Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UN-acceptable censorship: The United Nations tries to outlaw
#1
Wish would could get rid of the UN. Send them to France or something.

UN-acceptable censorship: The United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam

By Floyd Abrams

Wednesday, January 14th 2009, 4:00 AM

Quote:Almost 500 years ago, on the wall of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, characterizing as "madness" the notion that papal pardons could absolve individuals for their sins. As viewed from Rome, Luther had maligned, even defamed, the church. Luther was eventually excommunicated. His conduct ultimately led to the creation of a Protestant Church in Germany and a Reformation throughout Europe.

It is difficult to believe that in the 21st century anyone would seriously propose that conduct such as Luther's should be deemed illegal. But a few weeks ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations took a giant step in that direction. It adopted - for the fourth straight year - a resolution prepared by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference calling upon all UN nations to adopt legislation banning the "defamation" of religion. Spurred by the Danish cartoons of 2005, some of which portrayed the Prophet Muhammed in a manner deemed offensive by the OIC, the resolution was opposed by the United States, most European nations, Japan, India and a number of other nations.

Nonetheless, it has now been adopted.

From an American perspective, the resolution so plainly violates the First Amendment that it is not a close question. Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," which offended many Muslims, is protected here. So are movies such as Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which offended many Jews, and "The Last Temptation of Christ," which offended many Christians. In 1940, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that "in the realm of religious faith," despite "the probability of excesses and abuses," the liberty to speak out freely must be rigorously protected.

While relevant, the American experience is hardly the most relevant one. Far more telling is the distressing experience of nations that supported the OIC resolution. There was the student in one Islamic nation who was sentenced to death in January 2008 for distributing supposedly blasphemous material regarding the role of women in Islamic society. There was the teacher in another Islamic nation who was sentenced to jail for "insulting religion" after naming a class teddy bear "Mohammad" at the request of a 7-year-old with the same name. And there was the tragic case of the 22-year-old Hindu who, as reported by the European Centre for Law and Justice, was beaten to death by three of his fellow workers at a factory for allegedly committing blasphemy (a crime punishable by death); the workers were arrested and charged not with murder but with failing to inform the police that blasphemy was underway.

From the very first OIC resolution to the current one there has never been any ambiguity about its purpose: to intimidate those who might criticize Islam. As phrased in the original OIC resolution introduced by Pakistan in 1999, Islam was "frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." But it is a fact that however one may debate about whether "Islam" bears any responsibility for acts of terrorism ranging from the murderous 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to the more recent massacre in Mumbai, terrible acts of violence have been committed in the name of Islam. It is also the case that repeated human rights violations, including female genital mutilation, also have occurred in the name of Islam.

It is one thing to urge that all Muslims should not be criticized because of these acts. But the notion that it may or should be made a crime even to "associate" Islam with crimes too often committed in its name is inconsistent with any notion that both freedom of speech and religion should be protected. What cannot be even negotiable is the freedom, the unfettered freedom, to publish challenging books, movies and - yes - the Danish cartoons.

Abrams is a partner in the law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP and the honorary chair of the Coalition to Defend Free Speech, an organization that opposes limitations on "religious defamation."

http://www.nydailynews.com
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#2
As much as the UN protests that it endorses and respects "human rights", free speech is not one that they readily accept. They would not pass our "bill of rights" and enforce it. What a sham is their proclamation of "human rights". The UN Human Rights Council has been presided over by people from many countries which have an abysmal record on human rights.

So, I consider the US bill of rights as one of the crowning achievements of the progress of civilization.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#3
jt Wrote:So, I consider the US bill of rights as one of the crowning achievements of the progress of civilization.

What most people do not understand is that the Bill of Rights was not a list of the rights we have but restrictions on the government. Sadly they ignore them.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#4
scpg02 Wrote:...the Bill of Rights was not a list of the rights we have but restrictions on the government.

Well said, scpg02.
Reply
#5
True,they were like Reagan said,we told the government what they could do,not the other way around.

Today,not so much. Our government is worshipped by this generation as an idol.
Reply
#6
They can pass whatever they want ... it just seems unlikely that they would attempt any actual enforcement in this country. Obama might, but I think he's smart enough to anticipate the public outcry if they started jailing cartoonists or folks like Matt Stone and Trey Parker (they'd be the first to go).

Canada on the other hand has already implemented these kinds of kangaroo courts. Shock
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#7
So has Holland,they just charged Geert Wilders with some "anti hatred" law.

Now,let us here at least be honest. This is no anti Islam comment of mine,I've done all of that I am going to do in this life.

However,there is an idea out here that saying anything negative about Islam may be dangerous physically. Based on reality I say.

