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".
...and it didn't happen today. Looks like Newsblaze wants a couple more pageviews or something.
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=UN+Religion
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/26/1004038/human-rights-body-passes-religious-defamation-resolution
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71973&Itemid=2
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)?
As the UN is not important, why would any media concern itself with this vote?
Because this gives UN member states that are on the fence on this issue an excuse to stifle free speech and adopt laws outlawing criticism of "their" religions.
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?
No one actually listens to the UN anymore, anyway.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
from the AP, with writer credit: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975TOK00 I don't know if I can trust this Frank Jordans, but at least he put his name on this article.
Did you bother to even look, or do you only read the top stories on Google News?
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52P60220090326
can a country terminate its membership in the UN?
Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
The religion a person practices is sorta like the OS a computer runs. It doesn't really matter if it's "right," or the most effective way of doing things, it only matters that you can do good things with your programming. What you end up doing is more important than why you did it.
I like variety and diversity... I try to surround myself with at least one of every OS to appreciate the differences between them, and I think most people could agree to support that. So it's just a matter of working together to reach common goals among the systems that network well together, and trying to firewall off the ones that don't play nice, or at least isolate them in their own little sandbox in which to have their fun.
Anyway, hope this totally inappropriate analogy sparks off some interesting... discussion :P But as geek, it is the way I see the world.
The UN Human Rights Committe is a joke. It's not taken seriously anywhere because it's just used by flagrant human rights abusers as a "bash Israel" platform.
This is a meaningless vote from a discredited body. It's not worth media attention.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
The international community does something incredibly stupid and for once you're happy with the USA's general willingness to thumb its nose at the UN (As opposed to normally facepalming over it). Any law like this in the US would spectacularly crash+burn in the Supreme Court.
The UN is a great idea, but until someone steps up to send their troops into harm's way to stop injustices, it's a toothless debating society. No one particularly cares to send their men to die for someone else, so it never happens. A UN military might help, but do you really want people like Mugabe or Ahmadinejad having a say in what it does?
"GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.
The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favor and 11 against, with 13 abstentions."
This was 'passed' by a forum, not the UN General Assembly. It is a non-binding resolution, which is another way to say, "We think this is an idea." That's all, now move along.
Sig this!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1277265220080312 - Islamic states seek world freedom curbs: humanists
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52O5QY20090325 - U.N. urged to reject bar on defamation of religion
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975TOK00 - UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism
http://www.secularism.org.uk/108265.html - Defamation of religion passes at UN Human Rights Council again
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/03/26/the-slow-death-of-freedom-of-expression/ - The Slow Death Of Freedom Of Expression
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/freedom-for-the.html - Freedom For The Thought That We Hate
Lots more at http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=1320377548
I'm glad to see that Slashdotters are sceptical of what they read, but sometimes all it takes is a 10 second Google.
The OIC has been gunning for this for a while - the idea is to globalize the laws that many Arab states have against blasphemy.
As for the Resolution itself, I don't really care what the text says. It's advisory only (like all non-UNSC Resolutions), and I don't think that this will really cause any countries that don't have these laws on their books already to star them up.
Committees of the General Assembly (like the Human Rights Council) pass a lot of Resolutions, many of which are heavily managed by regional blocs. They've passed like ten of them telling Israel to give back Gaza, and the system keeps working despite that being ignored...
Cue The Sun...
Time to send them home.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
But when is the last time the UN did a thing for the US?
Do you mean when did they do something for the USA, or for the federal government of the USA? These are not the same thing.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
"Your God is dead, and no-one cares..." NIN
"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours but I think that God has got a sick sense of humour..." Depeche Mode
I'm sure that there are thousands more
Telling the truth about some religions would count as defamation. Quoting their own "holy books" would count as defamation.
Fuck the UN and fuck any religion if the truth bothers them. Cut off a few less heads, toss acid on a few less faces and blow up a few less market places if hearing the truth bothers you.
Quick ! We must create a counter resolution that outlaws theocracies! - It is the only solution i can think off.
... immediately and retroactively.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I know that it's not a real law but it does give strength to any country who wants to make it in to a law in their country. Wouldn't this make talking about why you are an atheist illegal?
