UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975SKN01

UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism
By FRANK JORDANS – 23 hours ago

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal backed by Muslims nations Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.

The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said.

A coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.

Ok the left wing nutjobs need to join with the right win nutjobs in a pincer movement here, while the main body of "mundanes" run up the middle to stop this.

**reds8n**

Sad and stupid indeed.

Oh, just for the record. *sighs* If only I could use my powers to make £/$ instead !

**dogma**

Right. I don't see what's offensive about this. Its a UN recommendation dealing with the fact that religious persecution is a major reason for violence throughout the world. It is not binding. It is not unique. It is pointless, but hardly offensive.

**Greebynog**

Absolutely ridiculous. The phrase 'unnaceptable free speech' sent a little shiver down my spine. As one of Dakka's certified wooly liberal lefties, I'll be happy to join Frazz's pincer campaign on this side of the fence.

**reds8n**

They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.
"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said.

I don't agree with this description, and I really can't seeplaces like Saudi Arabia leaping on this motion as a chance to stop prosecution of non Muslims in their territories.

I fail to see how protecting something from criticism helps it in any way whatsoever. Everything/one (can) learn from tehir mistakes, butif these cannot be even pointed out then... what ?

**Frazzled**

Read it and Reds8n's articles Dogma. Its not about protecting non-Muslims at all. Its about stifling criticism of Sharia and their states from the West.

Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.

Do you want the Catholic Church or Brother Wingnut from the Dumpwater Florida church of greywater deciding what you can and can't say?

**George Spiggott**

Be calm folks it's just a UN resolution, there's nothing to worry about.

**Frazzled**

Unless it passes and the US/UK/Aussieland stupidly sign on. Then it has the force of law. Dpeending on who makes up SCOTUS they would have the Bill of Rights subservient to foreign treaty. I don't know how it works with UK/Shrimponthebarbieville.

**reds8n**

You say that now, but there's a huge list of evidence* that goes against you. Those UN troops in the salt mines outside Detroit are poised to come up through the sewers any minute now ! And we'll all be too busy taking those health food powders that the communist chinese make out of orphan babies and.....

*existing entirely in my head. Otherwise the pilots of the Black helicopters that follow me could read it.

**George Spiggott**

Frazzled wrote:Unless it passes and the US/UK/Aussieland stupidly sign on.

I really can't see either the US or UK going for it. I don't know much about Australian attitudes.

**Kilkrazy**

I can't support this resolution.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Read it and Reds8n's articles Dogma. Its not about protecting non-Muslims at all. Its about stifling criticism of Sharia and their states from the West.

I did read it. I gathered that was the intent based on the sponsorship, and specific text. I also gathered that it was about more than just Islam based upon the general meaning of the initiative. Its a non-binding UN recommendation that was roundly opposed by Western states. It is irrelevant.

Frazzled wrote:

Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.

Do you want the Catholic Church or Brother Wingnut from the Dumpwater Florida church of greywater deciding what you can and can't say?

Not particularly, but this recommendation brings them no closer to being able to do so.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Unless it passes and the US/UK/Aussieland stupidly sign on. Then it has the force of law. Dpeending on who makes up SCOTUS they would have the Bill of Rights subservient to foreign treaty.

It still wouldn't have the force of law. That isn't how the UN works. Only the security council can make binding resolutions. Everything else is a recommendation.

**Frazzled**

If we agree to it as treaty it indeed has force of law.

**reds8n**

So reading that....America s NOT a liberal democracy ?

HA! Won that bet.

**Ahtman**

reds8n wrote:So reading that....America s NOT a liberal democracy ?

HA! Won that bet.

We are a democratic republic. DUH

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:If we agree to it as treaty it indeed has force of law.

Yeah, it does, but this isn't a treaty. Not even close. Even if it were, the Supreme Court could easily overturn it due to the provision that international treaties are considered subject to the Constitution. Not to mention Congressional review.

**reds8n**

You say that...... but you all* fawn over our royals when we send them your way. Deep down you know you did wrong and you crave forgiveness for your treason.

*"All" may not conform to accepted definition here.

I see what you did there really before retardposter#0045661 leaps in here to "help".**

** Apologies if there is a poster by the name of retardposter#0045661, I didn't mean you, I meant all those other dweebs.***

*** Note use of "hip"**** slang.

**** NOte over usage of same tired joke.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:If we agree to it as treaty it indeed has force of law.

Yeah, it does, but this isn't a treaty. Not even close. Even if it were, the Supreme Court could easily overturn it due to the provision that international treaties are considered subject to the Constitution. Not to mention Congressional review.

except that recent opionion *cough Ginsberg cough* has held that SCOTUS should be able to look at international jurisprudence for stare decisis.

**Frazzled**

I think reds8n just had an argument with himself...and lost...

**reds8n**

Technically I also won though.... errr....

**Frazzled**

No, its possible to lose both ways. I know. Oh I know..

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:No, its possible to lose both ways. I know. Oh I know..

Well... you married her...

*ducks and covers*

See if you were sophisticated * you'd understand these semantic differences.

* ie British. **

**NOT European, that is quite separate.

**warpcrafter**

Ahtman wrote:
reds8n wrote:So reading that....America s NOT a liberal democracy ?

HA! Won that bet.

We are a democratic republic. DUH

We are a corporate whorehouse that is temporarily in disarray because the mop-boys are trying to take control, but that won't last too long. Old money simply never loses.

**Frazzled**

have a good weekend you young whippersnapper. I'm off.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
except that recent opionion *cough Ginsberg cough* has held that SCOTUS should be able to look at international jurisprudence for stare decisis.

That's not really a recent opinion. SCOTUS has been using the international community as a benchmark for its decisions since 1958 in Trop v. Dulles. To presume that such a trend guarantees that you're about to lose your freedom of speech is about as close to Mel Gibson as you can get.

**Polonius**

Any law, treaty or not, that violated the first amendment so broadly would be tossed out by the Court. They've looked to foreign courts for some precedent (a trend that worries me a little), but it's hard to imagine anything less than a 9-0 sweep to strike down a law that bans core political speech like that.

I mean, let's call this resolution was it is: a rather sad attempt by a group of countries to try to eliminate criticism of their rampant disdain for human rights under the cover of religion.

**Frazzled**

True statement Polonius.

**LuciusAR**

I remember reading about this a few weeks ago. Its a sad, sad day for freedom should this ever become ratified in any way.

Polonius, I totally agree. Lets just hope the powers that be see this for what it is.

**ungulateman**

And you thought 40k had oppressing religious organisations.