UN passes "anti-defamatory" regulation on anti-religious speech

[Jetsetlemming]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975TOK00
GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said.

"It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone," he said.

Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said.

Opponents of the resolution included Canada, all European Union countries, Switzerland, Ukraine and Chile.

"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier said.

India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Its resolutions are not binding, but are meant to act as recommendations for U.N. member states on issues of human rights.

Earlier, a coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the Geneva body's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

U.S. diplomats resumed their observer role in the council after President Barack Obama took office, though it is unclear whether Washington will stand for one of the 18 council seats up for election in May.

Esther Brimmer, Obama's nominee for the job of Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs, told a Senate hearing Tuesday that the council was a "major disappointment, diverted from its mission by states with some of the worst human rights records."
So how about them Jews, huh Islamic World?

[stsparky]

As a Zionist hoodlum - I'm already a racist.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

The Human Rights Council being dominated by African and Muslim countries is just hilarious.

[Karthak]

The Human Rights Council being dominated by African and Muslim countries is just hilarious.
Quoted for extreme truth.

[Swede]

Saw this a few days ago, totally ridiculous. These people need to learn to grow up and actually participate in discussions about why the criticisms of their religion are invalid, rather than pulling the "Hey! That's not very nice!" card and taking away people's freedom of speech. If they want to say Islam is a peaceful religion than show it, don't do things like say cartoons are unacceptable and kill people for doing so.

The UN is so just beyond useless at this point anyway though, not sure how much of an impact this will actually have.

[Jetsetlemming]

None of the regulations passed by the Human Rights Council are binding, precisely because of things like these.

[Gorlam]

Saw this a few days ago, totally ridiculous. These people need to learn to grow up and actually participate in discussions about why the criticisms of their religion are invalid, rather than pulling the "Hey! That's not very nice!" card and taking away people's freedom of speech. If they want to say Islam is a peaceful religion than show it, don't do things like say cartoons are unacceptable and kill people for doing so.

The UN is so just beyond useless at this point anyway though, not sure how much of an impact this will actually have.

Yah, wasn't the guy who made that cartoon sent a massive amount of death threats? Sheesh.

[Citizen]

Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations

"So we're going to suggest that you violate your people's human rights to protect it!"

Hahaha, oh wow. I'm glad I live in a country that no longer gives a fuck about the UN.

[Karthak]

I've defended Islam for years to friends and relatives, pointing out that the Qur'an is no more violent or nasty than the Bible, or that the majority of muslims are actually, you know, nice people.

But shit like this makes me wonder why I even bother. I mean, take the Danish cartoon crisis for example. Apparently those thousands of people chanting for the head of the artist have no goddamn idea how fucktarded they look and sound when they are protesting an artists efforts of painting Islam as a violent religion by WANTING TO KILL THE ARTIST. Fuck organized religion (of all stripes and denominations) and all those cockbag religitards using it to hurt or oppress people.


(Sorry for the language. I think five years worth of frustration just poured out of me:gloomy: )

[Daishikaze]

(Sorry for the language. I think five years worth of frustration just poured out of me:gloomy: )

For fives years worth, I'd say you were pretty reserved

[h2orowe]

I've defended Islam for years to friends and relatives, pointing out that the Qur'an is no more violent or nasty than the Bible, or that the majority of muslims are actually, you know, nice people.

But shit like this makes me wonder why I even bother. I mean, take the Danish cartoon crisis for example. Apparently those thousands of people chanting for the head of the artist have no goddamn idea how fucktarded they look and sound when they are protesting an artists efforts of painting Islam as a violent religion by WANTING TO KILL THE ARTIST. Fuck organized religion (of all stripes and denominations) and all those cockbag religitards using it to hurt or oppress people.


(Sorry for the language. I think five years worth of frustration just poured out of me:gloomy: )
You just have to remember that not all Muslims are like this. It's just the extremists that are. Who knows if they're the majority or the minority anymore because, at least in the US, the media tends to blow shit out of the water and make it seem like every Muslim in the Middle East wants to satanfuck every US citizen into a coma of terrorism. Regardless though, you shouldn't look down on the religion or those who practice it just because of a couple of people taking it too far.

I completely understand them wanting to kill the Danish artist. Not that I remotely support it, but I can understand. If you're living in shitty conditions and you're told that people who live in Westernized countries are to blame for your problems (in some ways, this is truth) then who the fuck does that artist think he is drawing your prophet? You're not allowed to and it's your religion. Not only that, but he's doing it on purpose to provoke an attack (At least that's what I remember from an article I read. Didn't he draw Mohamed as a dog or something along those lines?) People murder people in the name of gang violence for lesser reasons than what some of the extremists want to murder the artist who portrayed Mohamed want to kill him for. (Actually, didn't someone in Sweden get killed for portraying Mohamed? I remember the Danish guy, but didn't the Swede get killed?)

As for this freedom of speech thing, it's a fuzzy area. I definitely believe they shouldn't be taking away people's freedom of speech, but when people say stupid shit, someone's obviously going to be offended and it could cause problems. Oh well, it's the price you pay for FRAEDOM :us: GOD BLASS THA USA.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

To really look at the issue surrounding all of this one needs to keep in mind that most Muslim countries themselves are extremely oppressive, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, so those that are born and raised in those countries are raised in terrible circumstances with an extremely limited world view-- and tend not to be that well off. Apparently the Muslim population in Europe is comprised mostly of not well educated people who aren't that great off financially, which just exacerbates the problem. As a contrast, the stereotype is that most Muslims in the United States do come from educated backgrounds or are becoming educated themselves, and are also more well off, so they are not extremist in their views.