Had Wilders claimed Christianity was the bad dawg like Professor what's his name did in England(The God Delusion Author),would he have been charged in Holland for inciting hatred? Of course not and he should not have been.

This is nothing more or less than as.s kissing timidity on Holland's part. Sorry,it's a fact and any Dutch man with honor knows it,too.
Reply
#8
Point taken. At least we're not Holland ... yet.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#9
Yak,

I don't take much comfort in knowing we're not quite to Holland's point. We're way too close for comfort. We're a huge nation,Holland is tiny and has a larger Islamic population,were we in this status,who can say how we would react?
Reply
#10
Palladin,

Canada is larger, closer to home and much more problematic IMHO. I can't control public sentiment in Holland or Canada ... and I can't really do much here either ... other than keep my eyes open, cry foul when I see foul, make darn sure others see it and vote. In other words try to do my bestest. Wink1

We'll see how things go. I expect the attacks on talk radio and the resurrection of the "fairness doctrine" a hell of a lot quicker than we'll see the type of laws that drag people into court like that poor SOB above. There are two tact's. One is to restrict what we say and hear. The other is to force us to listen to an "opposing view point" in the name of 'fairness'. I think we'll see the latter prior to the former. And if we keep our mouths (and eyes) shut about either of them were screwed.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#11
The UN's at it again.  This time its over Trump's declaration to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.  

UN overwhelmingly repudiates Trump’s declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

I had been looking around for a complete list of those who voted for the condemnation resolution, those who voted with the US, and those who were a purposeful no show.   Well here it is.

Quote:[Image: un-vote-1024x613.jpg]

Which countries voted with the U.S. against the resolution?
Israel, Honduras, Guatemala, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo voted with the U.S. against the U.N. resolution.

Which countries abstained from the vote?
Australia, Canada, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Colombia, Argentina and the Philippines were among the 35 nations to abstain.

Which U.S. allies voted in favor of the resolution?
Among the 128 votes in favor of the U.N. resolution were those cast by allies Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and France.

One of the posters, at the bottom of the article above, reminded us all of something that was already a federal law.  I vaguely remember this, but had completely forgotten.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995

Just look at the legislative history here, and take note of the votes cast.  And since it is already a law, there have been three presidents, who have not been following the law as they swore to do.  Yet The Donald is catching hell for doing just that.

Quote:Legislative history

-Introduced in the Senate as S. 1322 by Bob Dole (R-KS) on October 13, 1995

-Committee consideration by Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and House Committee on International Relations

-Passed the Senate on October 24, 1995 (93–5)
Roll call vote 496, via Senate.gov)

-Passed the House on October 24, 1995 (374–37)
Roll call vote 734, via Clerk.House.gov)

-Left unsigned by President Bill Clinton and became law on November 8, 1995
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#12
One thing worth noting here. Every member of the EU, Scandinavia, and all but one of the Balkans, voted to condemn the US. Most of the Eastern European countries boycotted the vote.

Perhaps we should begin withdrawing our military insurance policy that we have there, leave Europe, and let them take care of themselves from now on.

As for the UN, perhaps we should insist on paying only what other members pay, rather than paying so much. Then we can sit back and watch everyone jump through their asses, as they try to come up with funds in order to remain solvent.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#13
(12-21-2017, 09:03 PM)John L Wrote: Perhaps we should begin withdrawing our military insurance policy that we have there, leave Europe, and let them take care of themselves from now on.

Well, it is more like leave the world.  The orangehead managed to unite it against the Entity, rejoice.

In essence this is the threat issued by Trump via his Haley avatar, issued after somewhat one-sided vote in the UN SC on the same subject (14 members vs the US).   Noticing that the Ukraine  voted against the US in the UNSC (?!) but abstained in the general assembly we conclude that Trump was successful in breaking the international isolation and particularly successful with countries that receive US financial assistance and were afraid to lose it .. this simple.

The UNSC vote results can be found here

Quote:Britain, France, China, Russia, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden, Ukraine and Egypt

together with yet one more excellent reason to leave the UN... only place on earth where it is still acceptable to give the Nazi salute as the woman on the right of the photo does.

===

PS. This vote just like UNSC, was predictable, albeit I'm surprised over the loss of control over Ukraine.

The interesting one that is not predictable is about new sanctions on North Korea.
The sanctions are serious, on the level of the sanctions used by the US against Japan to trigger WWII.
Reply
#14
[Image: thumbnail-1_1_orig.jpeg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is Torture Acceptable Against Terrorists? Palladin 66 18,549 05-28-2011, 02:06 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)