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.

Polonius wrote: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.

True That!

ungulateman wrote:And you thought 40k had oppressing religious organisations.

Well, GW had to steal the idea from somewhere I guess.

M.

I would say something about the UK being a nanny state, and something else. But uhh... I'm not really allowed to any more.

Today's Daily Telegraph has a complaint from the Archbishop of Canterbury that the BBC is ignoring Christians.

Kilkrazy wrote:Today's Daily Telegraph has a complaint from the Archbishop of Canterbury that the BBC is ignoring Christians.

I think the whole Winterfest fiasco a couple of years ago proves that one, I live in Birmingham and I remember the Bull Ring were going to or did (I cannot remember which) have a massive sign saying happy Winterfest.


Still that resolution is a pile of crap, but as Spiggot pointed out, its a UN resolution, as with most things the UN do most people just won't care.

Polonius wrote: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.

Not really. The important thing is to take the actual language of the article and compare it to what people assume it means. The resolution calls for "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

Which is intensely standard stuff. Any country that cares about these kinds of things has already got such protections in spades. Right now, if you were to stand up and declare ‘Islam makes new members eat the babies of heathens’ you’d get incitement to racial violence and all manner of similar charges slapped against you if you lived in the US, UK, Australia or whatever. On the other hand, if you were to give informed, truthful criticism you’re fine. The resolution here changes none of that.

<rhetorical>

If there are lots of western countries with laws that protect religions from hate speech, etc. why does the UN need to pass a resolution calling for them?

I can't imagine that hate speech against Islam is a big problem in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia etc.

Also, if this resolution goes through will it be used to protect Christianity and Judaism from criticism by Islamic speakers in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia?

</rhetorical>

Kilkrazy wrote:

Also, if this resolution goes through will it be used to protect Christianity and Judaism from criticism by Islamic speakers in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia?

</rhetorical>

No.

[start rant]

cant every religion just feth off?
religion is great for some, yet it seems to cause nothing but problems all around the world, everyone is being forced to listen to people preach about this religion or that religion, i dont respect any of them, i respect my rights of freedom of speech.
cant they just down grade religion in the world?
i would like to see it all banned
but yea, thats never going to happen.

allthough, everything has its price, even christmas was brought out by cocacola

just a funny note here (well, maybe to some people)
at the time of typing this out i had a jehovah's witness knock the door asking if he could help me into a better life.
i told him to feth off last week!
yet he still comes back thinking he can change my mind.
its a shame you cant take live ammo from base anymore (allthough weapons are still allowed off base aslong as the magazine is left behind)

i just get pissed off with everyone trying to force religion on everyone, hence why i now support a world wide ban of the fething thing.

[/end rant]


im sorry if this offends anyone, but as i said, i support freedom of speech

sebster wrote:
Not really. The important thing is to take the actual language of the article and compare it to what people assume it means. The resolution calls for "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

Which is intensely standard stuff. Any country that cares about these kinds of things has already got such protections in spades. Right now, if you were to stand up and declare ‘Islam makes new members eat the babies of heathens’ you’d get incitement to racial violence and all manner of similar charges slapped against you if you lived in the US, UK, Australia or whatever. On the other hand, if you were to give informed, truthful criticism you’re fine. The resolution here changes none of that.

Well, for starters, "incitement to religious hatred in general" is broad enough to drive a truck through. Clear cut examples are fine, but what about a statement such as "Islam's codes of modesty are hurtful women." I'd argue that's a well informed statement, yet it would incite religious hatred. I know the UN isn't the US, but the 1st amendment requires any restriction on speech (or any law that violates any constitutional right) to be narrowly tailored. That resolution casts as wide a net as possible.

I don't know about the Commonwealth, but in the US you can say whatever you like about any religion. Even the fighting words exception to free speech has been reduced to literal announcements of violence.

I'd be more comfortable with this resolution (not be much, but at least a little) if there was something in there about falsity. Meaning, this resolution doesn't allow true statements that would incite hatred.

Also, read what it says. It says it will protect from acts of hatred that result from defamation. That means that if you were to give a speech describing the violation of human rights under Islam in, say, the Philippines, and then there was a riot against Muslims, you'd be found liable for it.

I'm not a fan of restrictions on hate speech (or any speech, for that matter), but they can be done better than this. A resolution like "In order to protect every person's right to freedom of religion, it shall be prohibited to make false statements about a religion for the purposes of inciting, increasing, or directing animosity, hatred, violence, or discrimination. " This is still possibly too broad to pass 1st amendment muster (although defamation is an exception), but at least it has a narrow goal: only false and malicious statements are banned where they are intended to cause mischief.

JD21290 wrote:[

im sorry if this offends anyone, but as i said, i support freedom of speech

Except, apparently, for religious speech.

