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?
Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:3, Insightful)
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)?
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.
at least the UN doesn't have real power (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
There's no coverage because... (Score:1, Insightful)
The UN Human Rights Committe is a joke. It's not taken seriously anywhere because it's just used by flagrant human rights abusers as a "bash Israel" platform.
This is a meaningless vote from a discredited body. It's not worth media attention.
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:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (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.
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:Every now and then... (Score:4, Insightful)
A law outlawing free speech would crash and burn in the US.
Good troll though. =D
The truth counts as defamation. (Score:1, Insightful)
Telling the truth about some religions would count as defamation. Quoting their own "holy books" would count as defamation.
Fuck the UN and fuck any religion if the truth bothers them. Cut off a few less heads, toss acid on a few less faces and blow up a few less market places if hearing the truth bothers you.
Re:Little early... (Score:2, Insightful)
The entire world is a group of fools.
We call them "nations".
Re:In technical terms (Score:2, Insightful)
The religion a person practices is sorta like the OS a computer runs
Or from another point of view, it's more like a virus that spreads from infected people to healthy people. This transmission usually happens in early childhood when parents pass it to their children, but infection can happen at any age.
Like most viruses, they tend to slow you down and impair your judgment, creativity and free thinking, although the infected claim that somehow they are made "more efficient" by the infection. Signs of infection usually manifest themselves as: circular reasoning, repeated non sequiturs, intolerance of the non infected, passive aggressive behavior and sometimes violence towards others due to extreme repression of sexual behavior.
Unfortunately this virus is endemic in the human population (although animals are fortunately free of it despite often forming the center of religious fantasies and rituals) and is probably caused by a faulty human OS. Fortunately a very few humans are running an OS that is impervious to this virus, but they are in the extreme minority.
Remember, of all the things you can do in this world, Jehova/Yaweh, God or Allah will be EXTREMELY displeased with you if you masturbate. Out of all the things happening in the universe, "He" is always watching out in case your hand strays onto your genitals. (Raping 9 year old boys doesn't seem to bother "Him" as much, though).
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:1, Insightful)
Well going by UN's history you would be forgiven for not requiring another source. But on the bright side, the UN General Assembly can require people to drink water while lifting their left leg and it won't mean squat because the UN General Assembly is non-binding. It only shows that muslim nations cannot co-exist with democracies
Re:Here are some other sources: (Score:3, Insightful)
Defamation is free-speech.
So is religion, if your going to outlaw one you must surely outlaw the other.
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:Here are some other sources: (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: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: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:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (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: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.
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?
Re:Every now and then... (Score:2, Insightful)
A law outlawing free speech would crash and burn in the US.
Good troll though. =D
You mean like some sort of Act that brought Copyrights into the Digital Millenium?
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...
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.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How do outlaw hatred? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you outlaw hatred? How do you prosecute people for hating?
Isn't that what the Thought Police are for?
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.
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN should be whipped, beaten and strangled for failure to stand up for free speech.
Powerless is not always useless (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: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:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we please just get the US out of the UN? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about we get ALL nations out of the UN? Surely there are other ways for nations to come together in a spirit of cooperation. Abolish the UN, break up the EU, and back to a federation for the US. Decentralize the power.
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:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm no expert on ancient law, but I am guessing that they didn't have anything on the books about statutory rape in those days.
While your point about him being an unsuitable role model is a reasonable matter of opinion.. calling the guy a rapist for having sex with a child is ill informed or flamebait.
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: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:Depends on the wording (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 someone who believes he has the right to throw acid in a woman's face because she didn't cover herself properly. Such people deserve contempt, ridicule, and any legal action that can validly be brought against them; they do not deserve the protection of the law simply because their actions are backed up by some crackpot (mis)reading of a religious text.
Re:Every now and then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there are too many PATRIOT's for that to happen.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you really hate them? You feel that all practitioners of any organized religion should be beaten, tortured, raped or killed? You believe that organized religion makes a person less than human, unworthy of any protections granted them by society? Does the the thought of organized religion fill you not just with anger, but with sincere disgust akin to physical sickness? Really? Hate is not a disliking, or disapproval, or disagreement, or even resentment, and I'd strongly suggest you rethink your use of the word "hate" to make sure you really mean it.
