| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Questions for Ms. Arbour: Is not being offended a human right? Should "appropriate restrictions" target the clear and present danger of possibly having one's feelings hurt? In that event, there will need to be a U.N. court on every elementary school playground. "Louise Arbour condemns the film 'Fitna'," from Kuwait News Agency:
GENEVA, March 28 (KUNA) -- The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said Friday that she joins in the condemnation, as expressed by the Secretary-General and the three UN Special Rapporteurs, of the tone and content of the film 'Fitna' by Dutch Geert Wilders.
Arbour urged all those who understandably feel profoundly offended by its provocative message to restrict themselves to denouncing its hateful content by peaceful means.
"There is a protective legal framework, and the resolution of the controversy that this film will generate should take place within it," she added.
She also urged lawmakers everywhere to discharge their responsibility under Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
"They should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others," Arbour said.
She noted that equally, they should prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
Posted by Marisol at March 29, 2008 12:06 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
She wants to ban the Koran.
In effect.
(Wait'll Muslims figure that one out.)
Posted by: profitsbeard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 29, 2008 12:39 PM
"restrict themselves to denouncing its hateful content by peaceful means."
I'd say making a critical film exposing the 'hateful content' is doing just that!
Arbour et al have become caricatures. It's not like the woman hasn't seen the results of terrorism first hand.
at March 29, 2008 12:46 PM
UN and all its agencies now need to enumerate the various successes it has had internationally. In Health , Smallpox is one such example. But what more ? UN needs to Re-Frame itself. Realities are very different Today as compared to the time it was born out of League of Nations. The current UN is obsolete now. A new Body is needed now and its needed without the precedence of a Great War. The world can not afford another one. Let a Spade be called a Spade. No hankey-pankey please.
Posted by: Kash225 at March 29, 2008 12:52 PM
The content was just repackaged quotes and news footage.
If there was any "hatred" it was in the source of the quotes and the perpetrators of the events.
Wonder if rebroadcasting the happenings of 9/11 is "hatred" when done by the West and "not hatred" when done by Muslims.
Posted by: emet-veritas at March 29, 2008 1:05 PM
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the UN'Ms. arbor the UN human rights Council seemed to be under the thumb of the organization of Islamic countries the OIC has become moraly corrupt bully pulpit for the OIC and its allies
Posted by: crusader at March 29, 2008 1:32 PM
But Muslims do it to themselves. If there is 'hatred' in the quotations of the quran, that is theirs, and their display of hatred in their riots (cartoon, teddy bear, pope, flush toilets, etc.) is of their own making. Fitna makes it self evident. So why do they complain at showing their own hatreds? Muslims are brain dead. Do they ever stop to think of how absurd they are? Obviously not. So... since they don't get it, show it again, and again.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at March 29, 2008 1:43 PM
"They should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others,"
Arbour is proposing a paradox here. Impossible. She and many like her are the reason Canada is in such a mess over free speech right now. A battle is raging and it's due to all the pointy heads who have been running things.
Posted by: Sounder at March 29, 2008 2:14 PM
"national, racial, or religious hatred"
Looks like someone finally noticed that Islam and Muslims are not a race, much good it will do the world.
at March 29, 2008 2:20 PM
So she means freedom of expression must be protected, and at the same time freedom of expression must be condemned. That makes sense, or does it depend on who you are addressing.
Posted by: Dsinc at March 29, 2008 2:29 PM
All these idiotic old world mentalities struggling with the concept of rights.
They figure they have to use the words, so they do.
But none of them have the slightest idea of what they mean.
Stupidity is eternal.
Posted by: joeblough at March 29, 2008 4:37 PM
And we give the UN money? Why?
Posted by: tanstaafl at March 29, 2008 5:14 PM
She noted that equally, they should prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
Thus: Ban the Koran.
Posted by: Briars at March 29, 2008 9:00 PM
"She noted that equally, they should prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."
I am waiting for the UN resolution, which denounces the anti-Jewish rantings of Hamas leaders. I won't be holding my breath!
at March 30, 2008 9:35 AM
Precisely. It would certainly be a better world if Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, and Egypt would prohibit "any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."
Posted by: Monte Gardner at March 30, 2008 12:52 PM
Never a denounciation of the routine hatred promoted in mosks and by the Musselmen governments through their state controlled media! Such hypocrisy makes me puke!
at March 30, 2008 3:28 PM
The only way to fight this kind of thing is for everyone at once to post the FINTA movies on their sites for download.
Against such an overwhelming action any focused actions loose their effectiveness.
The UN is already compromised in any actions involving these subjects.
Posted by: JamesThailand at March 30, 2008 7:14 PM
Louise Arbour probably considers her marching orders to be contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While the UDHR says that "[e]veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (art. 19), it also contains the weasel words that "[t]hese rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (art. 29) and that "[n]othing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any . . . group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein" (art. 30). Louise Arbour is probably relying on the exceptions in articles 29 and 30 when she talks about the need for "appropriate restrictions," which just goes to show how dangerous it is to provide for exceptions of that sort from the general principle of freedom of expression. (She has the same mentality as those who try to impose speech codes on American universities. Fortunately, when administrators try to impose such codes at public universities, our First Amendment stops them.)
Posted by: Seamus at March 30, 2008 7:19 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)