Slashdot Log In
UN Attacks Free Speech
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Mar 28, 2009 07:10 PM
from the anti-blasphemy-enshrined dept.
from the anti-blasphemy-enshrined dept.
newsblaze writes "The UN Human Rights Council assaulted free expression today, in a 23-11 vote that urges member states to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions. The proposal came to the UN from Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference. There were 13 abstentions. South Korea, Japan, India, Mexico and Brazil, all strong democracies, allowed this to pass by abrogating their responsibility. While the resolution doesn't mention the online world, where does this subject get mentioned most, if not online?" The coverage is from NewsBlaze, which says its mission is to carry important news that other media are not paying attention to. There does not seem to be any other coverage of this vote.
Update: 03/29 00:48 GMT by KD : Reader kshade wrote in: "Actually this is covered by conventional media, even FOX news (Google News links). The absentees weren't there because they boycotted the proposal."
Update: 03/29 00:48 GMT by KD : Reader kshade wrote in: "Actually this is covered by conventional media, even FOX news (Google News links). The absentees weren't there because they boycotted the proposal."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
...for April Fools Day. This is a joke, right?
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Informative)
Whoops. Doesn't look like it. [google.com]
Parent
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the U.N., every day seems like April Fool's Day, because the U.N. is nothing but a group of fools.
Parent
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
With almost 200 members, practically every country in the world, what else could it be but fools? That's all the world has to offer itself.
Parent
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Interesting)
With almost 200 members, practically every country in the world, what else could it be but fools? That's all the world has to offer itself.
My country is represented by people most of us don't want to. I don't even think I need to name it to make it true.
Parent
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN should be whipped, beaten and strangled for failure to stand up for free speech.
Parent
Damn their free expression! (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely. No one should be allowed to disagree with free speech!
Parent
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like the idea of any country not being able to tell the UN to go pound sand. A country's sovereignty is extremely important for freedom, and war is directly at odds with freedom and prosperity. If Sudan is a member country they could be denied membership unless they comply with the UN's charter. I don't like the use of force, especially by a foreign power, to spread an ideology. If the ideology is peace and freedom then force is in conflict with the ideology anyway. Instead set an example; send in peaceful, lawful aid and volunteer educators; publicly deplore the government's actions and try to change public opinion in Sudan. Apply diplomatic pressure to the government and do whatever is possible to peacefully persuade them to change.
Ultimately it is up to the people to change their government, and employ force if they feel it necessary. Not an external force.
Parent
There is coverage from other news sources... (Score:5, Informative)
...and it didn't happen today. Looks like Newsblaze wants a couple more pageviews or something.
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=UN+Religion [google.com]
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/26/1004038/human-rights-body-passes-religious-defamation-resolution [jta.org]
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71973&Itemid=2 [app.com.pk]
Can we please just get the US out of the UN? (Score:4, Insightful)
An organization that has devolved into "the rich countries should give aid to the poor countries", has stopped being useful to anyone but the leeches. Seriously, can anyone tell me what the UN has done for the US lately, and is there a real reputation hit we'd take from leaving it (as opposed to what we do now, which is to largely ignore it)?
Re:Can we please just get the US out of the UN? (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN isn't so great for countries with a lot of power, because many of their functions are about limiting and sharing power. On the other hand, there is something to be said, even if you are a superpower, for keeping communications open between countries. The alternative ends up with a lot of dangerous pent up resentment between countries.
Wait, isn't that the definition? ;)
Parent
Re:Can we please just get the US out of the UN? (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN helps keep the world stable. A stable world is good for business. What's good for business is good for the US. Most of what the UN does is not headline-grabbing stuff, but it's incredibly important.
Besides, how ridiculous would it be for the UN to be hosted by the only broadly-recognized nation in the world that wasn't a member (which is what the US would be if it pulled out)?
That said, no one takes the UN "Human Rights Council" seriously, because it's currently stacked with nations that have pitiful human rights records. This particular vote has been anticipated for some time now.
If you want to understand better how the world works, I highly recommend reading The Economist.
Parent
mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN helps keep the world stable.
This is exactly why the UN was founded. The UN exists to protect the post-world war 2 order. It comes out of the direct experience people had before and during world war 2. It is one of the pillars of defense against future wars between states.
