As noted here many times, such a law would criminalize all honest exploration of the Islamic motives and goals of the jihadis, thereby rendering us defenseless against them. What is odd here is that the Christian Science Monitor says that the U.S. is opposing this initiative. That is good news if it is true, but if it is true, why did the U.S. cosponsor with Egypt a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for criminalization of incitement to religious hatred?
"Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law," from the Christian Science Monitor, October 28:
Remember the Danish "Muhammad cartoons" that set off riots by offended Muslims more than three years ago? The debate pitted freedom of press and speech against notions of freedom from insult of one's religion. It rages still - but now in a forum with international legal implications.For years, Islamic nations have succeeded in passing "blasphemy" resolutions at the United Nations (in the General Assembly and in its human rights body). The measures call on states to limit religiously offensive language or speech. No one wants their beliefs ridiculed, but the freedom to disagree over faith is what allows for the free practice of religion. The resolutions are misguided, but also only symbolic, because they're nonbinding.
Symbolism no longer satisfies the sponsor of these resolutions - the Organization of the Islamic Council. Under the leadership of Pakistan, the 57-nation OIC wants to give the religious antidefamation idea legal teeth by making it part of an international convention, or legally binding treaty. Members of the UN Human Rights Council are passionately debating that idea in Geneva this week.
The United States under Barack Obama recently joined the UNHRC, maligned for years as the mouthpiece for countries that are themselves flagrant human rights abusers. A "new" council formed in 2006. President Obama's hope is that as an engaged member, the US can further reform - and its own interests. This case will test his theory.
Consider the wording put forth by Pakistan, written on behalf of the OIC. It proposes "legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults or uses offensive language" on matters regarded by religious followers as "sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings."
This gives broad latitude to governments to decide what's offensive. Countries such as Pakistan already have national blasphemy laws, but a global treaty would give them international cover to suppress minority religious groups with the excuse that these groups offend mainstream beliefs.
And what about unpopular, even "insulting" dissenters within a majority religion - such as women who seek to interpret Islamic sharia law so that they may gain more rights?
Besides, international treaties are meant to protect the rights of people, not ideas. A legal defense of dignity - how a person is viewed - is not on par with a defense of a person's inherent identity and rights. And treaties already aim to protect individuals from discrimination and violence based on religion.
As a newcomer to the Human Rights Council, the US is vigorously arguing against the OIC's latest push, as are European countries. They may not get very far in changing minds in the governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia. But human rights advocates such as Freedom House and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom say Latin American and sub-Saharan African countries could be persuaded to resist the OIC's push....
Slightly OT but most relevant to the topic of Human Rights, Irene Khan, the first female moslem to serve as the Secretary General of Amnesty International will be at ALOUD Los Angeles Central Library this evening at 7:00pm.
I will also be there to ask her how she reconciles the obvious gaping chasm between Human Rights and islam. Should be an interesting speech.
Wouldn't this criminalize first and foremost the Koran? I mean, if applied as stated?
Wouldn't this criminalize first and foremost the Koran? I mean, if applied as stated?
The Koran is pure "hatespeech".
But, since I oppose criminalizing thought or writings, it should be free to be printed so that people can see that it targets humanity and civilization with unending Terror.
And humanity should be free to call it a pack of psychopathic crap.
Islam is lame.
Mohammad was a murderous pedophile monster.
The Muslim faith is a misogynistic death cult posing as an "Abrahamic "religion".
Screw anyone who tries to prevent the truth from being spoken, printed or broadcast.
The Koran is pure "hatespeech".
But, since I oppose criminalizing thought or writings, it should be free to be printed so that people can see that it targets humanity and civilization with unending Terror.
And humanity should be free to call it a pack of psychopathic crap.
Islam is lame.
Mohammad was a murderous pedophile monster.
The Muslim faith is a misogynistic death cult posing as an "Abrahamic "religion".
Screw anyone who tries to prevent the truth from being spoken, printed or broadcast.
islam is not a religion but an ideology with legal and political dimensions that can not be unscrambled. this ideology is adopted as the dominating framework by a number of nation states around the world.
legitimated criticism and challenges against theses political and legal dimensions will be snuffed out by such a law.
for example criticizing sharia law or challenging the introduction of such a law and its courts in any country can be considered "blasphemy" under such a global "blasphemy" law if adopted.
I didn't think my posting needed repeating, but evidently Typepad did.
