For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard. Now that effort has come to a head with the new President of Egypt President Mohamed Mursi calling for enactment of an anti-blasphemy law at the United Nations. Mursi is also demanding legal action against the filmmaker by the United States despite the fact that the film is clearly protected by the first amendment.
One of Mursi’s chief aides, Emad Abdel Ghaffour, announced this weekend, “we call for legislation or a resolution to criminalize contempt of Islam as a religion and its Prophet. The voice of reason in the West will prevail if there is mutual respect, dialogue and efficient lobbying for this critical resolution.” The “voice of reason” appears to be saying that we need to sacrifice free speech on the altar of religion. Moreover, “mutual respect” now means that critics must remain silent in their views of Muhammad and Islam.
If anything, the recent anti-free speech demands after the airing of this trailer should cause the Obama Administration to reconsider its efforts to create the new international blasphemy standard. As I have previously argued, the Administration is legitimating the prosecution of religious critics and dissidents with this initiative. It should immediately end its support for the standard and reaffirm the protection of religious critics in the United States.
Source: Chicago Tribune
Frankly, The main reason Mursi is at the UN is to talk about financial investment in Egypt.
Frankly 1, September 24, 2012 at 11:20 am
… This is a proposal, lets not lose are minds about what some dingbat proposes.
=============================================
Too late.
In the U.S. military suicide has taken first place over war as the leading cause of death (Surge of Snap Sergeants).
In the non-military suicide has overtaken car accidents as the cause of death (Medical Express).
We have some big fish to fry, so we should stop worrying about the small fry.
2 things – Ralphie, what color is the sky in your world? Here on this Earth its blue & our version of President Obama is totally unlike the version in your world.
This is a proposal, lets not lose are minds about what some dingbat proposes. Particularly on the political stage where he might well be playing to the folks back home. You see that here when Willard calls for a trade war with China or some crackpot state senator proposes some bill outlawing breathing or mandatory gay marriage. They know this won’t happen, they certainly won’t actually let it happen but it makes the crackpots back home happy to see that their leaders are as enraged as they are about some pet cause.
Get back to me when this thing has a chance of passing then I’ll get excited.
F ’em, and their religious B.S. I’m so tired of that backwards thinking, superstitious, delusional,…..
“Let he or she who has the most sin cast the first stone.” -Dredd
If the UN criminalizes free speech in any manner the US should pull out and kick them out. Enough is enough. An while we are talking about the great democrat MURSI no more money to Egypt. We have bought just too much hate as he says, we should let Egypt see how it fares with out our money.
Ralph,
Your point leads to another thing that would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. How exactly do drones and cluster bombs, regime changes and Christian soldiers with crusader patches on a mission to christianize the muslim lands constitute respect for Islam?
One person pointed out that our population is swimming in a sea of PR turds. This is one more example of taking the propaganda swim. If Obama sides with the president, then Obama’s followers will take it as a sign of his diplomatic genius, his extreme kindness towards Muslims.
Words may be cheap, but they seem effective. Besides, what’s one more destruction of the rule of law by Obama? It’s just that pesky free speechy thingy anyway.
Unspoken in all of this is that Obama AGREES with his collegue, Mursi. And Obama strongly believes that anyone who disagrees with this policy should be required to take 600 hours of Muslim sensitivity training over a 3-year period.
“Justice Robert Jackson’s groundbreaking opinion made this point as eloquently as it has ever been made:
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Your religion must be strong enough in your heart and mind to withstand both reasoned and unreasoned attacks. If it is not, what is it?
Yeah, lets jump right on that for you. Of course I’d demand a slightly expanded bit of action. It would include the right of every person to practice their religion free from any outside interference, including the right to not practice any religion at all. It would include the same sort of ban on denigrating any belief or non-belief and require governments to provide protection for all holy sites no matter what religion and to all believers and non-believers. They can cite some damn fine examples of the various religious crackpot governments around the world promoting, condoning and/or turning a blind eye.
There mere thought that these religiously insane nutjobs would have to provide every religion and even atheists would send them into fits of insanity that they would never approve it.
Now I see why the Egyptian filmaker with ten fake names decided to make the anti Prophet film. We wont send him back to his home country because they will execute him for making the film. He was probably on a short shit list to be extradicted back home when he had his epipheny to blast Mohammed and thus stir up the muslim masses to commit mass assaults on human lives in the name of Mohammed. The perp needs protection from the Islamic mass in the Egyptian territory which purports to be a nation state. Pirates all.
Also, I try not to get any more worked up about foreign politicians making speeches that pander to their constituents than I do when US politicians do the same. So, Mosri makes a speech (that will be reported back in Egypt) calling for the US to repeal the First Amendment and prosecute those who insult Mohommed. Yawn.
I’m not sure I get the concern with the administration helping to craft a new international blasphemy standard. AFAIK, nothing being talked about would change the law in the US and nothing could change law in US because free speech is constitutionally protected. Only an amendment or new supreme court ruling could change the standard. So, I presume the Obama administration is working on some international standard that would modify existing blasphemy law in other nations. Pushing for the Brandenburg standard internationally is a HUGE improvement in free speech rights in many of these nations that do prosecute blasphemy. So, what is wrong with the US trying to expand free speech rights in other countries???
I think they try EVERY year don’t they? It (thankfully) always fails.
Dredd, a reasonable person is the average of the reasonableness of the nine persons comprising the SCOTUS.
God help us, every one.
This may inspire a resurgence in legal scholarship for the search of the mythical “reasonable person standard.”
Treaties become our law once the congress ratifies them, however, they do not trump our Constitution.
Thus they should not negatively impact free speech.
We leave that to the Supreme Court, Congress, and the various Administrations all headed in the W direction.
The idea of free speech and a free press is a foreign concept (no pun intended) to many world government leaders. Perhaps a copy of the First Amendment should be printed off and distributed to all members of the UN so they will know where we are coming from.
The chances of the First Amendment being repealed to please some foreign national is between nil, none and zero. They are going to have to come to grips with that, and if they cannot, our ambassador to the UN needs to explain it to them in the strongest terms possible, consistent with diplomatic dignity.
The voice of reason….. Of course….. I’m sorry…..you can insult our gods….. But the first person that insults a child molester you take offense….. I presume your mommas from Arkansas and yo daddy’s from Utah…… And it’s all ok…
Reblogged this on Glory to man in the highest.