I guess this would be seen as a bonus to the countries which proposed it anyway.
What I really don't understand are the abstainers, who couldn't have an opinion on this?
A Finnish MP is being prosecuted because he had the temerity to point out that Mohammed had sex with a nine-year old girl called Aisha, whom he married when she was aged six - details here.
The fact is, he's right. From the JihadWatch article:
So, the man that is considered by Islam to be the ideal role model, capable only of 'human errors in judgment in minor things with good intentions', was also a child rapist.
The reason that Islamic groups worldwide are pushing for blasphemy laws - and using them when they're available - is to silence people who point out facts like that.
Wonderful for them to show up and take a tech related website and try to turn it into a political attack site. *sigh*
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?
How do you outlaw hatred? How do you prosecute people for hating?
""Let's not talk about it, maybe it will become peaceful and the radicals won't be a problem"
Didn't they do the same thing with Hitler?"
Religion gets a pass because fools think superstitious political beliefs are somehow different from secular political beliefs.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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.
Pretty much the entire world attends the UN, votes, smiles and nods as resolutions are passed.
Nobody actually follows any of that crap without other, more real reasons.
Does this mean I can't criticize the scientologists any more? Oh I forgot. I already can't. But even so, I think the point is valid. In the UK, we have a member of Parliament who claims his religion is "Jedi". Will it be illegal to criticize him?
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
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.
To quote Pat Condell : "Free Speech is my religion"
It's no coincidence that this vote was made on behalf of the "Organization for the Islamic Conference." These are the extremist Islamic nations who are pushing their brainless mouthpieces in the UK, the Netherlands and the rest of Europe to rally all like them to a Jihad against Europe, the goal being to turn Europe into a "medieval theocratic hellhole" like the nations that constitute the "Islamic Conference."
When people are rallying in the streets shouting *threats*, which are not free speech, and which this vote aims to protect, like "Europe your annihilation is on its way!", "Take lesson with Theo van Gogh!" and "You will pay with your blood!" you really have to wonder wonder why they choose to live there in the first place.
It's now completely apparent that the U.N. -- the "United" Nations -- are really just a bunch of idiotic morally bankrupt dickheads who are willing to allow themselves to be cowed into voting that the hateful, threat mongering, murdering minority of extremist Islamists should have a privileged position, immune from criticism -- criticism that they can't stand because at its core, such free speech is just the thing which would cause these movements to collapse.
Free speech represents one of the *pillars of human civilization.* The fact that the U.N. would engage in such slander of it is just more proof that the organization needs to be dissolved and replaced with something better -- there is no diplomacy in those halls, fear; hate and corruption apparently overpowered civilized and peaceful discourse long ago.
jdb2
> A Finnish MP is being prosecuted because he had the temerity to point out that Mohammed had sex with a nine-year old girl called Aisha, whom he married when she was aged six - details here.
Just to be fair, there's an entire branch of Islam that doesn't consider the Sahih Bukkari to be reliable at all.
Mind you, I personally think that Muhammad was a scam artist, so I don't mean to defend them, but I just thought I should throw that out there.
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.
Which religion?
WHOSE religion?
Do we all now not talk about it at all?
Are crazy things like scientology included in this? We all know there are many people who will grab onto this as an excuse to justify whatever they believe in, whether or not it makes any sense to anyone else.
When laws - or "resolutions" - are passed which outlaw the criticizing of belief or rhetoric of any kind that offends someone else, that's when freedom becomes a meaningless word.
Monkey, monkey, monkey.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Everyone around the world: Time to put away all the nice stories we all read as children to comfort us, time to grow up, time to develop some respect for each other's strengths, time to aid those with the biggest weaknesses and bring all of us to a common level of peace, understanding, wealth and knowledge. That there is still poverty and hunger in a world where failing corporations are awarding executives billion dollar bonuses just boggles my mind.
Such waste. Such folley. Such sheer insanity.
Or else I'll sick Loki on your ass.
Posting to cancel moderation applied to the wrong post.