So sorry, jihadis and Islamic apologists. You do not have the right to NOT be offended. If you are offended, please suffer in silence. The rational part of the human race is tired of your childish behavior.
The debate pitted freedom of press and speech against notions of freedom from insult of one's religion.
What debate? There was reportage of a misunderstanding, but there was no debate as per the arrangement we all made long ago with regard to Moslems. No debate is permitted, there was no debate, and therefore was and is no understanding of Islam.
*** 4:142 ***
Speaking of abject confusion, then, the latest proposed lawyerly constraint on free speech is not confusing. It is a routine process meant to show activity and conflict where only stasis exists.
*** 74:31 ***
Stuck on Islam. Stuck in Islam.
tanstaafl : If you are offended, please suffer in silence.
I would disagree, tanstaafl. The more moslems riot and act out the more people catch on.
You didn't think that they would pay any attention to a kuffar, did you?
"The resolutions are misguided, but also only symbolic, because they're nonbinding."
Let's stop with symbolic acts. They're the proverbial foot in the door. They put nations of the world on record as saying that the feelings of a stranger (someone who might read or hear your words from the other side of the world) have greater legal protection than your own right to life and liberty and the freedom to voice your opinions.
It might sound farfetched but, given what is taking place today, how long will it be before public establishments near a mosque must cease and desist serving pork products or alcohol, lest it "offend" religious sensibilities?
"That is good news if it is true, but if it is true, why did the U.S. cosponsor with Egypt a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for criminalization of incitement to religious hatred?"
Because, leftists, who run things these days, are all confused about what "hate" is. According to them Fox News is broadcast "hatred", all their millions of viewers are "haters" and "racists" and un-American, tea parties are nothing but "haters" and "racists" and very un-American. Show them the passages in the hateful Koran and they will call you out for being a "hater" and a "racist" for pointing out such a thing. Truth is "hate" now. No wonder the world is in such a mess. It's all inverted.
I will again assert what Pat Condell asserted in his last video posted here at JW about a week ago and that is that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the single greatest counter anywhere in the world to the attempt by the Islamic sphere of mankind to silence criticism of Islam. It's not just Americans who should cherish the First Amendment but all freedom-loving peoples who can make vigorous efforts to have a First Amendment-type provision added to their constitutions. We'll know the nonsense of political correctness and multiculturalism will be well on their way to oblivion if such additions begin to be added to national constitutions in the West.
Yes, it will be damn difficult and will be fought tooth and nail by PC/MC types (sadly, this would include the current President of the United States who really doesn't like any criticism and demonizes news networks, insurance companies, chambers of commerce, etc. when they differ with him) in conjunction with Muslims aplenty but the effort should be made, must be made, in order to preserve liberty and to correctly and openly state all the rot that exists in the Islamic faith. Be prepared for tricks and obstacles of all types, including the predictable totalitarian ruse that of course freedom is a great thing but if one criticizes the totalitarian ideology du jour then one has abused his freedom and is no longer entitled to it. The First Amendment and accurate replications of it in other constitutions will go a long way to preventing such a farce from occurring, a farce which the likes of CAIR and the OIC would dearly like to perpetrate on all of us worldwide.
I consider the matter of self-rule by democratic principles to be inherent to my dignity as a human being. I am therefore deeply offended by the Islamic ideology that proscribes capital punishment for me and all of my countrymen who refuse to submit to Sharia.
All religions are ideas. Ideas do not possess human rights. People possess human rights. No idea on the planet is exempt from criticism or denigration. The attempt to extend human rights to an idea like the Islamic ideology is itself an egregious violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which all modern civilized societies have subscribed. The medieval warrior code of 7th century Arabia has no place in the modern world.
"They may not get very far in changing minds in the governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia."
Understatement.
Muhammad was a blasphemer of all things holy, good and true, so lets begin with him, shall we.
Very well said Wellington. The first amendment is the last bastion for codified freedom in the world. It's survival is a civilizational imperative.
"The United States under Barack Obama recently joined the UNHRC, maligned for years as the mouthpiece for countries that are themselves flagrant human rights abusers." -- from the article (emphasis mine)
It is good for the U.S. to be on this commission. Up to now we could more or less ignore it and their anti-Israel rantings as being irrelevant to the world. No more, as the OIC and other countries who routinely violate basic human rights have started to gain traction. ALL freedom loving countries who value human rights should flood into this commission, get themselves involved and put a stop to the crap that the UNHRC has been spouting for decades.