I'm joking a bit, but your argument is essentially "I have no problem with any speech that I like." Which is fine, but you're not really supporting free speech, you're supporting a subset of free speech.

i support freedom of speech, not freedom to preach.

if he was to have asked me once, fine, i told him im not interested, but twice in the space of just over a week?
im all for saying what you like, but just because of that it does not mean you should continue to try and force a religion on someone.

i need to start a collection of random books / items and artifacts used by each religion.
the 1st time i say no, they walk away.
the 2nd time they try it ill burn something religious infront of them to prove my point that no means no.

wasn't christmas Saturnalia first? I think Coca-Cola just messed with St Nicks costume colours, from green and white to red and white.

coca-cola was mainly responsible for the whole colour change and the random assed image of it

JD21290 wrote:i support freedom of speech, not freedom to preach.

if he was to have asked me once, fine, i told him im not interested, but twice in the space of just over a week?
im all for saying what you like, but just because of that it does not mean you should continue to try and force a religion on someone.

i need to start a collection of random books / items and artifacts used by each religion.
the 1st time i say no, they walk away.
the 2nd time they try it ill burn something religious infront of them to prove my point that no means no.

How is preaching not speech?

Pretty much everybody is offended by some form of speech or another, be it Pornography, hate speech, religious preachings, subversive political stuff, racism, whatever. The key is to realize that since pretty much everybody would rather certain kinds of speech be banned, we can't ban any, otherwise we'd end up with hardly anything allowed.

I mean, I'm use to there being people on here that have an almost visceral dislike for religion, and I guess some of the more enthusiastic evangilizers bother me too, but it sounds like you just had a run in with somebody annoying, and you can't legally ban annoying.

preaching is speech of some form, but in general its more about pushing a religion towards someone.

freedom of speech would be stood in the streets preaching about it, not knocking someones door every week to try and force a gakky religion on them when they have no interest in it.
its not just 1 off things like that, its just the way that most things now are either related or associated with religion.

Oh let's! Lets ban annoying...please...I'll go and inform my boss that no longer will his church flyers be allowed on our lunch table because they bug the life out of me! the next cartoon strip i see of "why your going to hell" i swear i'll choke him with his rosary!

JD21290 wrote:preaching is speech of some form, but in general its more about pushing a religion towards someone.

freedom of speech would be stood in the streets preaching about it, not knocking someones door every week to try and force a gakky religion on them when they have no interest in it.
its not just 1 off things like that, its just the way that most things now are either related or associated with religion.

I belive JD's espousing freedom of speech, but also freedom to not be harassed in the castle. I'm sure that would include solicitors (people bugging you not attroneys to you Brits), and phone callers.

I'm down with that. Your freedoms end where my nose begins. You DO NOT have the right to harass me in my own home.

Frazzled wrote:

JD21290 wrote:preaching is speech of some form, but in general its more about pushing a religion towards someone.

freedom of speech would be stood in the streets preaching about it, not knocking someones door every week to try and force a gakky religion on them when they have no interest in it.
its not just 1 off things like that, its just the way that most things now are either related or associated with religion.

I belive JD's espousing freedom of speech, but also freedom to not be harassed in the castle. I'm sure that would include solicitors (people bugging you not attroneys to you Brits), and phone callers.

I'm down with that. Your freedoms end where my nose begins. You DO NOT have the right to harass me in my own home.

No, and can't you just post a sign saying "No solicitors" on your door or house? I mean, I don't think that religious groups can rappel from unmarked helicopters, snatch you from your house, and subject you to 72 hours of brainwashing as protected speech. Of course you have the right to be left alone in your home.

I'm not sure what JD21290's point really is, other than that he clearly has had some bad run ins with religious folk. If you could perhaps explain in more detail what behavior you want restricted, it would be easier to discuss. The problem with this convo is that we have too much legal education around to use terms loosely.

Polonius wrote:

No, and can't you just post a sign saying "No solicitors" on your door or house?

True that should work, but it doesn't. Also doesn't work for telephone solicitors.

I mean, I don't think that religious groups can rappel from unmarked helicopters, snatch you from your house, and subject you to 72 hours of brainwashing as protected speech. Of course you have the right to be left alone in your home.

(calls to church) "ixney on the shanghainay..."

Kilkrazy wrote:<rhetorical>

If there are lots of western countries with laws that protect religions from hate speech, etc. why does the UN need to pass a resolution calling for them?

I can't imagine that hate speech against Islam is a big problem in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia etc.

Also, if this resolution goes through will it be used to protect Christianity and Judaism from criticism by Islamic speakers in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia?

</rhetorical>

It's the UN, it spends a lot of time passing legislation that's only followed by countries that are already following it. This happens for two reasons; to set an international standard and apply pressure on others to follow, and lastly for the old political reason - because there's political pressure for something to be done, this is something and therefore it will be done.

And no, I don't think hate speach against Islam is a problem in majority Islamic countries. It's clear the bill is intended to curb criticism of Islam in secular countries with Islamic minorities. I'm just not as outraged as some in this thread, because I can't see the resolution having much effect at all.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

No, and can't you just post a sign saying "No solicitors" on your door or house?

True that should work, but it doesn't. Also doesn't work for telephone solicitors.

that's right, non-profits are exempt from the do not call lists. Depending on how bored your local police are, you can always call and complain if solicitors come to your house when it's marked.

The courts seem to treat religious speech pretty much the same as political speech, which means its super protected.

sebster wrote:
And no, I don't think hate speach against Islam is a problem in majority Islamic countries. It's clear the bill is intended to curb criticism of Islam in secular countries with Islamic minorities. I'm just not as outraged as some in this thread, because I can't see the resolution having much effect at all.

Fair enough, although I don't think most of us are outraged so much as shocked in no way whatsoever. It's just such an obvious smoke screen it's almost sad.

True that.