UN Attacks Free Speech 842
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."
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]
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.
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.
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.
Main problem with the U.N. (Score:3, Interesting)
is that they treat all nations with relatively equal standing (except the members of the security council).
Only when they only admit freedom-based societies as voting members will it be a body that can work for actual good. Fear-based societies, who mistreat their own people, have no business telling other countries how to treat their people.
What's the difference between the two? If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisa
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:4, Interesting)
"If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society."
Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.
I'm sorry. Is the UN good or bad? I ask because in just another thread, you were praising the virtues of the IPCC, another UN body, and here you are claiming that the UN is political body looking out of the well being of the 5 permanent members. So, which is it? Also, you really need to be consistent across threads or else someone might pick up on it and point out your total lack of credibility.
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:4, Insightful)
What nonsense.
"Communal" resources don't need "regulating" to prevent "abuse". We use this little institution called 'private property rights', but that's not arbitrary prior-constraint case-by-case regulation, but LAWS.
Rights 'granted' by governments? Frankly...
Read about natural law and the American Revolution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fools don`t get good ranking in a backstabbing game like politics. We are just witnessing the end of usefulness of what we consider ideals like freedom of expression. For the ruling class they were simply propaganda to push for a globalized and media controlled world. Once served their purpose they are discontinued.
BTW any Christian that takes advantage of such law seems a traitor of the word and example of Jesus IMO.
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN should be whipped, beaten and strangled for failure to stand up for free speech.
Damn their free expression! (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely. No one should be allowed to disagree with free speech!
Re:Damn their free expression! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
23 countries voted for the motion. The UN has over 200 members. The UN as a whole hasn't ratifed this and I'm sure never will.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Until it's voted on by the GA (general assembly), it's unimportant.
Even after it is voted on by the general assembly, it is still unimportant. General assembly resolutions are, by design, non binding.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Little early... (Score:4, Insightful)
Women's rights
Black rights
Gay rights
Jewish rights
Christian rights
Until you accept that the only kind of right is *human* rights, you're not going to solve *anything*. The best you'll manage is sociological tensions and a bunch of divided groups trying to lobby their points.
Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Informative)
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 !
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
circular infractions (Score:4, Insightful)
Evangelistic religions are then hate speech (Score:4, Insightful)
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]."
That brings up the case that religious fanatics who label me 'infidel' or 'damned and dangerous' because I am a skeptical pantheist (or transgressive agnostic or whatever) are inciting hate against me, and against others with a contrary creed.
Not all evangelists are like that, mind you. But some fundies (islamist and christian varieties in particular) are definitely promoting hate of those who don't believe like they do. I wonder how that'll come out in the wash.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But why hate?
I am not saying that feelings should be against the law, but if you don't believe, why do you care enough to hate?
I dislike the godless world that we are becoming, but I am not about to hate you for it.
It goes back to the old hate the sin and not the sinner. It may not seem like it, but there is a difference.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Insightful)
It goes back to the old hate the sin and not the sinner.
in the context the grandparent used, it could be argued he was, 'hating the religion, not the followers
regardless, I think you will find that most people don't hate religion, but rather the effects of religion and faith on logical thought. Science is deeply corrosive to religion, so it can be seen why the church would fear it and in so many places merely say 'your wrong' and when queried on why simply say 'you just are'.
Generally the more education a person receives, the less 'devout' a christian (or other random faith) they become,to this day you still have fundamentalists out there who think that the world is only a few thousand years old, when most educated people would agree it is fairly damn likely it has been around somewhat longer.
People long ago stopped believing in the tooth fairy and santa claws, yet for some reason it is still a serious social taboo to say the chances of 'god' existing are in the same realm. No-one can prove there is no god, just as no-one can prove there is no tooth fairy.
People are free to believe as they wish, as they should be, but people should give thought as to what they believe in, and question their faith in something every now and then. If something is never questioned, then it has little real meaning, since it cannot stand up to scrutiny.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Informative)
Saying "Islam is evil" is fine. It doesn't fall under the hate speech laws, because you do not direct hate against individuals.
Saying "Islam is evil, and so are all Muslims - go kill 'em all" is hate speech.
I hope the difference here is obvious.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this particular case it is fairly easy. This bill specifically cites Islam as a religion to be protected. However due to the nature of Islam, it as a religion which is in flagrant contravention of many existing UN and international laws, regarding freedom of religion and equal rights. As such the UN can not protect an organisation whose principles specifically infringe upon the rights of women and even muslins who wish to change religion.
The UN is not a representative or democratic body as governments
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.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Interesting)
When I have kids, I am definitely NOT going to bring them up with any religious view. If your child needs to fear a horrible fire-filled afterlife in order to make good decisions in life, then I fear for that child's future. Being a good person should have NOTHING to do with religion, and everything to do with examples set forth by their role models.
I believe very strongly that religion is (always has been, always will be) a scape-goat. "Why does the sun go up and down?" can be answered scientifically (we go around it), or religiously "some guy in a chariot pulls it around." The same goes for Ethics "Why can't I hit Billy?" can be answered simply as "You will go to hell if you are bad" or through and actual heart-to-heart talk with your kid about how such things make people feel and making them actual nice people.