No one really, but most countries have some sort of arbitrary rule before it's official, like 200 or more members, and a written or definable doctrine of some sort. Very similar to a political party really.
lol... if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to worship it, was it still part of gods plan?
You do know that predominately Islamic countries were the ones that were doing the scientific research during the last "dark ages", right?
Mohammed was a pedophile. And it doesn't take much brain to believe some claptrap that was mostly copied from the bible by an illiterate businessman.
* * *
When rabbis found out that they could not pick up young girls with their flabby bodies as easily as young men, they decided to outlaw public nudity and force people to wrap themselves with textiles.
* * *
Scatholics people believe that some cosmic jewish zombie can make them live forever if they eat a cookie that represents the zombie's body. "Makes perfect sense"...
What if you said "Leviticus 20:13 is Hate Speech"? Is that hate speech?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
There was no coverage? What am I? Chopped liver?
What?
Is there?
Yes, there is.
I personally hate organised religion in all it's forms, and encourage others to do the same. I hate christianty, judaism, islam, and all the others equally.
You should spend some time on deciding *what* exactly it is that you hate about religion, and *why* exactly is "hate" the proper word for your oppinion.
Do you hate the people practicing the religion? Do you hate the things people do in name of their religion? Do you hate the mere fact that organized religion exists? Do you hate "bad" things (as in "crimes") people do pretending to act religious? Do you hate religious education in primary school?... Or do you just don't feel the need to count yourself to a religion?
Depending on what exactly you mean by "I hate religion", some things may be illegal, immoral, or plain and simple not fulfilling the definition of hatred -- like a teenager saying "I hate pink", it's probably not very... practicable to hate "the religion" itself. You definitely mean something different, and you need to figure out what exactly, before being sure that it's (il)legal and/or (im)moral.
If I encourage others to hate any organised religion in my country (the UK), I'm committing an offence (incitement to relgious hatred).
Again, depending on what exactly do you hate and what do you *mean* by hate, that being illegal might even be the morally correct answer. For example: hating other people because of their religious beliefs (as I assume the law was meant) *should* be illegal.
That law is wrong on so many levels.
Actually, no. It's merely a language problem around the phrase "I hate religion" -- you were just too smart for your own rhethorics :-)
So what? That was then, this is now. In those days, the Christian states were the fundamentalists.
... that the people in countries who wanted this resolution like to criticize other religions, specially Judaism.
It is nice to know that now, in these countries they will not be able to have anything against the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
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 disagree with your ignorance. The UN does a lot of things, you could wander on over to http://www.un.org/english/ and learn about a few of them instead of complaining that the rich countries "give" to the poor countries, which if you weren't so ignorant, you'd more accurately call "loan".
You can't take the sky from me...
Absolutely. No one should be allowed to disagree with free speech!
At least it is easier for me to hold my leaders accountable without incurring the wrath of the church... Seriously though, this is insane. I can understand that there is an issue where giving too much free speech might give license to persecute, but this is absurd. When will the leaders of the world actually think before they act. I would cite the law of unintended consequences, but i am pretty sure that the mess to follow is completely intentional.
You mean to say the US actually complied with the UN resolutions djh mentioned? Or has ever complied with any UN resolution they didn't like for that matter?
"Religion" is severely underestimating the western world's attachment to freedom of speech. How hard can they push before we give them more than Pat Condell videos as a response?
Oh this'll be fun. Islam thinks its sister faiths are "corrupted by man", Christians think most everyone else is going to hell, everyone else thinks Hinduism is just strange, etc, and now some nations want to eliminate religious criticism? ...Is this some bizarre atheist plot to get rid of religion?
is that they treat all nations with relatively equal standing (except the members of the security council).
Only when they only admit freedom-based societies as voting members will it be a body that can work for actual good. Fear-based societies, who mistreat their own people, have no business telling other countries how to treat their people.
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 if atheism a religion, then any claim of a god's existence would be criticism and thus disallowed.
VICTORY!!!!
(but seriously, this is why you have to pay attention to diplomacy - as soon as the UN is built, some civilization off the edge of the map can suddenly win the game with a single vote if enough cultures are annoyed with your behavior)
Just curious.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
If you criticize governments, they may silence you. If you criticize people's religions, they may torture then kill you. This resolution is just a healthy reminder that we should be thankful for free speech in the United States.