Re:The UN has outlived its usefulness. (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to send them home.
-jcr
I'm always surprised how few seem to share my idea that we need the U.N. more than ever.
If humanity is to thrive, at some point we will need a world order. Not...the frightening overseeing insidious world order we always hear about, but a governing world body that is based on Secular Humanism, Rational Thought, Reason based thinking & Transparancy.
The U.N. in it's current form proves only that one can have a great idea, and execute it poorly.
Now that we have the tools to spread rational thought and ideas and concepts to the far flung corners of the world, we should easily recognize the need to consolidate into one voice of reason. The United Nations could potentially do this while still representing our unique differences.
I believe this is the way governments are moving whether we like it or not-we simply cannot afford to ignore that fact that we live on the same planet, and it must be protected...almost as if we still need to prove to ourselves the VALUE of these things. We say to the contrary, but it's blatantly clear that we really doesn't know quite what to do with the insurmountable questions that religions present. This makes sense as we keep searching for answers to impossible questions just as after thousands of years, we continue to struggle with concepts like economics, nationalism, freedom,democracy & privacy, ecology, PEACE.
Sorry for ranting, really! But we need to stop being afraid. When that happens, all of the religious tomes will claim their rightful place on the bookshelf of humanity, right next to Mother Goose, and we can finally start asking ourselves WHY it is so hard to admit we have much to learn. When fear of the unknown no longer grips us we will pare down our incredibly long list of absurd belief systems-IE-Creationism just one example.
A united nations could help humanity to acknowledge our differences, embrace our uniqueness and agree to live peacefully. Think about it, whats the alternative? We could continue pointing all the fingers that we want, but we really only have ourselves, as humans,to blame.
Re:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide (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 for a detailed explanation of how that works).
This is why Mohammed's personal life is - sadly - relevant to discussions about Islam today.
circular infractions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree with you along with the Vatican who opposed this vote.
But please, don't forget this is plain islamic agenda. It's the same people that went on rage killing cristians and buring church and embassies because they felt oppressed by some stupid cartoons and a old man reading a old book in Ratisbona.
The UN as been absolutely unuseful since it's foundations. It's bodies are mostly a safe shelter for incompetent idiots who wold never find a job and are granted ricicously hight wages to worsen everybody's life. Now that it demonstrated that it's neither defending the most basic human rights as freedom of expression it is clear that it's time to disband them and resort to conventional thrustworty istitutions: NATO and Warsaw pact.
Note: there is a UN universal declaration of human rights. This declaration is substituted in islamic countries by the Cairo declaration of human rights in islam!!!! So it is evident that the former is not universal. UN are a lie, a dangerous utopia that will lead eventually to global war.
Re:Here are some other sources: (Score:2, Insightful)
So Catholicism rejects certain notions because they are "logically absurd", but it's OK with a virgin birth and a guy who was killed on a cross but miraculously arose a few days later?
Okaaaay.....
Re:at least the UN doesn't have real power (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.
Re:Truly (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest a name change from the UN Human Rights Council to "MiniRight". Fits nicely into the NewSpeak pattern with MiniLuv.
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: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.
So, the Arab nations will tone down anti-Semitism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Truly (Score:1, Insightful)
"I am amazed they didn't exclude Judaism from it."
Who's stereotyping now.
Re:Little early... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. If not, it's fear-based.
That depends, is the town square a duly designated free speech zone [wikipedia.org]?
I appreciate your sentiment but I'm not convinced that these issues are always so black and white.
Besides, wasn't the whole premise of the UN originally to give countries an open forum to work out their problems without resorting to murdering each other? If there's anyone that the world's liberal democracies are going to disagree with it's probably going to be oppressive police states.
Re:Meh (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually Israel has withdrew from Gaza a few years back. And btw, giving back to whom? The former landlords were the Egyptians. You don't see them screaming give it back..
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:Little early... (Score:2, Insightful)
It can't be both?
Marine, what is that button on your body armor?
A peace symbol, sir.
Where'd you get it?
I don't remember, sir.
What is that you've got written on your helmet?
"Born to Kill", sir.
You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?
No, sir.
You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant shit on you.
Yes, sir.
Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
The what?
