The Obama administration has shocked many in the civil liberties community with the tacit endorsement of limitations of free speech in the United Nations. We have been following the international trend (here and here and here and here) to criminalize criticism of religions, including this prior column. The Administration has joined the UN Human Rights Council and has agreed to create a “new” standard balancing speech and respect for religion. These new standards are merely thinly disguised blasphemy laws that are spreading throughout the world, including the West.
The fear is that the Obama Administration will try to rehabilitate our image in the Muslim world by supporting this long effort to allow greater “consensus” on punishing criticism of religion as a form of hate speech.
Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, announced:
“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
Egypt has been one of the main proponents of an international blasphemy law.
There is no balancing needed. People should have the right to say anything about religions regardless of how offensive it may be to the majority of citizens or governments. The new resolution, however, stresses “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The resolution would also insists that journalists “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”
For the leading democratic nation in the world to support such a principle of limiting free speech is an outrageous and dangerous development. It further shows the Administration’s willingness to trade principles for political gains. Congress needs to hold hearings and civil libertarians need to be heard on this new American initiative. There are various ways to appeal to Muslim nations without joining them in sacrificing free speech on the altar of religion.
For the full story, click here.
Normally I agree with your positions professor, but in this instance I think you’re overblowing this resolution and what it means. Free speech does carry with it responsibilities to avoid racial and religious stereotyping. And I should know seeing how I’m black and a nonbeliever.
But I saw nothing in the article you referred to that calls for any actions that would limit free speech. And based upon my own experience with this subject, it is the Saudis who’ve been pushing for anti-blasphemy laws more than anyone.
In a perfect world there would be NO RELIGION. But we play the hand we’re dealt. And as much as I dislike religion for what it represents, I still understand that most people believe in it and think they must have it in their lives. So be it. So I accord them and their religion as much respect as I’m given as a nonbeliever. No more, no less.
FFLEO said…”I think that Mr. Obama an incredibly naive man trying to please everyone whilst alienating even his once staunchest supporters.”
—
I completely agree. I’ve wondered lately how Clinton would have done. While she would have undoubtedly had her own host of issues and scandals, I suspect she might have a bit less of the need to make everybody happy. Which, of course, is impossible.
I am a proud irish catholic..and as friends have told me irish catholics are the most blasphemous people they have met (well perhaps just me). If I can’t say f*** the pope..next they will tell me I can’t say f*** the queen..and after that?
Jill,
Tax exempt status–YAY! Now I just have to select my ceremonial wine and buy a case or two of it. Shall I go with a red, a white, or that bubbly stuff?
I find this resolution offensive to my religion.
THIS IS BULLSHIT. HOW THE HELL IS THAT FOR FREE SPEECH???????????????????
See FFLEO–you only thought you were an unbeliever. Really you believe in the God of Old Spice and he even granted you children.
Here’s a timely message from the AFA:
“When the $621 million Capitol Visitors Center opened last year, somebody was conspicuously absent at the opening ceremony: God.
Virtually all references to the role that faith in God played in the founding and development of the United States had been scrubbed from displays.
The secular fundamentalists who designed the exhibits even mistakenly said that our national motto is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Out of Many, One”) and engraved it on stone, while the actual motto, “In God We Trust,” was nowhere to be found in the 580,000 square feet of the CVC.
While there was plenty of room for mentions of Earth Day, AIDS rallies and casinos, there apparently was no room for God.”
Oh my! It was them Old Spice ads after all these years…well, at least I got a healthy son out of the deal. Ol’ 50s/60s dinosaurs never die, they just smell of old spice…
I do not know this “Old Spice Classic” God of whom you speak sir, but you seem to be doubting his stated attributes. In my book, that makes you a blasphemer.
I still use Old Spice Classic. But frankly, it has never had the appeal to women that the ads always led me to believe it would.
Mike A.
Very well said! BTW, what is your opinion of deodorants? 🙂
Claine,
Back a while another poster, Byron pointed out even more benefits to your plan–tax exemption! So, Hail Elaine the Most Perfect!!!
I actually know a high priestess, although not well. One day I ran into her and she told me she was going to become high priestess next year. I went through my mental file on her being a christian and not having converted to wicca etc. and finally got the right answer–Masons. Masons run everything anyway, so maybe they’re the right way to go on your plan!
I know I’ve expressed my views on this subject in the past. The resolution is nonsense. Virtually all speech that is the least bit meaningful is offensive to someone. If anyone is bothered by what I may say or write concerning religion, race, ethnicity, sexual preference or deodorant brands, my response is to get over it. I am increasingly concerned with the president’s willingness to ignore core legal principles in the interests of getting along. This has happened with the issue of torture and treatment of detainees. Now he feels the need to compromise on the First Amendment. Frankly, I can support a president with whom I disagree on certain policy issues. I cannot support any president who is not committed to the Constitution above all other concerns.
So…I think I’ll start my own religion, ordain myself high priestess, and proceed from there–and I won’t have to worry about criticism from anyone. Right?
Sorry if this is reported on already and I missed it.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/23/Family_Says_911_Tape_Caught_Cops_Planning_Cover-Up_After_Shooting.htm?=protectandserve
The US doesn’t need to bond over religion with Egypt, that’s what torture is for. For either nation’s leaders to sign off on any statement that includes the phrase: “…and the dignity of all human beings.” strains credulity so far, I’m ready to sue for whiplash.
I think that Mr. Obama an incredibly naive man trying to please everyone whilst alienating even his once staunchest supporters.
He clearly cannot understand or recognize the damage that the preceding 8 years of religiosity has wrecked on the Bill of Rights; instead, he champions the same ill-conceived causes and policies espoused by a discredited, abject fool.
If we had enough sense we could punish hate speech with logic and reason, whether it was speech against religion or science.
Some bad science is as retarded as bad religion.
But our constitution protects the paths of those going in both directions.
Let us not forget that.
These two posts illustrate the great difference in their similarities:
http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-humans-evolve-into-machines.html
http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-humans-evolve-into-super-beings.html
Guess it’s time to call the White-house again.
This is the part where I give the President the finger.