God spoke to me.
I know it's become something of a sport here to criticize the editors, but talk about being asleep at the wheel here...
If you do about 90 seconds of research here (which is about what I did), you would see that:
1) this is a non-binding resolution. i.e. it doesn't mean jack.
2) a similar resolution has been proposed (by Pakistan) and passed (by the so-called human rights council) every year since 1999
3) the number of countries supporting the resolution has actually decreased significantly every year for the past few years.
In other words, in terms of the actual effect this will have on anyone at all, this is about as non-news as it gets. If there is any news here at all, it is that this type of proposal has been rapidly losing support on the world stage lately. In particular, almost every major religious group except for Islam (and even many subgroups of Islam) have spoken out against such a measure.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Doing so would actually work for the public good, in this one instance, due to this frankly stupid action.
Dude, where's my packet?
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
another saying of mine comes to mind, "My ten amendments beats your ten commandments."
nothing on earth deserves a critical eye then religion. It truly is life or death(and beyond). We put advertisers trying to sell us laundry detergent under more scrutiny then we do the claims of religions.
Good-bye
Politics and Religion: two argument topics where noone wins but the Slashdot karma black hole.
The game.
Stupid resolution, but let's hold the Muslim countries to it, and make sure they don't say anything bad about Christians or Jews (or Hindus, ...), and that they make sure non-Muslims are never hurt in any way due to their religion.
How dare any of you question the will of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan! Those who question the wisdom of a nation following the teachings of Muhammad shall know only the eternal torment of Jahannam!
Most countries, even if they are democracies, don't have free speech guaranteed by their constitutions.
The absolute free speech rule of the US Constitution is rather unusual (and very much appreciated by this poster.)
The UN is working hard toward its complete irrelevance. You can kill millions of Africans without much more than a yawn from the UN but if you try to quote the quran to show that this book contains verses used to motivate oppression and violence, then you become a criminal in the eye of the UN.
There's nothing moderate about Islam. There's only small, and relatively unsuccessful attempts to wrest it from the deep pit of literalism. Laws like this set the moderate movement back by decades.
damaged by dogma
Don't know about Muslims, but I can definitely see the value of a law against disparaging remarks and physical violence committed against practicing Jedi due to their religion.
If the 13 abstentions had joined the 11 who voted against this, then it would have failed!
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
0.818181818?
I've got karma to burn.
Microsoft:ISO::United States:UN.
"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.
It's much worse than free speech. Wake up people! This is an insulation layer for religion not only against unfounded, but also against reasonable criticism, and against critical research and publications. Depending on how the exact wordings of the law turn out, vast amounts of philosophical literature, but also psychological and even cognitive science research could become illegal, simply because it is (and by rights) critical of religions.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I will continue to criticise religion, despite what the US say. As long as there are bishops in my country's government, I won't stop.
Yet another right-wing anti-UN media beat-up that has suckered the sleeping Slashdot editors in. The OIS have had this same motion passed every year for the last 10 years and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference because ITS A RECOMMENDATION and everyone ignores it!!! Nothing out of this talk-shop is ever binding, and never will be. Get a life and worry about something real.
That took all of 3 minutes research to find out. Some editor, I think his personal bias is showing...
Well,
only americans are "free speech nazies" because they fail to understand the difference between censorship and limitations in speech. Probably you have mainly a case law and relatively little "fixed laws".
As far as I understand the UN resolution, they want laws that prevent people to talk diffaming about other peoples believes and religions. In other words if I claim all jews are child porn consuments, or all muslims eat children or all christians burn houses then I might get punished.
So: what is wrong with that? Laws like this exist in most civilized countris anyway!!!
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Christ! You're modded down too?!
Moderators are abusing their power to filter ideas they don't agree with rather than to moderate fairly. I suppose that expecting some honesty amongst /. readers will get me modded into oblivion too?
Since for us to pass a law like this would take a constitutional amendment for it to not get stricken down by the courts.
