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."
In technical terms (Score:1, Interesting)
The religion a person practices is sorta like the OS a computer runs. It doesn't really matter if it's "right," or the most effective way of doing things, it only matters that you can do good things with your programming. What you end up doing is more important than why you did it.
I like variety and diversity... I try to surround myself with at least one of every OS to appreciate the differences between them, and I think most people could agree to support that. So it's just a matter of working together to reach common goals among the systems that network well together, and trying to firewall off the ones that don't play nice, or at least isolate them in their own little sandbox in which to have their fun.
Anyway, hope this totally inappropriate analogy sparks off some interesting... discussion :P But as geek, it is the way I see the world.
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: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: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:Little early... (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.
Which Muslims? (Score:1, Interesting)
> A Finnish MP is being prosecuted 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.
Just to be fair, there's an entire branch of Islam that doesn't consider the Sahih Bukkari to be reliable at all.
Mind you, I personally think that Muhammad was a scam artist, so I don't mean to defend them, but I just thought I should throw that out there.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (Score:2, Interesting)
An earlier Reuters story [reuters.com] notes that "Similar unbinding resolutions have been passed since 1999 in the U.N. General Assembly and by the 47-nation Human Rights Council". (I think that should be "non-binding" rather than "unbinding", but I'll let the English majors fight it out.)
This is a tempest in a teacup, being seized upon by the usual suspects who want Islam to replace the USSR as the generator of sufficient fear and loathing to keep the military-industrial complex humming. Relax.
Yes, there is. (Score:1, Interesting)
Is there?
Yes, there is.
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.
You should spend some time on deciding *what* exactly it is that you hate about religion, and *why* exactly is "hate" the proper word for your oppinion.
Do you hate the people practicing the religion? Do you hate the things people do in name of their religion? Do you hate the mere fact that organized religion exists? Do you hate "bad" things (as in "crimes") people do pretending to act religious? Do you hate religious education in primary school?... Or do you just don't feel the need to count yourself to a religion?
Depending on what exactly you mean by "I hate religion", some things may be illegal, immoral, or plain and simple not fulfilling the definition of hatred -- like a teenager saying "I hate pink", it's probably not very... practicable to hate "the religion" itself. You definitely mean something different, and you need to figure out what exactly, before being sure that it's (il)legal and/or (im)moral.
If I encourage others to hate any organised religion in my country (the UK), I'm committing an offence (incitement to relgious hatred).
Again, depending on what exactly do you hate and what do you *mean* by hate, that being illegal might even be the morally correct answer. For example: hating other people because of their religious beliefs (as I assume the law was meant) *should* be illegal.
That law is wrong on so many levels.
Actually, no. It's merely a language problem around the phrase "I hate religion" -- you were just too smart for your own rhethorics :-)
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.
Re:Little early... (Score:1, Interesting)
More so, the Slashdot editor should be. The UNHRC [wikipedia.org] saying this would be like a politician proposing a bill. Until it's voted on by the GA (general assembly), it's unimportant.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (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, 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.
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 reprisal, it's a freedom-based society. If not, it's fear-based.
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source (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 who are autocracies and are not representative of their populations vote as well as of course substantive population differences that are completely ignored. The UN main roles are in global aid, the resolution of conflicts between nations in a non violent manner, assist countries in resolving violent civil unrest and statements of principles protecting the individual. It is quite clear that from past abuses that people need to be protected from religion no the other way round.
The truth is that some people require some form of religion in order to make peace with the uncertainties of life, I have not problem with that nor should anybody else. However religions and the religious are still bound by laws and should be criticised when their actions contravene accepted laws, and when their publications contain messages of hate, then those publications need to be subject to the law in an appropriate manner first and foremost. If I were to produce a modern publication that call for the murder of believers or the claim that believers are somehow subhuman, I would expect the publication to be seized and that I would be prosecuted for committing a criminal offence. Those who reproduce and distribute older publications that state the same about believers of other religions or non believers are required by the law to be treated equally under the law.
As it stands at the moment all the hate laws currently legislated through the world are being flagrantly abused by the continued distribution of books full of hate and defamatory language targeted at those that do not believe that particular variant, so where are the bloody prosecutions. Calls people demons, spawns of Satan, pariahs ie. subhuman nonbelievers and that is OK and, legal WTF?