The UN is the only place where all the world's countries have diplomats in the same place. It fosters dialoge and discourages conflict. It is the first and best place to diffuse tensions between countries quickly, and is the best place - truly neutral ground - for opposing countries to talk and avoid fights. Can you think of a more effective way to avoid inter-state wars than to encourage dialogue? Because our leaders who lived thorugh and fought ww2 could not. Given that we haven't had a major war since then, they continue to have more experience than us in these matters.
There are some things to criticize about the UN, but calling for an end to the UN because it does nothing for us is analogous to calling for an end to fire departments because all they've ever done is put out other people's fires.
Parent
at least the UN doesn't have real power (Score:4, Insightful)
Every now and then... (Score:4, Interesting)
The UN is a great idea, but until someone steps up to send their troops into harm's way to stop injustices, it's a toothless debating society. No one particularly cares to send their men to die for someone else, so it never happens. A UN military might help, but do you really want people like Mugabe or Ahmadinejad having a say in what it does?
Re:Every now and then... (Score:4, Insightful)
A law outlawing free speech would crash and burn in the US.
Good troll though. =D
Parent
Re:Every now and then... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. We don't make laws like that here.
We do end runs around it in much more subtle ways.
SB
Parent
Truly nothing to see here (Score:5, Informative)
The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favor and 11 against, with 13 abstentions."
This was 'passed' by a forum, not the UN General Assembly. It is a non-binding resolution, which is another way to say, "We think this is an idea." That's all, now move along.
Truly (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it is from the UN Human Rights Council, led by countries who are anything but concerned about rights.
Seems to me that the UN is following the same naming system as the American Congress with Bills. (As in every Bill of "some new right" seems to lose me more of the rights I already had)
I am amazed they didn't exclude Judaism from it.
Parent
Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide (Score:5, Informative)
A Finnish MP is being prosecuted [jihadwatch.org] because he had the temerity to point out that Mohammed had sex with a nine-year old girl called Aisha, whom he married when she was aged six - details here [wikipedia.org].
The fact is, he's right. From the JihadWatch article:
So, the man that is considered by Islam to be the ideal role model [helium.com], capable only of 'human errors in judgment in minor things with good intentions' [turntoislam.com], was also a child rapist.
The reason that Islamic groups worldwide are pushing for blasphemy laws - and using them when they're available - is to silence people who point out facts like that.
Yeah, we gotta do this (Score:5, Insightful)
WE MUST DO THIS NOW! POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DEMANDS IT OF US!
In fact, in order to comply with this you've got to remove this post posthaste!
This happens every session (Score:5, Insightful)
Pakistan and other Islamic nation members have been consistently proposing this for years and years.
I really wished they would give it up. Religion is a choice that people make. And as such it should be open to criticism. It is really as simple as that. If yours is a true and good religion, it can withstand criticism... right?
UN Human Rights Council: long standing joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously guys, these are some of the member countries of the "UN Human Rights Council:"
Angola
Azerbaijan
China
Cuba
Egypt
Malaysia
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Real credible bunch, right?
And hey - if you can't laugh at religion (which is basically what these jokers are saying), then what can you laugh at?
I mean, we're talking about organizations that perpetrate the worldviews of animal sacrificing bronze age primitives as the final, absolute truth. Come on...
I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now do you suppose I'll be modded down to troll if I say:
I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.
Am I a racist, bigot, asshole? A promulgator of hatred... or am I just a dude trying to be funny while exercising his right to free speech?
There seems to be a large disconnect with speech and free in a goodly chunk of the world, particularly in nations where Islam is the dominant religion. But I guess the UN thinks I shouldn't be making remarks like that because that would be criticism.
We atheists have almost won! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that this resolution is aimed at least in part at secular attacks on religion. As Gandhi said, "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
We atheists have been given the short shrift for a very long time now. First we were burned at the stake, then persecuted, and now we're gradually gaining mainstream acceptance now. We've gone from Bush the Elder claiming that atheists should be considered neither citizens nor patriots [infidels.org] to Obama including non-believers in his inauguration speech. Perhaps in my lifetime, it'll be politically feasible for an atheist to hold an elected office.
It's no wonder that the religious old guard is running scared.