The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.
Whose side are you on, son?
Our side, sir.
Don't you love your country?
Yes, sir.
Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Yes, sir.
Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Aye-aye, sir.
Re:Little early... (Score:1, Insightful)
The UN is not and should not be the world police, its role is to be a place where people talk to each other as a way to avoid conflicts.
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.
As long as it's applied equally... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid resolution, but let's hold the Muslim countries to it, and make sure they don't say anything bad about Christians or Jews (or Hindus, ...), and that they make sure non-Muslims are never hurt in any way due to their religion.
Re:Little early... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it also work when, I don't know, the USA goes off to war with some backwards country like Iraq? Should the USA's UN membership also be suspended while the war goes on?
Much as I'd like to see that happen, I cannot imagine a more swift way of the UN going the way of the League of Nations.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:2, Insightful)
By many definitions, the French Resistance would have qualified as a terrorist organization... albeit one almost nobody other than the Nazis would object to overly much.
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:Little early... (Score:2, Insightful)
To those fools i say:
Fuck Catholics!
Fuck Muslims!
Fuck Hinduism!
Fuck Christians!
Fuck Scientologists!
Fuck Buddhists!
Fuck Born Again Christians!
Fuck Taoists!
Fuck Mormons!
Now come and get me UN!!
(Disclaimer: i do profess one of the aforementioned religions)
Re:mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
...and further to that, the UN *isn't* a World Government. It does not have a standing army to enforce what it does, the only power it has it that which it's members grant it. So, blaming the UN for the wars in Africa is a little disingenuous - it has no power to directly act to stop those wars. All it can do is to provide a platform for nations to discuss the issues - any failure to act is a failure of the constituent countries, not the UN. Unless, of course, you completely misunderstand what the UN is for and what powers it actually has.
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would it be out? You can go to what amounts to the town square and badmouth the government. You can bad mouth the government anywhere you want. You just can't take someone's else' rights or property to do so. Your probably thinking of the free speech zones which isn't applicable to what was mentioned. Your right to free speech does not trump any rights I or some politician might have and it certainly doesn't trump other people's rights to free speech. The right of free speech allows you to say things without fear of reprisal from the government, it doesn't give you a venue or an audience which is about all the complaints over the speech zones seem to protest.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:3, Insightful)
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]."
Oh fuck off, it says to stone them to death with stones, not just "they will go to hell", but to SEND THEM to hell post haste.
There's a huge goddamn difference between "I think they are wrong about the existence of souls" and "I urge everyone to throw rocks at them until they die"!
One of them is illegal because it incites violence, the other is not because it doesn't.
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.
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.
Re:Unnerving for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
You seem to forget that the death cult of Christianity has an equally long history of oppressing and killing those who do not believe in Christianity.
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:3, Insightful)
I call "dibs" for the "ownership" of the "atmosphere"! And while I'm at it, the "Atlantic Ocean" might also "be" a worthwhile "investment".
Oh, and I'm also "patenting" the "gratuitous" use of "quote marks".
Seriously, Tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org] shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Rights are enforced by the governments. You might have a natural right to free speech, but that doesn't matter unless someone prevents me from gagging you.
American Revolution kinda reinforces this point: despite the declarations of Natural Law, the very people who made them still kept slaves, because no one forced them to set them free. Slaves remained slaves until the government enforced their civil/human rights and forced the slave-owners to set them free. So, for all practical purposes, the government granted them freedom.
Natural Law is simply a basis for granting rights, but make no mistake: you only have the rights either you or someone else is willing and capable of enforcing. Since the government is the primary power center by definition, that means that you have the rights your government grants you.
Re:Damn their free expression! (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, using reality against a lefty, who is secretly sympathetic to banning free speech. I suppose you even think it's going to work.
Ever noticed how "postmodern" lefties and academics deny even reason and maths itself, when it suits their purposes ? Do you seriously expect them to care about reality ?
"We can't KNOW reality, man !"
(which is their mind translating the thought "I'm right and don't care about your problems" into acceptable words).
If we don't fight (and that means killing when necessary) for free speech, we'll lose it, even in the US itself.
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.
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, Tragedy of the commons shouldn't be that hard to understand.
It isn't, and I do understand it. But you must know that the tragedy of the commons is a result of LACK of private property rights.
Of course, privatizing the atmosphere or the ocean is a bit too big of a problem to tackle. But rivers or lakes are totally feasible. With a sufficiently sophisticated in tort law, rivers could be split into smaller segments for sale and upstream pollution would be liable for damages under property law.
And I really 'appreciated' you 'poking' fun at me on the 'quote mark' "'patent' 'thing'". :-)
Rights are enforced by the governments. You might have a natural right to free speech, but that doesn't matter unless someone prevents me from gagging you.
American Revolution kinda reinforces this point: despite the declarations of Natural Law, the very people who made them still kept slaves, because no one forced them to set them free. Slaves remained slaves until the government enforced their civil/human rights and forced the slave-owners to set them free. So, for all practical purposes, the government granted them freedom.
Natural Law is simply a basis for granting rights, but make no mistake: you only have the rights either you or someone else is willing and capable of enforcing. Since the government is the primary power center by definition, that means that you have the rights your government grants you.
Natural law states that we are endowed with certain rights. People institute a government to PROTECT these rights that we already possessed before government came into being. Its very important not to get that backwards. Might is not right.
With that in mind, you should really have a closer examination on your 'government as the primary power center' definition though. If a government is created by sovereign individuals to protect their own independence, what does it say to a government's legitimacy once their power is shifted from creator to the creature?
You are absolutely right that all rights presuppose the individuals capacity to defend them. That's why the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution. The Founders realized that even a government instituted to protect a set of rights might in the future become the biggest threat to them, so they made sure there was a means of defense to people in such a shitty situation.
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, privatizing the atmosphere or the ocean is a bit too big of a problem to tackle. But rivers or lakes are totally feasible.
Ah, but they're not too big a problem to handle if you treat them as commons.
Also, while taking private property to extremes might solve many problems if we're all wise and all value things equally, that's a big "if". What if I want to do something on my property that will affect something that you value, but that the legal system does not protect? Say I'm upwind of you. What if I don't like deodorant? What if I want to fart? Or smoke? Or have a campfire? Or burn tires? Or burn oil? Or burn coal? ...
Ownership of something that you didn't create is patently ludicrous! "That's MY tree": what did you do to deserve a tree? What does it mean to own something that simply exists? For that matter, whom do you sue if "your" tree dies due to human-induced climate change? And since trees are crucial to the health of the world (cleaning air, preventing topsoil loss, creating topsoil, making oxygen, sequestering carbon, habitat for animals that probably don't respect your notions of property, .....) trees are commons. This goes back to being a complicated problem to solve if everything is privately owned.
Is that your elephant? It spends time on the land owned by hundreds of people. Who owns the ivory in its tusks? Is that your bat? It kills mosquitoes on my lawn--if you kill it, I suffer.
Is that your gorilla? Here's something that is damn near as intelligent as your average Christian, but it has no interest in owning private property--does that mean that it is owned? How is owning any sentient being not slavery? Who gets to decide whether a lobster is sentient?
Also, who gave you the tree? In a free society I can cut down any tree I want. Do you want to take away my freedom?
What about children? If property is inherited, then we are not equal--we start out owning as much as our parents did, which should rub in how ridiculous that system is in a society in which we are "equal". If property is not inherited, what happens when the owner dies? Who gets the proceeds from the sale?
An understanding of the complex interactions in the biosphere tends to destroy faith in private property. Perhaps this is why I've never met a libertarian ecologist.
Natural law states that we are endowed with certain rights. People institute a government to PROTECT these rights that we already possessed before government came into being.
What is the scientific basis for natural law? Can it be measured? Natural law is simply a good (not perfect) set of rules with an overblown name. If rights are innate, then why do you and I disagree on what they are? Moreover, why do they so frequently get trampled? Prove to me that they are a part of nature. Then you can tell me which of the many versions is correct.
Re:only two choices. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hitler, the right ? Excuse me ?
Hitler was for old values, personal responsability and letting the market sort out everything ?
I must be misinformed, have very very bad history books and knowledge then. They say he tried to eradicate religion, destroyed personal responsability and let the state interfere in everyone's lives and forced every company's management to do thing his way ... which included not firing anyone, well except those evil jews.
