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)?
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?
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.
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.
Quick ! We must create a counter resolution that outlaws theocracies! - It is the only solution i can think off.
The religion a person practices is sorta like the OS a computer runs
Or from another point of view, it's more like a virus that spreads from infected people to healthy people. This transmission usually happens in early childhood when parents pass it to their children, but infection can happen at any age.
Like most viruses, they tend to slow you down and impair your judgment, creativity and free thinking, although the infected claim that somehow they are made "more efficient" by the infection. Signs of infection usually manifest themselves as: circular reasoning, repeated non sequiturs, intolerance of the non infected, passive aggressive behavior and sometimes violence towards others due to extreme repression of sexual behavior.
Unfortunately this virus is endemic in the human population (although animals are fortunately free of it despite often forming the center of religious fantasies and rituals) and is probably caused by a faulty human OS. Fortunately a very few humans are running an OS that is impervious to this virus, but they are in the extreme minority.
Remember, of all the things you can do in this world, Jehova/Yaweh, God or Allah will be EXTREMELY displeased with you if you masturbate. Out of all the things happening in the universe, "He" is always watching out in case your hand strays onto your genitals. (Raping 9 year old boys doesn't seem to bother "Him" as much, though).
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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.
How do you outlaw hatred? How do you prosecute people for hating?
Isn't that what the Thought Police are for?
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.
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
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.
It's not just Bukhari though - as you can see from the quote from JihadWatch. AFAICT you can utterly reject Bukhari, and still come up with ages of 6 and 9.
(It's interesting to see that I've already been modded flamebait. Slashdot's equivalent to blasphemy, I guess :-) )
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"...
Time to send them home.
-jcr
I'm always surprised how few seem to share my idea that we need the U.N. more than ever.
If humanity is to thrive, at some point we will need a world order. Not...the frightening overseeing insidious world order we always hear about, but a governing world body that is based on Secular Humanism, Rational Thought, Reason based thinking & Transparancy.
The U.N. in it's current form proves only that one can have a great idea, and execute it poorly.
Now that we have the tools to spread rational thought and ideas and concepts to the far flung corners of the world, we should easily recognize the need to consolidate into one voice of reason. The United Nations could potentially do this while still representing our unique differences.
I believe this is the way governments are moving whether we like it or not-we simply cannot afford to ignore that fact that we live on the same planet, and it must be protected...almost as if we still need to prove to ourselves the VALUE of these things. We say to the contrary, but it's blatantly clear that we really doesn't know quite what to do with the insurmountable questions that religions present. This makes sense as we keep searching for answers to impossible questions just as after thousands of years, we continue to struggle with concepts like economics, nationalism, freedom,democracy & privacy, ecology, PEACE.
Sorry for ranting, really! But we need to stop being afraid. When that happens, all of the religious tomes will claim their rightful place on the bookshelf of humanity, right next to Mother Goose, and we can finally start asking ourselves WHY it is so hard to admit we have much to learn. When fear of the unknown no longer grips us we will pare down our incredibly long list of absurd belief systems-IE-Creationism just one example.
A united nations could help humanity to acknowledge our differences, embrace our uniqueness and agree to live peacefully. Think about it, whats the alternative? We could continue pointing all the fingers that we want, but we really only have ourselves, as humans,to blame.
What if you said "Leviticus 20:13 is Hate Speech"? Is that hate speech?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Absolutely. No one should be allowed to disagree with free speech!
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.
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?
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
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.
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...
...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.
Atheism is a religion, at least in terms of a being a system of beliefs that governs a person's actions.
Atheism isn't "a system of beliefs". It's simply a lack of one belief - specifically in that of a deity (or deities).
(The old "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby" is still the best way to put it.)
Hitler, the right ? Excuse me ?
Hitler was for old values, personal responsability and letting the market sort out everything ?
I must be misinformed, have very very bad history books and knowledge then. They say he tried to eradicate religion, destroyed personal responsability and let the state interfere in everyone's lives and forced every company's management to do thing his way ... which included not firing anyone, well except those evil jews.
Yes Hitler was "to the right" of Stalin. He was also far to the left of Castro.
BTW: I'm no fool. There are evil right-leaning dictators in this world. There are even quite a few of them. Hitler, however, was not one of them. The national socialists were, you guessed it, socialists. And let's face it, liberal politics meshes a whole lot less well with totalitarianism than lefty utopias.
But of course, Hitler was racist. As we all know, no-one on the left is racist (this cartoon "graced" the covers of half the lefty newpapers of America).
And of course, describing any difference at all between ideologies is so very, very wrong. After all, lefty blogs say the pope teaches his children the same things. Oh wait Jew-hatred ! Her parents must be right-wing fascists ... In New York that must mean they vote ... democrat ? Overwhelmingly democrat ? Surely you're wrong. Jew haters don't vote to the left ...
--
-1000 Uncomfortable truth
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