Unnerving for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
in a 23-11 vote that urges member states to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions
As a Christian, this is unnerving. Contrary to popular belief, Christianity has a long history of criticizing the religious status quo. It was a major aspect of Jesus' message.
Another dangerous aspect of it is when church and state are combined, criticizing state will be seen as the same as criticizing religion (and vice versa) thus allowing the state to commit more human rights violations.
Serious shortage of RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)
I know it's become something of a sport here to criticize the editors, but talk about being asleep at the wheel here...
If you do about 90 seconds of research here (which is about what I did), you would see that:
1) this is a non-binding resolution. i.e. it doesn't mean jack.
2) a similar resolution has been proposed (by Pakistan) and passed (by the so-called human rights council) every year since 1999
3) the number of countries supporting the resolution has actually decreased significantly every year for the past few years.
In other words, in terms of the actual effect this will have on anyone at all, this is about as non-news as it gets. If there is any news here at all, it is that this type of proposal has been rapidly losing support on the world stage lately. In particular, almost every major religious group except for Islam (and even many subgroups of Islam) have spoken out against such a measure.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Informative)
"It is individuals who have rights, not religions," Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."
Go Canada !
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there? I personally hate organised religion in all it's forms, and encourage others to do the same. I hate christianty, judaism, islam, and all the others equally. If I encourage others to hate any organised religion in my country (the UK), I'm committing an offence (incitement to relgious hatred).
There is _not_ a whole world of difference. I am _now_ asking people to hate religions, including but not limited to christianity, judaism, and islam. By doing that I am breaking the law. That law is wrong on so many levels.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
criticism: People don't have souls. Christians are wrong.
Hate: People don't have souls, fucking Christians should not be allowed to practice such stupidity.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Informative)
Inciting hatred in Canada just means rendering it at all more likely that someone would be discriminated against or hurt.
So in fact your "criticism" could very well be "hate speech" in Canada, just if it was ruled to increase the chances that a Christian would be discriminated against or hurt.
In fact, there have been fundamentalist types who have been prosecuted for hate speech for simply posting anti-homosexual selections from the Bible. They'll just make a post like this: "Homosexuals should read Book of Whatever verse whatever which says [homosexuality is an abomination whatever, homosexuals will go to hell]."
Mark Steyn was prosecuted for quoting and agreeing with a Norwegian mullah who said that Muslims would eventually take over Europe. He was cleared though, but probably only because of the huge media pressure.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
People should be allowed to practice whatever religion they ascribe to. I should be allowed to hate those religions and what they stand for, and talk about it, if I want to.
It's that simple. Those who claim christians should not be allowed to practice are wrong IMO, and are themselves violating a whole host of free speech issues. Those who claim I should not be allowed to hate an ethos a particular religion stands for, and speak about it, are also wrong IMO.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not so sure you are breaking the law. Your hate is directed against religions, not individuals. I think you cross the line when you get personal, that is, you advocate hate and / or violence and against persons having religious beliefs. That's why it's called "human rights", right? You can blast any organization as a whole, as long as you dont point to people who are part of it.
That said, I dont hate religions. I just wish they would get bored waiting for god to show up and trying to control the world meanwhile, and leave us all to play nicer games.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there's a difference.
The Canadian law is not about "hatred" per se, in that it's not really about feelings. It's about deliberately inciting others to take directly discriminatory actions toward a particular class of people. That would include a broad range of statements such as, "Don't hire Catholics!" or "Kill all Muslims!"
Criticism is rather different, in that one can, for instance, easily say, "Sharia law is sexist" without deliberately inciting any kind of anti-Muslim action. Et cetera.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't say I believed that statement. However, my point was that religions should not be sacred*. The law currently discriminates on personal beliefs, depending on whether they are religious or not. If you're not ascribing your beliefs to a religion, you've got a lot less rights. If someone turned up to a job interview saying that voices in his head told him he was right for the job, employers would run a mile. That is, as long as it was not religiously inspired : George W Bush claimed that god chose him, and he got a decent job.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the the thought of organized religion fill you not just with anger, but with sincere disgust akin to physical sickness?
