UN Anti Blasphemy resolution

[Athena_Ritashe]

Basically what the UN Anti Defamtation Resolution would do is make criticizing religion illegal. This would make books, movies, articles and perhaps even speaking criticism against religion (especially Islam) a crime.

"These resolutions legitimize the criminalization of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia," said Neuer. "Muslim moderates, bloggers, women seeking basic freedoms — all of these will be the first to suffer from the worsening climate of state repression in the name of state-supported Islamic orthodoxy."

November 24, 2008 — By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the UN General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent "defamation of religions," asserting that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.

What this is stating is there are 57 nations trying to get a binding resolution to prevent the "Defamation of Religion" in the UN. If a binding resolution were to pass it would force all nations in the UN to change their laws to punish those that "slander" religion. The leading supporter of this UN resolution is Pakistan.

This is what we are fighting against.

You can watch a commentary by Christopher Hitchens on this issue on Youtube here: Christopher Hitchen's Commentary

If you wish you can sign an online petition here: Petition against UN Resolution Against Religious Defamation

I wrote the following comment on the petition: This very resolution goes against the foundation of the Constitution of the United States. We shall not rewrite the foundation of American society and governance.

What do you think? Those wishing to spread Islamic ideology worldwide are becoming more sophisticated in their tactics.  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

This is absolutely terrifying, and it actually made me a little nauseous. I signed the petition as well. Now I feel like hiding underneath a rock and never coming out. The more people come to their senses about these things, the harder those terroristic fundies (by which I don't mean Islamic fundies exclusively; I feel that militant fundamentalism of any kind tends to sit on the verge of intellectual terrorism) fight back. I fear deeply for the implications of this.

 

[Henneth Annun]

Freedom isn't about wether you can or cannot do something, it's about having the option to do it or not. If I want to voice my "slanderous" opinion about something I really do not like, I want to be allowed to do it. I'm not going to shut up about it because I might hurt someone's feelings or "portray something inaccuratley."

Just what is "accurate" now? Just what are people going to "portray"? What will be ignored that should not be ignored next?

confused

I hope this doesn't go too far. I can see where the respect comes in, but I'm worried that this could turn into something that ends up glossing over and sugar coating bad things in order not to "slander" something.  

[PathlessPlot]

This act positively terrifies me! Our constitutional right to free speech could be restricted! The effects of this resolution could affect everything from what news can be reported to what can be taught in our schools!  

[Dathu]

Well, uh, I'm sure people are gonna hate what I'm about to say but here goes:

In California dog fighting became out of control, and as a result hundreds of thousands of pitbulls were being forced to fight to the death. The only way the state could stop the fighting was by making the breed illegal. Their response was "If the people of this state are so inhumane as to fight animals, then they do not deserve the right to own them."

I kind of feel that if these countries are just gonna kill each other whenever one slanders the others religion, then maybe they don't deserve freedom of speech.

I know that probably sounds cold, and I realize it's a double edge sword, but I really have no patients or sympathy for people who are willing to kill for their religious beliefs. sad  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

Dathu

Well, uh, I'm sure people are gonna hate what I'm about to say but here goes:

In California dog fighting became out of control, and as a result hundreds of thousands of pitbulls were being forced to fight to the death. The only way the state could stop the fighting was by making the breed illegal. Their response was "If the people of this state are so inhumane as to fight animals, then they do not deserve the right to own them."

I kind of feel that if these countries are just gonna kill each other whenever one slanders the others religion, then maybe they don't deserve freedom of speech.

I know that probably sounds cold, and I realize it's a double edge sword, but I really have no patients or sympathy for people who are willing to kill for their religious beliefs. sad

Most of the countries that kill each other over their beliefs tend to have few freedoms of speech anyway, don't they? I'm largely concerned that this resolution could be used to take away free speech from countries that have always held that right in high respect.

 

[Dathu]

Daffodil the Destroyer

Dathu

Well, uh, I'm sure people are gonna hate what I'm about to say but here goes:

In California dog fighting became out of control, and as a result hundreds of thousands of pitbulls were being forced to fight to the death. The only way the state could stop the fighting was by making the breed illegal. Their response was "If the people of this state are so inhumane as to fight animals, then they do not deserve the right to own them."

I kind of feel that if these countries are just gonna kill each other whenever one slanders the others religion, then maybe they don't deserve freedom of speech.

I know that probably sounds cold, and I realize it's a double edge sword, but I really have no patients or sympathy for people who are willing to kill for their religious beliefs. sad

Most of the countries that kill each other over their beliefs tend to have few freedoms of speech anyway, don't they? I'm largely concerned that this resolution could be used to take away free speech from countries that have always held that right in high respect.

I'm not. I mean, they could try, but since when does the UN tell us to do anything. I understand the concern, but I really don't think any civilized nations are under any threat. Just me.  

[Athena_Ritashe]

Dathu

Daffodil the Destroyer

Dathu

Well, uh, I'm sure people are gonna hate what I'm about to say but here goes:

In California dog fighting became out of control, and as a result hundreds of thousands of pitbulls were being forced to fight to the death. The only way the state could stop the fighting was by making the breed illegal. Their response was "If the people of this state are so inhumane as to fight animals, then they do not deserve the right to own them."

I kind of feel that if these countries are just gonna kill each other whenever one slanders the others religion, then maybe they don't deserve freedom of speech.

I know that probably sounds cold, and I realize it's a double edge sword, but I really have no patients or sympathy for people who are willing to kill for their religious beliefs. sad

Most of the countries that kill each other over their beliefs tend to have few freedoms of speech anyway, don't they? I'm largely concerned that this resolution could be used to take away free speech from countries that have always held that right in high respect.

I'm not. I mean, they could try, but since when does the UN tell us to do anything. I understand the concern, but I really don't think any civilized nations are under any threat. Just me.

I see you haven't been keeping up with the news. In the Netherlands a man is on trial for offending Muslims by making a film.

"The latest twist in the clash between Western values and the Muslim world took place yesterday in the Netherlands, where a court ordered the prosecution of lawmaker and provocateur Geert Wilders for inciting violence. The Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party, which opposes Muslim immigration into Holland, will stand trial soon for his harsh criticism of Islam.

Mr. Wilders made world news last year with the short film "Fitna." In the 15-minute video, he juxtaposes Koranic verses calling for jihad with clips of Islamic hate preachers and terror attacks. He has compared the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and urged Muslims to tear out "hate-filled" verses from their scripture. This is a frontal assault on Islam -- but, as Mr. Wilders points out, he's targeting the religion, not its followers. "Fitna," in fact, sparked a refreshing debate between moderate Muslims and non-Muslims in the Netherlands, and beyond."

The rest of the article is here: Silencing Islam's Critics

Basically this man made an anti-Islamic film, and the Muslims reacted by setting off violent protests worldwide. Amazing. So free speech is being stifled in the Netherlands in hopes to hold violence at bay.

Basically a binding resolution means that : "it imposes it's terms on signatory states... The 2008 draft “underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national regional and international levels.”

I don't know how the UN would go about imposing the terms upon member nations, but there would be some backlash if it got past and we ignored it. So this issue of free speech vs. religion is very relivant to our times. There is an excellent article here: Anti-Blasphemy laws



 

[Dathu]

I know, and that is regrettable for the Netherlands, I just have no fear of it affecting us, so I'm not worried. Sorry. sad  

[Athena_Ritashe]

Dathu

I know, and that is regrettable for the Netherlands, I just have no fear of it affecting us, so I'm not worried. Sorry. sad

Really, the Defamation against religion resolution could affect us, or not affect us. What this hinges upon is how much opposition it receives. There are three possibilities I see:
A. It does not pass as a binding resolution in the UN
B. It passes and the Christian majority takes up arms against it
C. It passes and the Christian majority sees how they can use it to promote their agenda and push for law changes.

A. If this resolution receives public awareness it may also receive opposition. Enough opposition means this resolution would be voted down. However without enough opposition it could pass.

B. If this thing were to pass and became law the Christian majority could become outraged at being told they cannot slander Islam and must give Islam due respect. This push would make the senate reject implementation of the resolution.

C. Christians could use this resolution to pass their own laws that state you cannot slander or defame Christianity or other religions and use it to promote their goals of "bringing America back to God".

This does not affect us now, but this has the potential to become something much bigger. This thing is against freedom of speech disguised as religious tolerance, so it could go unnoticed.

"Critics give some recent news events as examples of how the U.N. “blasphemy resolution” has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners:

– On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel “The Jewel of Medina,” which gives a fictional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. FOXNews.com reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that “credible and unrelated sources” said the book could incite violence by a “small, radical segment.”

– An Afghan student is on death row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam, FOXNews.com also reported.

– In December 2007 “a court reportedly sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad’s wives,” the U.S. government said.

– A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.

– In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post that critiqued Islam.

– In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after the release of his documentary highlighting the abuse of Muslim women.

“It’s obviously intended to have an intimidating effect on people expressing criticism of radical Islam, and the idea that you can have a defamation of a religion like this, I think, is a concept fundamentally foreign to our system of free expression in the United States,” said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton."

Source: Combating Defamation against religion Curtails Free Speech

The line above captures the essence. This sounds foreign to us. We won't be able to express ourselves freely? Naaaahhh, that doesn't happen here. This is America, I've never had to watch what I say. This sort of thing can't really happen. Until your in a cell for two weeks for giving a stuffed animal the wrong name.  

[Dathu]

xd Look, I get it. It's not that I don't understand, it's not that I don't see the potential, I just don't agree that it's possible that it will affect the U.S. You show me an article where an American on American soil is arrested for anything along the lines of the aforementioned articles, and I'll join your camp, otherwise, I'm just not worried.

I'm being polite in not diving into how I feel about these countries and the people that go to them for whatever reason, so let's just say that I can be unbelievably cold hearted and apathetic in what happens to these people. It's not that I'm ethnocentric in my views, racists against them, ignorant of their situation or of the implications of this act, nor biased towards them for being religious. I'm just very Darwinist-ic. surprised

But I think it's cool that you're so passionate about this. The good news is, I don't have to worry about it affect the U.S. because I know people like you will be right there to educate and motivate people to protect our rights. So keep up the good work.  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

Dathu: I love your little post-emotes, by the way. XD

 

[Dathu]

Me too.  

[Meirelle]

As much as some people in America piss me off, this is why I hate Europe more. They're so liberal that they actually go the other direction. :/

Don't worry. America is a member of the UN in name only. We never actually DO anything they tell us to.

 

[Zambimaru]

This scares the living s**t out of me eek The fact that their even thinking about this scares me. They pass this and it could be the beginning of the end of freedom of speech.