UN top dog Ban Ki-moon says Muhammad filmmakers abused freedom of expression

No! This IS freedom of expression!

Q. 8:12 “…I (Pedo Allah 65:4) will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers…”

http://www.schnellmann.org/islam-is-a-plague-on-this-planet.html

"Abuse freedom of expression", verbiage typical of authoritarian, dictatorial regimes used to curtail freedom of expression. Besides thief, buffoon.

It is impossible to abuse freedom of expression!
Ban Ki-moon has obviously not understood the word 'freedom'.

Ok, so... lets burn Korean embassies and decapitate Korean ambassadors next time we feel offended/insulted/humiliated, for whatever reason, by Korea, its people or anyone who lives there or is affiliated with that nation in any way, shape or form.

How about that Ban?. ¿Is that ok?.

Freedom of speech = Haram / Pedohammedan threats, violence and terrorism = Halal.

반기문 내 엉덩이를 키스 할 수 있습니다.

Get your blasphemy published while you still can, tomorrow may be too late.

Truth hurts!

"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose," Ban told a news conference."

Errm, no. Why would expression need protecting, if it's "for a common purpose"? On the contrary, laws to protect free speech were ALWAYS there to protect unpopular ideas, or ones going against those who happened to be in power.

As such, the film was perfectly in line with the purpose of free speech.

If it had been about Jesus, not Mohammed, would there have been one iota of interest?! It's only because murderous thugs have decided to use this film as an excuse to kill and riot that it's received any attention. Pathetic and cowardly stance from the UN secretary general. But may not that unexpected. His organisation has, in the past, given the chair of the "human rights" comittee to Libya - back then, under Colonel Ghaddafi's rule.

"...freedom of expression... is a fundamental right and privilege..." - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

If somethings is a fundamental right, it cannot be a privilege. Privileges are granted by a sovereign, and can be taken away at the whim of a sovereign.

This violence, killing, and destruction by muslims around the world is educating the infidel world about the reality of islam in a way that could not be achieved by billions of dollars in islamorealist advertizing.

Since the era of Hitler parents no longer call their newborn Adolph. Muslims who once named their sons Muhammad will now name him Barak or Shlomo; it would not be fair for a child to carry the name of a loser.

@Green Infidel

"Errm, no. Why would expression need protecting, if it's "for a common purpose"? On the contrary, laws to protect free speech were ALWAYS there to protect unpopular ideas... "---

Wow, these people don't even know, literally, what freedom means. What these people are saying, almost explicitly, is that freedom of speech is ok as long as we agree with it, as long as we agree its ok. And that's oxymoronic and outright imbecilic. Freedom of speech means tolerating, allowing speech, expressions you DISAGREE with.

Man, so much ignoramus dolts on this earth, everywhere.

UN top dog Ban Ki-moon says Muhammad filmmakers abused freedom of expression
...........................................

*Appalling*. The world should be defending freedom of expression.

More:

He could just as well have said that if you riot and kill, we will give you what you want. It amounts to the same thing.
...........................................

Yes, it does.

More:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday the maker of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests across the Muslim world abused his right to freedom of expression by making the movie, which he called a "disgraceful and shameful act."
...........................................

So—pointing out Muslim savagery—and how it is rooted in the actions of the "Prophet"—is a "disgraceful and shameful act"? Notice he has not a word of condemnation for Muslim savagery itself.

More:

It sparked days of deadly anti-American violence in many Muslim countries, including an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in Libya in which the U.S. ambassador died.
...........................................

They make it sound as though the ambassador and consular staff died in some sort of tragic accident—no indication that they were *murdered by Muslims*.

More:

"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose," Ban told a news conference.
...........................................

Well, He's unclear on the concept. Speech which offends no one *doesn't need to be protected*.

Maybe if we had been careful enough not to say anything to offend imperial Japan during WWII, Ban Ki Moon's own home country of Korea would still be a slave state...

Does he really believe that we don't have the right to speak out against *evil*?

Besides, *almost everything* offends pious Muslims.

More:

"When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."
...........................................

In other words, we will throw the truth tellers under the bus, in favor of the homicidal Muslim bullies...

I can remember when I was a child, and was so proud that the charter of the United Nations was signed in my hometown of San Francisco. Now it is obvious that that organization has little use besides providing a fig leaf for barbarism.

@Najis Kafir

"If somethings is a fundamental right, it cannot be a privilege. Privileges are granted by a sovereign, and can be taken away at the whim of a sovereign."---

Indeed, people are born free and its up to scumbags like Ban Ki-Moon, pedohammedans and their comrades in the west to take those freedoms away. And a government is establish to preserve those freedoms, not to curtail them.

Man, this guy... they should rename the U.N. the OIC and call it a day.

Moon is a moron. He understands never freedom nor right. This is the result of allowing those who are not educated in the Western tradition to run international organizations.

I would ask the esteemed Secretary-General exactly what criticism of Islam could occur which would not result in freedom of speech being taken too far? I would argue he could not answer this query cogently and convincingly.

What we are now witnessing in the world at large is that the world is largely controlled by enemies of free speech, be they Muslims or foolish dhimmis, who pale in comparison to that great collection of men who assembled in May of 1787 in Philadelphia in order to write a new Constitution for the new nation of America. Between the Founding Fathers of America on the one hand, and Muslims and their pathetic dhimmi suck-ups on the other, we have a contrast as great as a contrast can be.