Also did anyone else notice that if the idiot countries who didn't vote because they were protesting the vote had in fact simply voted against the measure, it would not have passed?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Like all U.N. mandates, resolutions, and policies, this too will be universally ignored,
Except, of course, where it serves the ulterior interests of an actual government or the public relations purposes of a crusading Hollywood celebrity.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
That's my conclusion. this is what happens when you allow propagation of religions through democracy. 'democratic' countries become infested with people thinking with their spine rather than their brain, and 'voting' in a global democratic assembly to criticize what they think should override everything else.
but one catch is, it works one way :
lets say that my religion says you can marry children at the age of 7. so, noone will be able to criticize that then.
lets say im a local african tribe with a religion that says 'if you like someone, you should kill and eat him/her, so s/he can stay with you forever in spirit'. so then noone is going to criticize that ?
my religion says 'eradicate all other religion believers'. noone will criticize that ?
freedom of choice and belief should end at the point where that choice/belief becomes a factor that seeks to hamper others' freedoms, or even the concept of freedom itself.
religions that contain elements which order limitation of others' freedoms should be banned, if those elements cannot be weeded out.
ideologies that contain to limit others' freedoms, or, totally abolish the concept of freedom or democracy (like nazizm, fascism, sharia, theocracy) should be banned. allowing those to exist in a democracy is way beyond stupid anyway ; imagine - you democratically allow an ideology that seeks to thrive and abolish democracy, to be politically correct. it thrives, and eventually abolishes democracy in the end. something's wrong with this.
Read radical news here
With a mighty god that could say "Burn all the the follower of fake gods".
"Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005
A Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, and an atheist walk into a bar.
The Muslim kills the jew in the name of allah, the christian kills the muslim for murder, and the when the atheist says this is insane, the christian has him redered to some islamic hell hole for defamation of religion?
Nice. civilization is dead. Welcome to the new dark ages.
Oh, Strong democracies can't "free speech" about Jews, Israel DAILY crimes, and even doubting and "Free Speech"-ing about the Holocaust. Irony. It seems that 'some' people consider "Free Speech" = Attack on Religion.
Muslim nations have been introducing similar resolutions since 1999, arguing that Islam-the only religion specifically cited in the text-must be shielded from unfair associations with terrorism and human rights abuses.
Maybe you could get your religions members to stop blowing shit up? Just a thought. I know it is only a very very small subset of muslims doing that. However by trying to enforce this legislation they show an unwillingness to actually deal with the problem of the extremists. Remember ""All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) .
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
I disagree. The US was (is?) veering towards it, but nothing as bad as, say, Saudia Arabia. Are there states you would care to name as Christian fundamentalist?
If it is to protect all religions, why does it only mention Isalm?
Muslims believe speaking the truth about their religion somehow defames it, such as talking about how Islam oppresses women or how they use madrasas to turn children into violent, ignorant radicals. They believe depicting Mohammed defames Islam.
No, this law is to sweep the abuses, violence, and oppression of Islam under the carpet.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Not about anything else. Sorry. Free speech does not apply to Islam.
...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.
Doesn't that also ban any call for a Jihad?
Doesn't that protect pastafarianism from ridicule?
Where is the application form for religions that want protection from ridicule?
This sounds more like something Scientology would start.
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
When has boycotting a vote, or election every helped?
In the first Iraq elections, the Sunni's boycotted the elections and had zero representation in the government as a result. They eneded up becoming more marginalized by not even being in the room when the politicians were making decisions then they would have been if they'd elected even a single official. In the second election they participated and were able to influence policy in their favor.
If the 13 countries that abstained had bothered to vote, they could have over ridden this BS and made the proponenets of cencorship look stupid. Instead, they boycotted and now they look to be stupid and ineffectual.
No one is ever going to thank you for NOT doing your job. Especially when your failure to act results in their rights and freedoms being taken away. Honest failure is infinitely preferable to a failure to even act.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I was waiting for Liberalism to make an ass of itself..... And it paid off.
So, apparently, people's feelings are more important that people's rights.