I've tried a few times now to read the Bible. I think it is something every good skeptic / freethinker / humanist / atheist / etc... should do. Its important that we understand the document followed by the majority of people who have such a large amount of power over our lives. The only problem is, I get physically ill every time I try to read it. Not because I'm angry, but because I am emotionally and physically disgusted when I think of the sheer volume of people who base their lives, and moral fiber, on such a disturbing piece of literature.
I think of the number of people who seem to ignore the multitude of morally troubling, disturbing, often contradictory rules and events portrayed in the Bible that, in effect, shows "God" is not the nice and moral creator the religious would have you believe. I am nauseated that people would willingly follow a being who is often shown as doing, or making his followers do, things that any sane individual would find morally reprehensible.
That being said, I have been trying to read it. I can get a few pages farther each time without feeling like I want to deposit my lunch all over the floor. But it still sickens me that people would willingly believe, and devote their lives to, the moral guidelines and divine behaviors as shown in the Bible.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Informative)
What part of the UN proposal does Ottawa object to?
Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Interesting)
Quoth the resolution:
"Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."
Restriction of freedom of speech and religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to violence.
In other news, as I've been saying for years now, religion breeds terrorism. Being a peaceful, tolerant religious person doesn't negate that, or change it. And ignoring that fact simply lets it run rampant. Making laws to let religious intolerance run rampant is equivalent to committing violence in the name of religion.
Parent
Here are some other sources: (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1277265220080312 [reuters.com] - Islamic states seek world freedom curbs: humanists
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52O5QY20090325 [reuters.com] - U.N. urged to reject bar on defamation of religion
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975TOK00 [google.com] - UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism
http://www.secularism.org.uk/108265.html [secularism.org.uk] - Defamation of religion passes at UN Human Rights Council again
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/03/26/the-slow-death-of-freedom-of-expression/ [indexoncensorship.org] - The Slow Death Of Freedom Of Expression
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/freedom-for-the.html [theatlantic.com] - Freedom For The Thought That We Hate
Lots more at http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=1320377548 [google.com]
I'm glad to see that Slashdotters are sceptical of what they read, but sometimes all it takes is a 10 second Google.
Parent
Re:Here are some other sources: (Score:5, Interesting)
Countries have defamation laws against individuals - i.e., false claims that cause harm to a person.
What is meant by defamation of a religion? And what is so special about religion that it needs a resolution of its own - why not just say that countries should have defamation laws, if that's what they really meant?
Reading about the resolution more closely, it seems they're more concerned with stereotyping and profiling of religious people such as Muslims (e.g., as a result of 9/11), which I agree is a bad thing - but this isn't about defamation laws in the usual sense, and critics are worried that it will cover criticism of religion. Saying "it covers defamation, not criticism" doesn't make sense, since defamation is only defined when it comes to saying false things about a person.
which all civilised countries have outlawed anyway
I know of no countries which have laws against "defaming" entities or beliefs such as "religions".
Parent
Re:Here are some other sources: (Score:5, Insightful)
That's so wrong. Most sensible countries either got rid of blasphemy laws or never had them. A religion is not a person, it cannot be offended or defamed.
This is just a way for Islamic nut jobs to protect their barbaric acts from justified criticism.
Parent
Re:Here are some other sources: (Score:4, Informative)
So they're note outlawing criticism, or attacking free speech, they're outlawing defamation.. which all civilised countries have outlawed anyway.
What is "defamation"? If I say "fundamentalist Islam is a barbaric and misogynistic cult founded by a mass murderer", is your position that I should go to prison? I'm glad my country isn't "civilized".
Parent
Re:Depends on the wording (Score:5, Informative)
I want to see the actual resolution. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on what exactly the resolution said.
I think they're referring to this, from http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/4C99B0F4E7BC7EE8C1257585007B5D90?opendocument [unhchr.ch]:
, except that the against and abstentions numbers seem to be reversed. The long version (further down that same page) is:
Parent
Re:Depends on the wording (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing, all but the blandest religions make enough historical and metaphysical claims that they are mutually contradictory with those of other religions. To simply espouse the doctrines of one would be to, at least implicitly, target the symbols or figures of another. Not to mention the cool crackdowns against atheists and whatnot.
Much of the resolution is bland, inoffensive sounding boilerplate; but parts aren't. It's like butter mixed with broken glass.
Parent
Powerless is not always useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent