U.N. creating "blasphemy laws"

[Diraker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb2OKPBswM&

free speech vs hurt feelings

Anyway IMO there are too many people here in the US (mostly liberal types) who have this notion of tolerance for the sake of tolerance. Political correctness gone amok. The "STAY SILENT!" crowd.

Fuck that shit.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

Muslim countries say they are only trying to cut down of what they see as extensive bias against Islam in the West. In the lead-up to Monday’s vote, many referred, for example, to the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons that satirized Muhammad, and which touched off riots through the Muslim world.

whaaaaa a cartoon...let's kill and riot.

edited: http://www.thesaltymaid.com/tspforums/showthread.php?t=9426

[Silver]

I'm with ya on this one Dir.

[Konrad]

Same...why has the constitution become viewed as a relic; instead of the brilliant enumeration of liberty that it truly is.

[Mutt]

“A defamatory statement . . . is more than just an offensive one. It is also a statement that is false.”I dont see how these laws could ever carry in a judicial based government seeing as even those who are religious have their own deviations between the faiths. As such one side declaring jesus is god would be defamation to one that declares mohammad, shiva, thor, bishnu or whatever.

I think those 47 countries need to grow a pair and live with the fact that other people have differing opinions on their faith.

The UN is a governing body. The UN is supposed to be a neutral assembly to resolve disputes diplomatically and to facilitate the enforcement of treaties, etc according to the common accepted law.

[Jaus]

Its going to be based on a country by counrty decision. People need to GTFO if they dont like where they live in my opinion

[Satia]

This is just depressing. There's so much wrong with this idea that I can't even figure out where to start. :swtf:

[Kydorias]

Remember that such a measure can apply across all faiths/religions.

Catholic response to an investigative reporter's further allegations of child molestation at the hands of a Catholic Bishop:

The actions performed by our Priests, who after all are Servants of God executing God's Will, are not within your right to question or criticize. Indeed, under UN Resolution 451.21, your inflammatory accusations are considered Blasphemy by this Church and will not be tolerated. Sanctions will immediately be pursued by this Church against you and your parent publication in a United Nations court.

[Konrad]

The UN is a governing body.

Thankfully, the UN is NOT a governing body. The members of the UN are all sovereign states...and again, thankfully so in this case.

[Drekor]

Seems like another nail in the coffin of the UN. Probably won't be long before countries start leaving it and making it even more useless(if that is even possible).

[Diraker]

I think the UN is guilty of appeasement but there is plenty of blame that IMO lies on those religious zealot types pushing for this type of stuff.

The UN also has a sort of odd place in US politics. Some of the justification in invading Iraq was because of UN resolutions. People's objections to Israel sometimes involve UN resoultions etc. But the bottom line is that if the UN is doing something we don't like, we can simply ignore it and paint it as useless.

I think the UN oversteps their usefulness on occassion but that doesn't mean the UN should be disbanded althogether. I think a wolrd meeting place is a good thing.

[Mutt]

Thankfully, the UN is NOT a governing body. The members of the UN are all sovereign states...and again, thankfully so in this case.True, bad word choice

[Mutt]

I think the UN oversteps their usefulness on occassion but that doesn't mean the UN should be disbanded althogether. I think a wolrd meeting place is a good thing.And an inevitability really

[Konrad]

While I despise religious fanatics (including Christians) who try to use government entities to enforce their will, the fault lies not with those groups; the fault lies with those government institutions which are designed in such ways that a special interest can enforce their will on entire constituencies.

If the U.N. Charter, or if say the U.N. had something of a constitution, enumerated rights such as the Freedom of Speech then this would be a non-issue (or should be...as even in the U.S. our rights are being quickly eroded). The problem, like most governments, is that certain special interests, and in this case different nations or groups of nations, are able to use these institutions to further their agenda through the use of force and taxation.

The only way to ensure these types of usurpations of rights will not continue to occur is if we remove from governments the ability to trample on the individual liberties of its citizens.

[Diraker]

I'll just point out, and I'm sure you agree on this point, that sometimes these religious fanatics (using Konrad's phrase) also use the threat of violence to intimidate the government entities into capitulation.

In regards to the U.K. (for example) the British government didn't allow an elected Dutch politician into their country (at least in part) because a British Islamic cleric threatened to 'protest', along with his 10,000 comrads outside the parliment building. But maybe you are right in that the government should be standing up for themselves. There is blame to go around.