I have always laughed at the term "God fearing Christian" because it implies that the only reason they are good is because they fear retribution.
Sorry for the rant, but I feel insulted every time someone thinks that the belief of their unproven gods are more important than the factual education of a child!
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.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Funny)
Shit, I'm an American, you've hit my limit for justifying crazy-ass Canadian laws.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a big difference between criticizing a religion and inciting hatred against religious groups. While its "hate speech" laws may be a little vague, the Canadian government recognizes this distinction.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When disrespecting an individual's religion is also disrespecting the individual's right to believe what he chooses, this distinction, while true, is largely irrelevant.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything that the U.N. does makes me feel that way. That organization is a waste of oxygen... and prime New York real estate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You have to be on something for the UN to make any sense.
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.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, any idealism breeds terrorism.
Environmentalists, communists, capitalists, states rights, anti-slavery, unioinists, etc. etc.
Whenever people believe in an idea strongly enough they will kill and destroy to protect it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't give religion any more rights than it already has, it just stops hate speech, which is illegal in most countries already.
If you're not able to engage in speech that the majority of other people do not like, then you do not have free speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike western systems where the laws are held in a single repository.
Ahahahhaha. Right. Single repository. Well, first of all, Most nations use civil codes for their law, and I guess that makes things easier for them, but all Commonwealth nations, and the United States, use the common law system, which is built on, you guessed it, precedent. As for them being all in one place, no. Basically what happens is that each trial results in a decision, which may or may not be written. If the decision is written, then it gets passed along to the reporters, who decide whether it's important enough to be reported. If it gets reported, it's precedent. Note that each country might have several different reporters, any one of which might report the case. For a long time in England, the cases were reported in the newspapers, and those papers were for a long time the main place records were kept.
Of course, a case that's reported may end up being overturned by a higher court later, and on up to the Supreme Court of that jurisdiction, creating three separate cases. Only one will generally end up being precedent (the top one) but sometimes the high court will refer to something the trial court said, so we have to keep all the decisions around.
To complicate things further, different jurisdictions follow their own precedents, so that you could have, in theory at least, a different interpretation of a law for each State and one for the United States, and they would all be precedent, depending on where the disputed harm occurred, and which constitution or statute, state or federal, is being invoked. Now this would be exceedingly rare and unlikely, to have 50+ different precedents on the same matter, as usually the best decisions will sooner or later be adopted by most or all of the states, but it's possible. (I don't know if this situation has ever happened, I'm studying law in Canada)
In the Commonwealth, it can get even more tricky, because even though a case in your own jurisdiction is precedent, cases from other jurisdictions can be persuasive. So in Ontario, Canada, a House of Lords decision from England might have more weight than a lower court decision from Saskatchewan. And in Canada, for a long time, the House of Lords in England was the supreme court, so older English decisions are binding. The oldest English decision I've read in school so far was in Property law, and the decision was from 1210 I believe. It's still good law.
And finally, the trend in most countries, whether they use the common or the civil law, is that they are slowly evolving into hybrids of both. Common laws can always be superceded by statute, and in civil law countries, more and more they are starting to track the decisions made by judges in interpreting the civil codes.
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.
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Defamation is free-speech.
So is religion, if your going to outlaw one you must surely outlaw the other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I forgot to add, religion is defamation of logic and reason. Which is why it would also have to be outlawed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The essence of any religion, including Christianity, is that logic and reason are less important than faith. There's no question that when convenient, religion would like to go along with logic and reason. The problem is when they conflict with faith, the religious are supposed to go with faith.
Re:Here are some other sources: (Score:4, Informative)
ABSOLUTELY NOT, defamation is NOT free speech, any more than fraud is, or perjury.
A defamation is a *false* accusation intended to cause harm. Libel is a form of defamation. Slander is a form of defamation. Logically (I don't know about legally), defamation is a subset of fraud, in that it constitutes an attempt to gain something through false representation. In this sense, perjury, too, is a form of fraud.
Free speech refers only to speech which is 1. not verifiably false (i.e., that is true or that has no fixable truth value), or 2. causes no harm. True speech that causes harm is protected speech. False speech that causes no harm (for example, fiction, or bragging about the fish that got away) is protected speech. Opinion that no one can falsify is protected speech. Anything that you *think* may be true, and had reason to believe was true (for instance, because you thought you checked it), but turns out is not true, is protected speech.
Defamation is an untrue thing you have said with the purpose of harming a person or institution which either a. you know not to be true or b. that you have some reason to suspect is untrue, but choose to say anyway without making a reasonable effort to check to see if it is true.
If I recall correctly (I am not a lawyer) in US law, this is how libel is defined: if it is true, or if there were no malicious intent, or if the person who said it believed it to be true or at least made some reasonable effort to determine its truth and did not find good reason to suspect, it is not libel (and libel is a form of defamation).
See http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
As I said, I am not a lawyer. I am also not a right-wing troll.
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.
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".
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:4, Funny)
All ready done. [wikipedia.org]
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? ;)
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.
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.
Depends on the wording (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to see the actual resolution. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on what exactly the resolution said.
If it is trying to outlaw legitimate criticism, that would obviously be bad. On the other hand maybe the news source is blowing this out of proportion and the resolution merely points out that certain generalizations about groups are harmful to free and open discussion.
It all depends on the exact wording.
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:
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs"
You think we should be legally required to show tolerance for all beliefs? It's an old story, but there are many religions whose beliefs run directly counter to the rights of groups such as women, gay people, and members of other religions. I have no intention of showing respect or tolerance towards someone who pickets the funerals of dead servicemen shouting how this is God's punishment for the gays, or someon
at least the UN doesn't have real power (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually pretty simple.
Q: How much power has the UN?
A: As much as the nations in it will hurt you with embargos and "prevertive attacks".
In the end, it always comes down to the rule of force. And I don't think this will ever change.
I could only imagine a very strong self-sustaining fortress that everybody needs somehow, to survive this. But expect to fend off traitors and spies left and right.
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
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
Re:Every now and then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there are too many PATRIOT's for that to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you outlaw hatred? How do you prosecute people for hating?
Isn't that what the Thought Police are for?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest a name change from the UN Human Rights Council to "MiniRight". Fits nicely into the NewSpeak pattern with MiniLuv.
Idea for a resolution. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. And Pharohs married their sisters, ancient Spartan's were all pederasts and George Washington kept slaves.
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. And don't think the future will be much different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. And Pharohs married their sisters, ancient Spartan's were all pederasts and George Washington kept slaves.
Yep. And the thing is that you and I reject all of those practices. We recognise them as immoral nowadays.
However - and this is the crux of the matter as far as blasphemy laws go - Islamic teaching is that Mohammed is the ideal role model. Because he was a Prophet, he was ipso facto incapable of committing any but the most minor category of sin (see the thread on Turn to Islam that I linked to f
Re:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide (Score:4, Informative)
WTF? Seriously? Have you not read the news - eight year old girls filing for divorce in Saudi Arabia, & Imams throughout the world fighting Governments that are trying to introduce minimum ages of consent?
A few seconds' Googling turned up this gem [asianews.it]:
Sanaâ(TM)a (AsiaNews) - Some Yemeni religious figures have launched a "fatwa" against the law recently approved by Parliament that sets the minimum age for marriage at 17. The statement, signed by the rector of Al-Eman University, Sheikh Abdul-Majid al-Zindani, and by representatives of the party Islamic Islah, is aimed at eliminating the minimum age limit.
The question of the minimum age for marriage in Yemen was brought to the attention of world public opinion last April, following the case of Nojud Mohammed Ali, an 8-year-old girl who requested and obtained a divorce after being forced to marry a 30-year-old man.
I fear you've been drinking the 'moderate Islam' kool-aid, Mart.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So why are people being prosecuted for bringing it up?
Because various Islamic groups and authorities - as well as individual radicals - want to prohibit the examination of the religion by the West.
There are several reasons for this, but the primary political motivation is stealth jihad [frontpagemagazine.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not just Bukhari though - as you can see from the quote from JihadWatch. AFAICT you can utterly reject Bukhari, and still come up with ages of 6 and 9.
(It's interesting to see that I've already been modded flamebait. Slashdot's equivalent to blasphemy, I guess :-) )
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. For example this is the definition of "statutory rape": "sexual intercourse with a person who is below the statutory age of consent"
So, if there's no statutory age of consent, there's no rape. Simple as that. What you want to say is that is "bad" regardless of law, you only use the word "rape" because is a loaded word. That's OK with me, just make sure you don't confuse the concepts in you head, that's worse than just trying to confuse other people using words that don't apply.
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.
Who gets to define "religion"? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Let's go at it, then. (Score:3, Funny)
Mohammed was a pedophile. And it doesn't take much brain to believe some claptrap that was mostly copied from the bible by an illiterate businessman.
* * *
When rabbis found out that they could not pick up young girls with their flabby bodies as easily as young men, they decided to outlaw public nudity and force people to wrap themselves with textiles.
* * *
Scatholics people believe that some cosmic jewish zombie can make them live forever if they eat a cookie that represents the zombie's body. "Makes perfect sense"...
Make atheism a religion and the problem is solved (Score:4, Funny)
So if atheism a religion, then any claim of a god's existence would be criticism and thus disallowed.
VICTORY!!!!
(but seriously, this is why you have to pay attention to diplomacy - as soon as the UN is built, some civilization off the edge of the map can suddenly win the game with a single vote if enough cultures are annoyed with your behavior)
So, the Arab nations will tone down anti-Semitism? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Time for everyone to take a step back... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and breath deeply into a paper bag.
I've read a lot of comments here along the lines of this is a heinous violation of my rights and the UN should be disbanded/whipped/shot, etc. What most people seem to have missed is this is not LAW, it's a RESOLUTION and is in no way binding to anyone. All it does is to encourage member countries to pass a law as described. Any country that would be swayed by this most likely already has such a law in place. The rest of us will just ignore it.
Powerless is not always useless (Score:5, Insightful)