Of course I don't have much experience with Muslims in Europe or have read up too much about the subject, but that is what I've heard at least.

[Swede]

You just have to remember that not all Muslims are like this. It's just the extremists that are. Who knows if they're the majority or the minority anymore because, at least in the US, the media tends to blow shit out of the water and make it seem like every Muslim in the Middle East wants to satanfuck every US citizen into a coma of terrorism. Regardless though, you shouldn't look down on the religion or those who practice it just because of a couple of people taking it too far.

I completely understand them wanting to kill the Danish artist. Not that I remotely support it, but I can understand. If you're living in shitty conditions and you're told that people who live in Westernized countries are to blame for your problems (in some ways, this is truth) then who the fuck does that artist think he is drawing your prophet? You're not allowed to and it's your religion. Not only that, but he's doing it on purpose to provoke an attack (At least that's what I remember from an article I read. Didn't he draw Mohamed as a dog or something along those lines?) People murder people in the name of gang violence for lesser reasons than what some of the extremists want to murder the artist who portrayed Mohamed want to kill him for. (Actually, didn't someone in Sweden get killed for portraying Mohamed? I remember the Danish guy, but didn't the Swede get killed?)

As for this freedom of speech thing, it's a fuzzy area. I definitely believe they shouldn't be taking away people's freedom of speech, but when people say stupid shit, someone's obviously going to be offended and it could cause problems. Oh well, it's the price you pay for FRAEDOM :us: GOD BLASS THA USA.


K, as for freedom of speech being a fuzzy area.... No. People don't have the right to not be offended. If you're offended by something, then act like an adult and refute it with WORDS, don't act like it's in any way shape or form justification for killing people. Otherwise, don't be surprised when the rest of the modern world thinks that you're insane.

This is the cartoon for reference. Most of the actually offensive stuff was totally unrelated to Muhammed, and wasn't put out by the cartoonist or those in any way related to the cartoon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

No, not all Muslims are not like this, but it isn't like Islam really has anything to say against this sort of behavior. Yes, they're extremists, but they're also acting within the confines of what their religion can justify.

[h2orowe]

As for freedom of speech being a fuzzy area: yes. :P Not every country protects freedom of speech unless there's some geneva convention-esque thing related to it. I highly doubt countries like the U.S. will even be affected by this change. I even said I disagree with the thought. I just understand how they'd be able to justify it.

[Swede]

I think the difference we're having is that I don't think their reason to justify it is... well, justifiable. It's kind of like saying "well, I can understand how I would think that if I was a moron".

Seems like you're just saying you understand the argument they're making, its just that the way you worded it makes it sound like "Well, different strokes I guess", even though you kind of have the same opinion most of us have been expressing. If that makes any sense.

[sOkU]

I've defended Islam for years to friends and relatives, pointing out that the Qur'an is no more violent or nasty than the Bible, or that the majority of muslims are actually, you know, nice people.

But shit like this makes me wonder why I even bother. I mean, take the Danish cartoon crisis for example. Apparently those thousands of people chanting for the head of the artist have no goddamn idea how fucktarded they look and sound when they are protesting an artists efforts of painting Islam as a violent religion by WANTING TO KILL THE ARTIST. Fuck organized religion (of all stripes and denominations) and all those cockbag religitards using it to hurt or oppress people.


(Sorry for the language. I think five years worth of frustration just poured out of me:gloomy: )

I'm guessing if it took this to make you wonder why you even bother to defend Muslims (compared to all the other evils that people have used religion to cause) you probably weren't a staunch defender in the first place.

[Trump]

It is not justifiable. People need to be responsible for what they personally say and what they do in response to what others say. Either this resolution is a shout saying people are too stupid to be responsible for what they say and now we have to make rules for them, or this resolution is a shout saying that people do not need to be responsible for how they react to what people say so we'll make rules so they can't say things.

Either way it is totally irresponsible.

[Samurai_Pooh]

To really look at the issue surrounding all of this one needs to keep in mind that most Muslim countries themselves are extremely oppressive, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, so those that are born and raised in those countries are raised in terrible circumstances with an extremely limited world view-- and tend not to be that well off. Apparently the Muslim population in Europe is comprised mostly of not well educated people who aren't that great off financially, which just exacerbates the problem. As a contrast, the stereotype is that most Muslims in the United States do come from educated backgrounds or are becoming educated themselves, and are also more well off, so they are not extremist in their views.

Of course I don't have much experience with Muslims in Europe or have read up too much about the subject, but that is what I've heard at least.

Actually, when you look at the profiles of many islamic terrorists they are middle to upper-class muslims who are often highly educated, their educations often taking place in western nations.

[Karthak]

I'm guessing if it took this to make you wonder why you even bother to defend Muslims (compared to all the other evils that people have used religion to cause) you probably weren't a staunch defender in the first place.
There were lots of other things. This one was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.