This is creepy stuff and overkill to boot.
How can a "value" be humiliated? The English language doesn't work like that. You can't throw concepts together in this haphazard way and not sound totally stupid.
And if freedom of expression is only good when it suits a "common purpose" then we are truly living in an Orwellian world. What is this "common purpose"? Is it still "tolerance and diversity" or is there a new mindset we must all "share", so to speak?
United Nations: this is a disgraceful and shameless piece of pandering to totalitarianism. Unless the totalitarianism is that of the UN itself, in which case it's even worse.

Very well, Mr. Moon, who gets to decide what Blasphemy is?

This fool does not understand why Free Speech clauses exist in constitutions.

So basically, the UN is justifying rape by muslim mobs too. Blame the victim seems to be the muslim way to react to any slight.

Know Shariah - NO peace
NO Shariah - Know peace

That infamous (and relatively accurate) video was translated, then promoted to Egyptian audiences by Sheikh Khalid Abdullah, an Egyptian Salafist and TV personality, over a week ago to foment these riots.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3351/muhammad-movie-khalid-abdullah

I'll bet they're testing to see just how much violence it will take before Obama finally caves and outlaws criticism of Islam, like, 'for the sake of world peace' or some BS like that.

"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice"

Is it not common justice to let Muslims know about the books they don't read? If they care to read, Islam will disappear.

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html

The fact that we haven't shut down the UN and sold the property to the highest bidder shows how much control the American people have over their own country.

A Case For Insanity

In the brief history of this country there has never been a time when such blatant
and demonstrative hypocrisy has gone un-scrutinized by the educated professionals
charged with bringing the people the truth each day. The very people who hold the
position of public trust, once proudly known as journalists, don’t have the
intestinal fortitude to tell the American people that the liberal horse that they have
been riding is a miserable proven failure and that the politicians whose careers they
have been advancing through the use of half truths, undeserving but glowing editorials
and yes, hypocrisy run amok, will soon destroy this country from within and take with
it countless innocent lives while turning anyone who survives into mindless, cruel
and totally self serving socialists with a penchant for anarchy.

I leave but two glaring and un-challenged examples of the pernicious and outrageous
hypocritical elitism for the reader to consider.

The entire left wing mindset known as “Hollywood” and all their like minded minions
would gladly gouge out the eyes of a three week old animal before they would allow
anyone to even suggest that there should be the slightest infringement on someone’s
Constitutional right to print or broadcast the most destructive and demeaning sexual
material known to exist, even when they know that this material will be easily viewed
by very young and innocent minds. To suggest that words and pictures have no effect on
young minds is to believe that TV commercials for toys and breakfast cereal are a
gargantuan waste of money and that toy manufacturers are stupid. There would
be absolutely no restrictions on this behavior, that sometimes includes scenes of bestiality,
if they had their way about it. They would riot in the streets and promote chaos and total
bedlam if you tried to take away their sacred right to pollute the minds of our youth.
BUT……. When a wanna-be Hollywood film maker makes a goofy film that some say
insults Muslims, and talk begins about censoring speech that insults Mohammed, these
very same demented elitists go deafeningly silent.

They will hale the work of an “ARTIST” who places a crucifix upside down in a jar of
his own urine as a great piece of art but when an “Artist” makes a $12.53 film that
insults Mohammed they throw him to the wolves. Make that fanatics, who have already
said that he is a dead man walking.

And you walk around stupefied as to why we hang on to our guns and our religion.

Crusader7

Oh yes..... the proper description of this philosophy is..
Freedom for me, but not for thee.
Lets face it, the virulent & pernicious speech directed at multiple "other" religions, over the past few 'decades', shows that we in America would make every effort to abid by such a treaty, while other nations would ignore it. Cover provided to multiple groups, individuals, organizations, etc. would allow others to say whatever they wanted outside America, but our legal system, our courts, would virtually force us to abide by the treaty.
I despise what was said & shown in that film. However, just because I despise it that does not mean all others do. Its not my place, nor anyone else's place to silence another based on 'their' sensibilities. Such a treaty &/or law, would be enforced or imposed with serious vigor & would end up expanded to such a degree that freedom of all speech would face tests of some sort in almost every instance.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, is a direct threat to human life. This film, was released SIX MONTHS earlier. There was NO immediate moral imperative associated with the film. The reaction was deliberately orchestrated as was the attack in Bengazi, Lybia (sp?).
I shutter to imagine a host of internationalist bureaucrats determining what is offensive & what is not. Language can be interpreted, or, mis-interpreted, easily. They say we in America speak English. I suspect most in Great Britain would take serious exception to that. They may agree we speak "American", but based on how we have so destroyed English, there is no way they would call it English. That means multiple interpretations would abound & agreement or concensus would be impossible to get, let alone, enforce under some international treaty whose wording itself would be suspect & open to interpretation by any & all.
Notice that once again, the United Nations is implying that America should modify its values & freedoms to satisfy the ravings of others. I rarely see or hear circumstances opposite that notion. The attacks all seem to center on us, not others.