Yes Hitler was "to the right" of Stalin. He was also far to the left of Castro.
BTW: I'm no fool. There are evil right-leaning dictators in this world. There are even quite a few of them. Hitler, however, was not one of them. The national socialists were, you guessed it, socialists. And let's face it, liberal politics meshes a whole lot less well with totalitarianism than lefty utopias.
But of course, Hitler was racist. As we all know, no-one on the left is racist [littlegreenfootballs.com] (this cartoon "graced" the covers of half the lefty newpapers of America).
And of course, describing any difference at all between ideologies is so very, very wrong. After all, lefty blogs say the pope teaches his children the same things [youtube.com]. Oh wait Jew-hatred ! Her parents must be right-wing fascists ... In New York that must mean they vote ... democrat ? Overwhelmingly democrat ? Surely you're wrong. Jew haters don't vote to the left ...
--
-1000 Uncomfortable truth
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, sorry, but you were a bit all over the place in your first paragraph. I'll try to stick to the private-property-as-solution-to-tragedy-of-the-commons-theme.
Ah, but they're not too big a problem to handle if you treat them as commons.
Also, while taking private property to extremes might solve many problems if we're all wise and all value things equally, that's a big "if". What if I want to do something on my property that will affect something that you value, but that the legal system does not protect? Say I'm upwind of you. What if I don't like deodorant? What if I want to fart? Or smoke? Or have a campfire? Or burn tires? Or burn oil? Or burn coal? ...
Private property laws should protect the physical integrity of property. So if you have a campfire, fart, stink I would probably have to put up with it or buy an air purifier, unless your fart, due to a poisonous rare component, was causing actual harm to people within my property. Burning coal without a scrubber would cover my property with black soot. That would certainly get you sued.
Ownership of something that you didn't create is patently ludicrous! "That's MY tree": what did you do to deserve a tree? What does it mean to own something that simply exists? For that matter, whom do you sue if "your" tree dies due to human-induced climate change? And since trees are crucial to the health of the world (cleaning air, preventing topsoil loss, creating topsoil, making oxygen, sequestering carbon, habitat for animals that probably don't respect your notions of property, .....) trees are commons. This goes back to being a complicated problem to solve if everything is privately owned.
Is that your elephant? It spends time on the land owned by hundreds of people. Who owns the ivory in its tusks? Is that your bat? It kills mosquitoes on my lawn--if you kill it, I suffer.
Is that your gorilla? Here's something that is damn near as intelligent as your average Christian, but it has no interest in owning private property--does that mean that it is owned? How is owning any sentient being not slavery? Who gets to decide whether a lobster is sentient?
Also, who gave you the tree? In a free society I can cut down any tree I want. Do you want to take away my freedom?
I don't think it is. Most of the things I own I did not create. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion is quite ludicrous though. It would mean complete personal autarky. No more division of labor.
About the elephants and bats... fences have already been invented and private property rights do not protect the VALUE of property, but simply its physical integrity. If you own a house in the middle of nowhere and it's worth 100k, I buy a parcel of land next to it and build a 100 apartment skyscraper and your house is now worth 10k you can't sue me because you 'suffered'. I didn't infringe your rights, since there is no right to 'stable or rising property values'.
I really don't know how to answer the gorilla and lobster parts. I don't like eating lobster, for all that's worth. Shrimp, on the other hand... :-)
And, I don't know where you got that, but you have no right to cut down trees, as carrying a hatched while trespassing into someone's property will teach you.
What about children? If property is inherited, then we are not equal--we start out owning as much as our parents did, which should rub in how ridiculous that system is in a society in which we are "equal". If property is not inherited, what happens when the owner dies? Who gets the proceeds from the sale?
We can never be equal, we are all different. What we can do is recognize the same common rights to everyone, so at least someone with the misfortune of being born into poverty or shitty parents has the opportunity to rise as high as his innate talents ( and luck, of course ) can take him. If my parents give the
Re:So, the Arab nations will tone down anti-Semiti (Score:3, Insightful)
But much of what the Arab nations do is pure anti-semitism, not in any meaningful sense related to Zionism. For example, republishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (one of the best-selling books in many Arab countries) is not related to Zionism.