UN Officials Remove Poster Mentioning Chinese Firewall

At a UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Egypt, anti-censorship group Open Net Initiative was startled by a demand from UN officials to remove a poster mentioning Chinese Net censorship. When ONI refused the request, security personnel arrived and took away the poster. The group was promoting a new book, Access Controlled, a survey of Internet censorship, filtering, and online surveillance. A witness said, "The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of the reference to China and Tibet. We refused, and security guards came and removed it. The incident was witnessed by many." Here is a video of the removal.

Comments

Places not to hold an Internet Governance Forum

[sakdoctor]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet_blackholes_en.png

Undemocratic?

[mc6809e]

"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event... "

The UN is a democratic organization and this act of censorship is completely democratic. It's wrong, but democratic.

That should be a lesson to those that confuse freedom and democracy.

I've seen this firsthand.

[Jeian]

A few years ago, as a student, I got to go visit the UN's Geneva campus, sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that has a presence at the UN. While I was there, I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission. (Committee? Council? I can't remember.) During the meeting, representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.

The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this, to say the least, and demanded they cease distributing the flyers. The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that, and that they'd be removed if they continued to do so.

The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights.

Re:Values

[Nazlfrag]

I smell bullshit. Let's take a closer look at that document shall we?

-> sharia takes precedence over human rights, and the declaration cannot be understood except as a summary of sharia

Wrong. It actually states that such rights are integral to Islam and the document is in accordance with Shaira, not that Shaira takes precedence or that it is a mere summary.

-> women can not choose whether to marry, nor to whom

Wrong. Nowhere does it state this, though it does state "Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right."

-> women are not equal to men, and have "duties" to perform

Possibly. Article 6(a): "Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage." You are wrong on equality not being mentioned, but right on the duties, but to be fair men are tasked with duties too.

-> discrimination on the basis of religion is, in fact allowed

Wrong. From Article 1(a): "All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations."

-> any action that might in any way convince a muslim to become either atheist or other faith, is punishable by death (yes, might, you read that correctly)

Possibly. Article 10: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism." It mentions a prohibition, not a death sentence.

-> muslims have the duty (not the right, the duty) to use any amount of violence if there are any non-muslim members of government

Wrong. I'm not sure where you get this from. The closest is Article 23(b): "Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah." Was this what you meant? Where is the duty to violence?

-> any expression of speech that leads to "weakening of faith" is punishable by death, as is anything that could (not would, could) undermine governmental authority

Wrong. From the quote I assume you mean Article 22(c): "Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. " Nothing there about death or governmental authority.

So I think I'll call this myth busted. Try reading something before spouting off hyperbole about it.

Re:Censorship depends on the country.

[gowen]

And in France at least, there is an unspoken understanding between the press and the government. You don't say anything to embarrass government officials, and you get to keep your job

Right, whereas the "Free Press" in the USA is reknowned for its pioneering investigative work into Government. Oh no, wait, they're pretty much lackeys to the White House Press Office (and have been since Reagan). You can slander the non-US Press if you like, but at least they told the truth about the rush to war in Iraq.