Re:Little early... (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: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: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:Little early... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Finnish politician Jussi Halla-aho was indicted for racism and blasphemy (!) on Friday. On Saturday, his party refused to include him in an upcoming election.
He has been the target of a smear campaign due to his opinion that the current immigration policy is wasteful and attracts the wrong kind of immigrants. His only fault is that he started as a blogger and was thus using too colorful language in the beginning, but the mainstream media has been quoting him out of context so much I've lost all faith in them.
Currently, they are reporting that he called Muslims pedophiles and Somalis genetically inclined to be thieves. This is what he is being charged for, but it is not what he said. The blog post in question was about free speech, and he used those two statements as examples of offensive speech. Apparently even that is now illegal. What's worse is that his post was also based on someone else calling Finns genetically inclined to be drunken murderers, to which apparently only he took offense.
On top of that, Muhammed actually did marry a child according to Muslims themselves, and Somalis commit a completely disproportionate number of crimes in Finland. How one should interpret those facts is of course up for debate, but even if Halla-aho actually believed in the offensive statements, he should be allowed to say so.
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: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:3, Interesting)
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 reprisal, it's a freedom-based society. If not, it's fear-based.
What a load of bullshit.
Someone standing in the town square and criticizing is someone who fancies themselves a dictator but doesn't have the power to enforce. If you want to effect change, you get in there and get your hands dirty and make the change. Tyranny, and fear, come from the invisible lines that prevent you from doing so.
When you can draw a line in the sand, and put the government on one side of it and the people on the other side, that's a society based on estrangement, tyranny and fear. When you cannot do this, when the line between the people and the government is too blurry to do so, that is a society that is based on freedom and involvement.
If you don't learn how to ask for freedom properly, you will never get it.
Re:Main problem with the U.N. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then why is well-regulated militia" language attached to it? The sole statement we have that gives state-of-mind context to the 2nd amendment points toward it being with greater concern toward external threats than internal. Don't argue your rationales through other (dead, influential) people's mouths.
Also, anyone who claims that "The Founders" as a group thought/realized anything coherently; well, you're not actually paying enough attention to history. Almost every line of the Constitution was hard-fought over, and not by mythical founder-figures; by men, with constituencies. It's an important document, but not a magical one, and not one designed by perfect accord between supermen.
The fact that the amendment starts with "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (...)" does not mean that the following "the rights of the people to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ( my emphasis ) can have any other meaning. Can't be more literal than that.
I believe I read some Constitutional scholar declare that the expression 'to regulate' at the time had the meaning of 'to make regular' and NOT 'to meddle with it arbitrarily as we see fit'. Can't be 100% on that though, so, grain of salt.
I claim no 'collective consciousness' on the Fathers' part. But that the US Constitution or the Articles of the Confederation was fought over or not is immaterial. What is important is that an agreement was reached, and these documents resulted. It may not be a 'magical' document, but it is not just an 'important' one either. It is the supreme law of the land.
Note that your argument for powerless government falls apart upon the Articles of Confederation. It's a cold, hard truth that you can't actually dismantle government and maintain the benefits thereof. In your privatized rivers system; well, who enforces the torts? And if someone decides to take his balls and go home, well... if he's taking the middle of the Mississippi with him, what do you do?
I might have extremely liberal borderline anarcho-capitalist ideas, but I didn't make any point for 'powerless government' on the other post, just powerless to opress their own citizens.
On the subject of tort law, I suppose the same enforcer there is today. Doesn't the US judiciary handle these kinds of stuff?
Obviously rivers can't be moved, so I suppose if he wants to take his ball home he has to sell it and take the money he got for it with him.
What happens when someone owns a section of the highway, and then, through illness or injury, becomes unable to maintain it, but is unwilling to sell it?
So if your boss gets sick, the company you work for stops their activities? Everybody stays at home on semi-vacation until he feels better?
Now you may say some evil guy buy a part of the river and just keeps everybody out of it and boats can't go thru, people can't drink water out of it etc, etc.
The guy upstream would simply have to ferry stuff over the Mississipi baron, by air or land, to the more reasonable fellow downstream.
It's a ridiculous outcome, but I hope you'll agree that the premise was equally so. :)