Just one more step towards making all offensive remarks illegal. We already have statutes that make such actions illegal here in the People's Republik of Amerika: They're called "Hate Statutes", and, in trying to remove all offensiveness from society, they also made a big part of 'Free Speech' illegal.
I guess if I smoked pot all day, this kind of ass-backwards bullshit would make sense to me too.
Fortunately, I don't smoke, and it's clearly faulty ways come through crystal-clear.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
have never been able to handle criticism. After all, no one has EVER criticized religion before Dawkins, right? Because the fragile religions out there, once exposed to the "truth" of criticism, just fall away like cobwebs, right? Thank goodness no one believes in these silly things any more - after thousands of years of criticism, no less! Phew! Crisis averted!
If Muslims don't like criticism of Islam, then they can just shut up about the Crusades.
This whole "don't insult my beliefs" is used by too many groups to defect any critical comment on their crackpot fringes. I can understand the concerns of most Muslims, but I don't want to lose my right to pick on the fundie Xtian nutjobs.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well,
only americans are "free speech nazies" because they fail to understand the difference between censorship and limitations in speech.
Americans are one of the few who aren't "free speech nazies," because they understand that limitations in speech are merely censorship muttered under one's breath. There is no difference between them.
Not shielding people from the consequences of their speech is one thing. For example, the actual crime behind the oft-misunderstood example of shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is inciting a panic, not the speech itself (this is why you can't be prosecuted if, for example, there really is a fire). But to actually criminalize speech itself, no matter the reason, is reprehensible and unconscionable. Free speech must be absolute and sacrosanct, or it is worthless.
The UN helps prevent old-style world wars which is what it was designed to do. It does not prevent all war nor does it prevent new kinds of war; including purely economic warfare or the current class war by the banks.
The Cold War killed about as many as WW1 although its difficult to estimate how much higher since it was a new kind of conflict. Just because it wasn't a massive genocide between the Capitalists and Communists doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered a real WAR by multiple proxies. In a way it was more civil because conventional war would have possibly wiped out mankind.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"It's at times like this, isn't it, that you realise just how much we need the United Nations -
about as much as we need an ear infection."
Priceless.
Here
(Or here, with subtitles in several languages)
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
What, we are stuck between choosing Stalin [the left] or Hitler [the right]? Maybe toss anarchists in there (or possibly they don't count).
Gah, we're doomed.
It's an expensive social club but it does put pressure on countries to behave in certain ways. It's effectively the eyeballs of the world, and many people do care how the world views them.
It may have prevented some wars.
It authorized the US to take part in the Korean War.
It supports and monitors refugees.
It wastes a lot.
I can't say for certain if its worth the cost, but it would be wrong to say it has no real effect.
only americans are "free speech nazies" because they fail to understand the difference between censorship and limitations in speech
That's because there is no difference. There is no reason to ever limit speech.
Islam was created by its very first temporal ruler, and through much of its history was molded by the rulers themselves, the Caliphs. Are you telling me that the Caliphs designed Islam as an anti-ruler religion?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Why do you think there are so many Christian sects today? Because Christianity has a long history of criticizing the status quo of even Christianity itself, leading to the Protestant Reformation and hundreds of other smaller breaks.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
But much of what the Arab nations do is pure anti-semitism, not in any meaningful sense related to Zionism. For example, republishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (one of the best-selling books in many Arab countries) is not related to Zionism.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Now the big, hairy ape-lawyers that $cientology has on its payroll will have more ammunition to silence people who call them what they really are:
REALLY FUCKING CRAZY!
The disparity is striking, in what is acceptable to criticize nowadays and what is not:
OK to criticize or make fum of:
1. Americans,
2. Whites,
3. Christians,
4. Jews,
5. Israel,
6. Rich people,
7. Conservatives,
8. Westerners,
Unacceptable to criticize:
1. Minorities,
2. Islam,
3. Homosexuals,
4. Poor people,
5. Liberals,
6. Middle-Easterners
Seeing as how the bleeding-heart touchy-feely types are all about equality and freedom of speech, I'm surprised how they can come up with the idea that a person's "feelings" are more important than everybody else's speech.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I mean, let's level here. Claiming to be anti-Zionist is a joke. The verdict of history is against the Arabs in their anti-Zionist mission: the Arabs lost and the Zionists won. That fight is over.