It is worrisome, though, that it is under Obama that the U.S. has decided to do this. He will be responsible for making the appointments to represent the U.S. on this commission, and as we have seen his appointments are all from the far left of the political spectrum. He is sympathetic to the Muslim POV based solely on fond childhood memories of spending a few years in Indonesia and is seemingly blind to the incompatibility of Islam and the constitutional system he is charged to protect. He is sympathetic to the POV of black nationalists who traffic in victimhood under European racist colonialism. In fact, he seems to be sympathetic to practically every POV except those that are the foundations of Western civilization, including those advocating its, and our, destruction.
It would seem to follow that, under Obama's protective oversight, the U.S. presence on the UNHRC could well be the very thing that grants the OIC the thing some form of the very thing they've been pushing for, the criminalization of criticism of Islam at the international level.
Although the article also statess "As a newcomer to the Human Rights Council, the US is vigorously arguing against the OIC's latest push, as are European countries....," given our president's "outreach" to Muslims and the ongoing dhimmitude of European governments, and given diplomats' penchant for compromise, the end result will not be a total rejection of the OIC proposals, as should be the case. Rather it will be some form of "compromise" that defines various exceptions or one kind or another to allow the OIC to save face. They might go for this, but of course it would only be yet another slice off the salami. Give them another few years and there will be another, similarly outrageous slice ready to be cut.
Saracens At The Gates wrote:
All religions are ideas. Ideas do not possess human rights. People possess human rights. No idea on the planet is exempt from criticism or denigration. The attempt to extend human rights to an idea like the Islamic ideology is itself an egregious violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which all modern civilized societies have subscribed. The medieval warrior code of 7th century Arabia has no place in the modern world.
...................
Hear, hear! Well put.
Few Westerners today really seem to understand their most basic freedom. I fear that many people won't fight for their freedoms, or even understand what is a stake here.
Saracen, superb. I shall learn this off by heart because I feel this comment is so valuable and nothing I could personally say to anyone in our troubled world of islamisation could get the meaning of freedom across any better. Thank you.
Well, I think the phrase "religion of peace" is a blasphemy against most legitimately peaceful religions in the world.
Minor detail lost on the UNHRC Islamists, who miss this important point:
"Besides, international treaties are meant to protect the rights of people, not ideas. A legal defense of dignity – how a person is viewed – is not on par with a defense of a person's inherent identity and rights. And treaties already aim to protect individuals from discrimination and violence based on religion." (my bold)
- Christian Science Monitor
The UN cannot criminalize criticisms of ideas. Stupid to try, dead end story.
Eastview: Barak Obama is an enemy of the First Amendment. period. He surrounds himself with people like Anita Dunn, who admires Mao Zedong, and Mark Lloyd, who admires Hugo Chavez, the man who is doing his damnedest to shut down any independent media in Venezuela.
This is a case of democratic socialists losing the nerve to take their own side in a conflict. Or, perhaps, it shows that they are at the West's Great Blasphemers, hating Jesus Christ first, last, and always, and never losing an opportunity to join against the LORD and His Anointed (Psalm 2). Unhappily, when God decides to answer such enemies, the results are very unpleasant.
Obama bowed to the king of Arabia, and I do not think he can wait to bow to the OIC. They have already been guests in the Obama White House.
Obama has signaled that he is open to a bailout for newspapers, if they become "non-profit". Of course a profitable anything would not do in the new Socialist America!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59523-obama-open-to-newspaper-bailout-bill
Once a paper is non-profit and qualifies for a bailout, how much longer until editorial policy and "news" becomes subject to approval of the czars (incidentally should't we call these psycho-ward fugitives commissars and not czars?)
Eventually one can guess that bailouts will lead to a single national newspaper, with all articles czar-approved or czar-written, and probably imam-written as well. And in honor of the greatest Socialist newspeak (see Orwell, 1984) source of all time, the new national paper will be called PRAVDA, the source of OBATRUTH, the new newspeak!
Meanwhile, the current real PRAVDA is laughing at us, falling into the Socialist fire-pit with Eurabia.
Control the information flow and you own society. First Amendment? The democrats and the supreme court routinely stomp on the constitution. It has never been under such an attack as it is now. Can it survive until the next election? A moot question.
It's strange how the haters are claiming hatred from others.
Islam is the source of all this hatred.