Here in the US the threat usually comes in the form of bad publicity (through a compliant media), guilt (playing the hurt feeling card), and not voting. I don't, for example, see Bill Donahue of the Catholic League threatening violence...well except when he challenged Bill Maher to a fist fight. And, for the record, I sort of like Bill Donahue. I like his personality. He's very much a New Yorker. I just disagree with almost everything he says.

[Konrad]

Sure, but again, they wouldn't be trying to get a government to capitulate if the government didn't have certain coercive powers.

[Soulein]

The U.N. was created to allow nations to resolve conflicts and disagreements through negotiation and dialogue, and to develop the infrastructure needed to create lasting peace. This, on a smaller scale is what governments are supposed to do for individuals, however the U.N. does this about as well as Somalia.

Anarchy is the natural condition in which States operate, and no IO (Internation Organization) can replace power as the means with which states do business.

The U.N. and the United States Constitution consistently find themselves in opposition... not a good thing for the world government argument.

[Diraker]

Happy Blasphemy Day!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrDq9tHPTFE

Fuck god.
Fuck allah.
Fuck jesus.
Fuck mohammed.
Fuck christianity.
Fuck judaism.
Fuck islam.
Fuck me.
Fuck you.

[Konrad]

I agree...fuck you.

[Mutt]

Looks like Odin got a reprieve.

[Diraker]

Fuck odin.
Fuck wotan.
Fuck osiris.
Fuck ra.
Fuck thor.
Fuck ishtar.
Fuck apollo.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6247329/International-blasphemy-day-from-Danish-cartoons-to-Jerry-Springer---The-Opera.html

[Roxie]

Sounds....blasphemous.

[Dong]

unlol

[Aradorn]

im waiting for a group of people to found a terrorist organization to fight other terrorists on their level. Kinda like what John travolta's character wanted to do in Swordfish.

edit: you bomb a school, they bomb 3 kind of thing...

[Mutt]

You act like they already dont exist.

[Aradorn]

yeah your probably right...

[Mutt]

The difference is first world nations try to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties if possible. But you can be sure if there is a high value target, then it doesnt matter who is around them. As well, why do the work yourself when you can fund and equip other violent groups to do the work for you?

[Diraker]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

...

What's next? Private companies and institutions are following suit in what could be seen as responding to the Egyptian-U.S. call for greater "responsibility" in controlling speech. For example, in an act of unprecedented cowardice and self-censorship, Yale University Press published The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book by Jytte Klausen on the original Mohammed cartoons. Yale, however, (over Klausen's objections) cut the actual pictures of the cartoons. It was akin to publishing a book on the Sistine Chapel while barring any images of the paintings.

The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.


I wish those on the right of the political spectrum would stop with the birther, death panel, fema concentration camps, Glenn Beck nonsense and instead start defending free speech. :thumbdown

I wish those on the politcal left would stop with the anti-vaccine, the wishy washy lofty speak, tolerating the intolerant, cultural relativism nonsense, and instead start defending free speech. :thumbdown

[Mutt]

How do you have freedom of the press when there are limits to free speech?

No good can come of this, even from those who might have good intentions for tolerance.

There was a Canadian journalist that was jailed as part of those riots in Iran a few months back. He was just released a couple days ago.
I wonder how much more often that kidn of thing will happen if the journalists take an unfavourable view of things.

[Diraker]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33486054/ns/world_news-world_faith/

U.S. opposes bid to bar religious defamation
Hillary Clinton says move by Islamic nations would restrict free speech

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Monday came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree."

Clinton said the United States was opposed to negative depictions of specific faiths and would always fight against belief-based discrimination. But she said a person's ability to practice their religion was entirely unrelated to another person's right to free speech.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions," Clinton said. "These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse."

Her comments came as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 56-nation bloc of Islamic countries, is pressing the U.N. Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution that would broadly condemn the defamation of religion.

....

[Diraker]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6209687/Christian-hoteliers-charged-with-insulting-Muslim-guest.html

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act – causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted, they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record...

A police spokesman said: "Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang, both of Fazakerley, were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009. This follows an incident on 20 March 2009."

[Mutt]

And the slippery slope begins. This is why free speech needs to be free speech, especially when it comes to religion. So many contradict each other that its just going to lead to incidents like this. Most practitioners dont care, but all it takes is one fundamentalist and the whole thing goes to pot.