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
OS wrote >”The chances of the First Amendment being repealed to please some foreign national is between nil, none and zero.”<
OS, you are absolutely correct. The First Amendment will be repealed by our OWN government for it's own protection.
So this Prophet guy married a child of 9 and porked her at that age? You used the word consummated the marriage. That means man on top, woman on bottom, sex, right? And she was nine years old.
Jeso, dont take your kids to Egypt or Libya folks!
The story is getting better. There needs to be more issues like this talked about on the blog. If those terrorists had not killed all those people over some punk movie out of LA we would not be having this discussion about the Prophet being a child pervert. Nine years old? What else did this guy do? Come on folks, chimne in here. We have to have this discussion before the government shuts down the blog for having the discussion.
Every thing in moderation after all. Including moderation.
@mcwilliams. There’s nothing confusing about it. No knowledgeable person questions the wholesale killing of Armenians nor Indians. However, the “questioning” of the Holocaust is simply code for anti-Semitism. And if you fail to understand why anti-Semitism is prohibited in Germany, then you are either ignorant or an anti-Semite yourself. But none of these things have anything to do with any negative public expression about Islam, which is not being threatened by anyone and needs no protection. Just the opposite. If anything, Islamic adherents are threatening the existence of civilized people.
“Personally, I don’t understand the idea of hate crimes either. One of the ways they usually prove it was a hate crime is if the accused uses hate speech. This country has no hate speech laws. How can you call it a hate crime if you are using as your proof something that does not exist. I would really appreciate an explanation.”
Just because something is not illegal (hate speech) does not mean that it does not exist.
jongrif, you’ve got me thoroughly confused on what you think. First you wrote all we have to do threaten to stop foreign aid and “Mr. Morsi will quickly back down from his stance I guarantee you.” But, next you wrote “What “leverage” do we have here…?? NONE– we are dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood whose alumni includes but is not limited to Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda Number One now …lest you have forgotten or did not know …” Your statements seem rather inconsistent to me.
Captain Ratty, Mohammed was not a pedophile. He was not a man who was sexually attracted to children. He did marry Aisha. He did consummate the marriage when she was 9. However that was not unusual for the time. Furthermore the marriage was also one of a political nature. It was not one of lust.
It isn’t unheard of for 13years to get married in recent times, let alone something over 1000 years ago.
What’s good for Israel is good for Egypt, right? Anti-Zionism =Anti (Jewish)
Semitism, and in Germany, if you dare question the Holocaust of Jews, you can be arrested, but it’s okay to question the Armenian Holocaust. What about the Holocaust of Native Americans and native Arawak Indians. Bit confusing.
Personally, I don’t understand the idea of hate crimes either. One of the ways they usually prove it was a hate crime is if the accused uses hate speech. This country has no hate speech laws. How can you call it a hate crime if you are using as your proof something that does not exist. I would really appreciate an explanation.
The gist of the film was that Prophet Mohammed was a pedophile? Let there be a full discussion of this. We have to out our pedophile priests and they should out their pedophile prophets. Is there some writing from the prophet about molesting children? Someone suggested in a comment here on this blog that there is some scripture to that effect. While we are at the process of outlawing blasphemy then we need to outlaw the desecretion of woman by putting tents on their heads and covering their faces. An eye for an eye and a tent for a turbinhead, I always say. Next they will want to outlaw porksteaks in NY because the UN is located there.
@Bob, thanks. I could use the laugh.
rafflaw,
That’s a Ralph impersonator. Note that the last post did NOT contain the identifying four occurrences of “leftists.”
And the real Ralph don’t need no stinkin’ documentation.
Jill,
All praise his noodly appendages. Take not his name in vain.
Ralph,
please show us your documentation for your claims.
feemeister 1, September 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm
My understanding during the hue and cry of the gun treaty that the UN wants, is that a signed treaty does indeed trump our Constitution and its Amendments.
=================================
That is not correct.
Yes, I demand that the FSM never be insulted or his name taken in vain!
My understanding during the hue and cry of the gun treaty that the UN wants, is that a signed treaty does indeed trump our Constitution and its Amendments. They were also saying that a vote of the Senate could overturn a treaty. But if there was no VOTE in the Senate, it would stand, if the treaty had been signed.
I DO take it that if the UN put up a religious blaspemy treaty, it would also include all other religions? And not JUST Islam? Then religion would have to be defined, as some people’s religions are not the same at ALL as other people’s religions. That could get really tricky. And THEN they would have to define blasphemy, which could also be really fun.
jongrif, why should we give a shit what Mosri demands at the UN? How does this hurt us? If we’re right that free speech is the way to go and that truth prevails in the marketplace of ideas (articles of faith among free speech believers), shouldn’t we be able to make our case for free speech without the need to threaten cutting off foreign aid and risk losing our leverage over Egypt for things that DO matter?
Dear Waldo,
A. What “leverage” do we have here…?? NONE– we are dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood whose alumni includes but is not limited to Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda Number One now …lest you have forgotten or did not know …
B. We ( the USA) have been “saving” the world now since 1946. Starting with the Marshall Plan and coming up to the present 2 Bill we are talking about here with Egypt — we the American public / taxpayer have given not Billions, not Trillions but GAZILLIONS away to the world to try to make the world a better place — and that does not even include how many troops of all the services we have lost on foreign soil (I am a 24 year Army Veteran).
What do we get in return ?? We get a newly-elected President from a country that stifles human rights (ESP. those of women) telling us we need to change our modus operandi and make it illegal to criticize Islam.
C. It is HIGH Time we stopped funding the portions of the world who no longer are interested in human rights / democracy etc. that has made us the envy of the world. How many people do you see wanting to immigrate to the USA and how many do you see wanting to immigrate to Egypt, Nigeria, Mali etc. just to name a few ….
Time to bring the money home and start working on the things we as Americans need — infrastructure repair etc etc. , paying down the deficit…
Imagine where our 15 trillion dollar deficit would be if we weren’t funding half the world??
I daresay it would most likely be non-existent!! and programs like Social Security, Medicare etc would not be in any danger of being under-funded.
Mr. Morsi, sorry but we have decided to issue you a “Stop Payment” …. Effective immediately!!
It is very easy to STOP Mr. Morsi dead in his tracks with all this babble about criminalizing free speech ( though I did view the Innocence of Muslims video and thought it was TRASH)
Anyway, just STOP all foreign aid to Egypt and any other country aligning themselves with this point of view
Mr. Morsi will quickly back down from his stance I guarantee you.
Because if he doesn’t the Generalissimos in the Egyptian Defense Forces will most likely end his reign in short order….
Regardless, as long as we give them 2 BILL a year in aid he will continue this diatribe.
Cut his drinking off at the “Trough of Foreign Aid” and his rants will quickly cease. He may not like that but they will cease.
Jill, …..”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?”
Blasphemy against truth is water off a ducks back. Ridiculous and false statements / should make the speaker ridiculous and false.
The promoters of blasphemy must sell it as truth. Just as the promoters of religion must sell their religion as truth. The similarities and goals are frighteningly close.
Jill, I bookmarked this entire quote from your post two days ago, I added this sentence of yours to it just now. It holds tremendous reason, whether people knock it down or “blaspheme” it, makes it no less valid.
Thank you for this statement.
As Idealist707 sayeth, “Don’t yump” …