Anti-Semitism is perpetuated in Arab countries to distract the public from how piss poor the Arab governments are.
And I say this as a person who is not a big fan of Isreal's influence in the US. I don't like people who instinctively label anything pro-Palestinian as anti-Semitic.
But, to absolve the Arab governments and institutions of their responsibility for pushing anti-Semitic ideas is to be blissfully unaware of the full picture.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
If you want to read the document for yourself: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13765305/UN-Defamation-of-Religions-Resolution-Full-Text
Never question a Religion or it's Leaders, or else it will cease to be Blind Faith. Of course there is always the extreme chance that your religous leaders may ask you to kill yourself or others in the name of your chosen God. I don't imply any one religion!
-Eric
".. deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons; .."
That's great and all, but what about the religions and venerated persons who themselves incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination?
Seems to me the argument should be the other way around. You don't see many irreligious citizens cutting explosive swathes through non-combatant commuters or silencing writers, artists and intellectuals by way of proving their point.
Are they more concerned with delicate sensibilities than lives?
That's a good idea! We could just rate all countries on this scale.
I hate jesus. What are you going to do about it, honey-buns ^_^
:)
The UN must learn they aren't as powerful as they think they are. I just got away with it, haven't I?
You comment has just abused free speech, and therefore under your new rules has been censored. Have a nice day.
Free speech only really matters when it's free to say hurtful, unwanted, unliked nasty things. Free speech only matters when it's free for those that disagree with you.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
There are two things going on here. First I'll have another go at justifying my view of what ought to constitute ownership, since that's what became interesting to me here. Then I'll briefly explain why I was making such a Jekyll-And-Hyde argument.
I don't like models of ownership that involve simply claiming something. "I saw it first so it's mine" and "I have a gun so it's mine" strike me as childish, with no basis in my own personal version of "Natural Law". How then to establish ownership? It seems natural to me to link it to effort: the more work I have put into something, the more it is mine.
Your tree that you have planted and nurtured is clearly a product of your labour, but it is not obvious that a tree that has been growing since before there were white men in America can be owned by one, or that you should have a claim to the raspberry pie that I made using wild raspberries from a bush that you built a fence around. A sculpture that you carve out of marble is very much yours, although to what extent the raw marble can be said to be "yours" is an interesting question.
For me this comes down to a question of honesty--claiming credit for something that you had no part in creating is plagiarism, and claiming ownership of something that you did not create is theft (or trade, if you are trading with a non-thief).
It looks like you are arguing for communal ownership of everything as a positive, even though the pitfalls and proven problems with communal ownership are well documented.
Communal stewardship might be closer to my ideal. "Ownership" of natural resources implies--and good business practice frequently demands--exploitation thereof in order to increase value while you have the chance. You're quite right about the pitfalls of communal ownership--look at our air! But private owners are not necessarily more farsighted--witness the fossil fuel industry.
I've been arguing (incoherently, I guess) that because pre-existing natural resources cannot legitimately be claimed by one person, they should be managed with the best interests of everyone, present and future. The Tragedy of the Commons is very tricky, but selling off the Commons to the highest bidder is not a magical cure-all solution either, but just a sometimes-effective hack--effective, but fundamentally dishonest. The EPA, the National Forest Service, etc., are our attempts to do what I suggest. They're not perfect (in fact they're frequently rather abysmal) but I see few cases in which private ownership leads to more responsible management. More efficient, yes, but still more shortsighted more often than not.
If you want to cut down the tree I so lovingly cared for because you are cold and need firewood you could do so without recourse.
Ah. That was actually a slightly different argument: SeaDuck79 had defined "freedom" as the ability to fearlessly say bad things about The Government, and I was arguing that "freedom" is a bit of a complex issue, and not one of those things of which more (I can do what I want to your tree) is always better. Just nitpicking, really, but I admit I was a tad weary of arrogant USians asserting their exclusive right to dictate The Definition Of Freedom.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Muslims must review, refine and rewrite QURAN now.
Because,
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga