. If yours is a true and good religion, it can withstand criticism... right?
Seriously guys, these are some of the member countries of the "UN Human Rights Council:"
Angola
Azerbaijan
China
Cuba
Egypt
Malaysia
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Real credible bunch, right?
And hey - if you can't laugh at religion (which is basically what these jokers are saying), then what can you laugh at?
I mean, we're talking about organizations that perpetrate the worldviews of animal sacrificing bronze age primitives as the final, absolute truth. Come on...
The UN helps keep the world stable.
This is exactly why the UN was founded. The UN exists to protect the post-world war 2 order. It comes out of the direct experience people had before and during world war 2. It is one of the pillars of defense against future wars between states.
The UN is the only place where all the world's countries have diplomats in the same place. It fosters dialoge and discourages conflict. It is the first and best place to diffuse tensions between countries quickly, and is the best place - truly neutral ground - for opposing countries to talk and avoid fights. Can you think of a more effective way to avoid inter-state wars than to encourage dialogue? Because our leaders who lived thorugh and fought ww2 could not. Given that we haven't had a major war since then, they continue to have more experience than us in these matters.
There are some things to criticize about the UN, but calling for an end to the UN because it does nothing for us is analogous to calling for an end to fire departments because all they've ever done is put out other people's fires.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Now do you suppose I'll be modded down to troll if I say:
I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.
Am I a racist, bigot, asshole? A promulgator of hatred... or am I just a dude trying to be funny while exercising his right to free speech?
There seems to be a large disconnect with speech and free in a goodly chunk of the world, particularly in nations where Islam is the dominant religion. But I guess the UN thinks I shouldn't be making remarks like that because that would be criticism.
Bibo Ergo Sum.
I believe that this resolution is aimed at least in part at secular attacks on religion. As Gandhi said, "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
We atheists have been given the short shrift for a very long time now. First we were burned at the stake, then persecuted, and now we're gradually gaining mainstream acceptance now. We've gone from Bush the Elder claiming that atheists should be considered neither citizens nor patriots to Obama including non-believers in his inauguration speech. Perhaps in my lifetime, it'll be politically feasible for an atheist to hold an elected office.
It's no wonder that the religious old guard is running scared.
in a 23-11 vote that urges member states to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions
As a Christian, this is unnerving. Contrary to popular belief, Christianity has a long history of criticizing the religious status quo. It was a major aspect of Jesus' message.
Another dangerous aspect of it is when church and state are combined, criticizing state will be seen as the same as criticizing religion (and vice versa) thus allowing the state to commit more human rights violations.
The UN provides a forum to grandstand and debate meaningless resolutions, and that's incredibly valuable. Don't underestimate the role of posturing and politics in military violence. When countries can have their complaints heard by the world media they're less likely to use military threats to get attention. The last thing I want is the UN to have "teeth," I prefer it to remain a form of international family therapy.
That's right. We don't make laws like that here.
We do end runs around it in much more subtle ways.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Yes, there are too many PATRIOT's for that to happen.
May the Maths Be with you!
What if you said "Leviticus 20:13 is Hate Speech"? Is that hate speech?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Just curious.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
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.
That depends, is the town square a duly designated free speech zone?
I appreciate your sentiment but I'm not convinced that these issues are always so black and white.
Besides, wasn't the whole premise of the UN originally to give countries an open forum to work out their problems without resorting to murdering each other? If there's anyone that the world's liberal democracies are going to disagree with it's probably going to be oppressive police states.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
In fact, there have been fundamentalist types who have been prosecuted for hate speech for simply posting anti-homosexual selections from the Bible. They'll just make a post like this: "Homosexuals should read Book of Whatever verse whatever which says [homosexuality is an abomination whatever, homosexuals will go to hell]."
That brings up the case that religious fanatics who label me 'infidel' or 'damned and dangerous' because I am a skeptical pantheist (or transgressive agnostic or whatever) are inciting hate against me, and against others with a contrary creed.
Not all evangelists are like that, mind you. But some fundies (islamist and christian varieties in particular) are definitely promoting hate of those who don't believe like they do. I wonder how that'll come out in the wash.
Damn those pesky terrorists
What nonsense.
"Communal" resources don't need "regulating" to prevent "abuse". We use this little institution called 'private property rights', but that's not arbitrary prior-constraint case-by-case regulation, but LAWS.
Rights 'granted' by governments? Frankly...
Read about natural law and the American Revolution.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
...and breath deeply into a paper bag.
I've read a lot of comments here along the lines of this is a heinous violation of my rights and the UN should be disbanded/whipped/shot, etc. What most people seem to have missed is this is not LAW, it's a RESOLUTION and is in no way binding to anyone. All it does is to encourage member countries to pass a law as described. Any country that would be swayed by this most likely already has such a law in place. The rest of us will just ignore it.
Of course, privatizing the atmosphere or the ocean is a bit too big of a problem to tackle. But rivers or lakes are totally feasible.
Ah, but they're not too big a problem to handle if you treat them as commons.
Also, while taking private property to extremes might solve many problems if we're all wise and all value things equally, that's a big "if". What if I want to do something on my property that will affect something that you value, but that the legal system does not protect? Say I'm upwind of you. What if I don't like deodorant? What if I want to fart? Or smoke? Or have a campfire? Or burn tires? Or burn oil? Or burn coal? ...
Ownership of something that you didn't create is patently ludicrous! "That's MY tree": what did you do to deserve a tree? What does it mean to own something that simply exists? For that matter, whom do you sue if "your" tree dies due to human-induced climate change? And since trees are crucial to the health of the world (cleaning air, preventing topsoil loss, creating topsoil, making oxygen, sequestering carbon, habitat for animals that probably don't respect your notions of property, .....) trees are commons. This goes back to being a complicated problem to solve if everything is privately owned.
Is that your elephant? It spends time on the land owned by hundreds of people. Who owns the ivory in its tusks? Is that your bat? It kills mosquitoes on my lawn--if you kill it, I suffer.
Is that your gorilla? Here's something that is damn near as intelligent as your average Christian, but it has no interest in owning private property--does that mean that it is owned? How is owning any sentient being not slavery? Who gets to decide whether a lobster is sentient?
Also, who gave you the tree? In a free society I can cut down any tree I want. Do you want to take away my freedom?
What about children? If property is inherited, then we are not equal--we start out owning as much as our parents did, which should rub in how ridiculous that system is in a society in which we are "equal". If property is not inherited, what happens when the owner dies? Who gets the proceeds from the sale?
An understanding of the complex interactions in the biosphere tends to destroy faith in private property. Perhaps this is why I've never met a libertarian ecologist.
Natural law states that we are endowed with certain rights. People institute a government to PROTECT these rights that we already possessed before government came into being.
What is the scientific basis for natural law? Can it be measured? Natural law is simply a good (not perfect) set of rules with an overblown name. If rights are innate, then why do you and I disagree on what they are? Moreover, why do they so frequently get trampled? Prove to me that they are a part of nature. Then you can tell me which of the many versions is correct.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."