Apparently, Freedom of Speech is a hate crime, nowadays...

[YT300000]

Link

UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

By FRANK JORDANS – 2 days ago

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."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

As if we needed any more indication of just how useless the UN has become, this gem shows up. Add to it the Holocaust being dropped from history courses in the U.K. for fear of offending Muslims, and you've got a great recipe for spreading fundamentalist hatred not only unchecked, but sanctioned by government. What the hell is this world coming to?

[dragon]

Guess its a good thing we have a veto on the UN security council then along with the other Britian and France as neither one of them will go for this.

[The Romulan Republic]

Add to it the Holocaust being dropped from history courses in the U.K. for fear of offending Muslims, and you've got a great recipe for spreading fundamentalist hatred not only unchecked, but sanctioned by government. What the hell is this world coming to?

Note the hierarchy when it comes to politically correct censorship. They won't mention the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslims, with the implication that they are perfectly fine with offending Jews instead. You've got to be impressed by the brazenness of the hippochrisy: tolerance used as a justification for discrimination.

I'd take from this the lesson that because their are so many groups with radically different and conflicting views on what is offensive, censorship in the interests of oppressing offensive opinions cannot possibly appease everyone, and thus ends up playing favorites. The unscrupulous can then use this to their advantage, either to shield their beliefs and practices from criticism, or to obscure/alter historical facts for whatever reason.

[The Romulan Republic]

Guess its a good thing we have a veto on the UN security council then along with the other Britian and France as neither one of them will go for this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this outside of the Security Council's control?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, it is, but because it's outside of the Security Council's control, it's only a non-binding resolution. Absolutely nothing the UN passes is binding to UN members unless the whole security Council votes for it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, I didn't know that. That's good to hear.

However, I hope the US runs for one of the open seats on this council, so they can more effectively oppose shit like this in the future. Also, I'm glad that Canada did the right thing and voted no.

[PeZook]

I read that article about British teachers dropping the Holocaust from their classes and...damn!

It [the study] found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

It's kinda funny: on one hand, people tip-toe around issues that are sensitive to religious people ; But imagine if a teacher dropped, say, the Moon Landing from his history class because it offended students "whose worldview includes belief in the moon landing hoax"...

[ray245]

I read that article about British teachers dropping the Holocaust from their classes and...damn!

It [the study] found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

It's kinda funny: on one hand, people tip-toe around issues that are sensitive to religious people ; But imagine if a teacher dropped, say, the Moon Landing from his history class because it offended students "whose worldview includes belief in the moon landing hoax"...

Or the fact that the fact that teaching kids the earth is round might be sensitive to people as well.

[PeZook]

It's kind of a popularity contest, I think: I may understand how a teacher doesn't want to get into an argument with half his class over one issue or another (though I don't condone it: dumbshit students really shouldn't be allowed to run their mouths in class).

Though the primary problem, I think aren't dumbshit students as much as dumbshit parents.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or dumbshit teachers. Going only off of personal experience, I've found that the public education system, at least in Canada, is full of idiots and assholes who fuck up and then use the "blame the parents" mantra.

Ultimately, teachers have a responsibility to teach the facts as best they can, teach their students to think rationally and intelligently, and not be intimidated into doing otherwise. It they can't do that, they shouldn't be teaching.

[PeZook]

Ultimately, teachers have a responsibility to teach the facts as best they can, teach their students to think rationally and intelligently, and not be intimidated into doing otherwise. It they can't do that, they shouldn't be teaching.

You know, i totally agree with you, but on the other hand, unless the entire school administration is 100% behind you, a bunch of dumbshit parents can fuck up your career real good, so you can understand why some teachers just try to not make enemies. The problem is more multi-faceted than "just the parents are dumbasses" or "teachers are too cowardly".

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course it is. I don't deny that a lot of the student's beliefs are partly the result of ignorant and/or bigoted parents. And I realize that the teachers may be under a lot of pressure. For all I know, they may even be under threat of violence if they teach things Muslim fundimentalists take offense to. But they are still teachers, and they still have a job to do, and they're still failing to do it. And if the parents are religious bigots, or simply ill-informed, then its all the more important that the teachers give them access to alternative points of views.

[Samuel]

with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela

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,"

This is quite possibly the most ironic part.

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

The UN has always been useless outside of its limited role- it works well as a peacekeeper, but attempts for just about anything else work like 17th century Poland.

[Stark]

Are you saying that a body in which differing countries have equal votes may pass resolutions that the majority prefer, even it it upsets others?

Wow, this democracy thing is pretty new and interesting huh?

That anyone thinks giving a voice to countries with vested interests wouldn't result in them defending those interests with their voting is ridiculous. If the UN membership is stacked such that 'backwards' countries who want this power can out-vote the 'developed' nations who prefer local rights, then... that's just how democracy works.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you saying that a body in which differing countries have equal votes may pass resolutions that the majority prefer, even it it upsets others?

Wow, this democracy thing is pretty new and interesting huh?

That anyone thinks giving a voice to countries with vested interests wouldn't result in them defending those interests with their voting is ridiculous. If the UN membership is stacked such that 'backwards' countries who want this power can out-vote the 'developed' nations who prefer local rights, then... that's just how democracy works.

Most democratic legislatures have checks and balances in place, and adhere to a constitution. Is that the case with the UN? (I honestly don't know, though I suspect the answer is no.)

In any case, even if it was done "democratically," that doesn't mean it isn't retarded, or that we can't treat it as such. Though while the vote might make it seem democratic, democracy undermines itself when it allows censorship, so I wouldn't exactly call this democratic in any case.

Fortunately, the UN has jack shit in terms of actual power to enforce. This is one of those times where the world benefits from the fact that the UN is all to often a clawless, toothless joke.

[Stark]

Oh sure, but the amusingly popular game of bagging out the UN for behaving AS DESIGNED is stupid. That doesn't make this declaration any less retarded, and frankly even if the West vetoes it, that'll just piss of the guys who voted for it as their voice (which is supposed to be heard in the UN) is just ignored.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh sure, but the amusingly popular game of bagging out the UN for behaving AS DESIGNED is stupid.

No no no, Stark, the game is bagging out the UN for being USELESS as designed. What the hell could possibly be wrong with that?

[Stark]

I know it's cool to say things like that, but the whole idea of having an international forum of that type means ALL THOSE COUNTRIES THAT THINK THINGS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH get to say things, and if they outnumber you they can pass resolutions you don't like. Given the vast disparity of culture between the member nations, this is basically inevitable.

Does this surprise you?

[Ryan Thunder]

I know it's cool to say things like that, but the whole idea of having an international forum of that type means ALL THOSE COUNTRIES THAT THINK THINGS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH get to say things, and if they outnumber you they can pass resolutions you don't like. Given the vast disparity of culture between the member nations, this is basically inevitable.

Does this surprise you?

Uh, no, it doesn't particularly surprise me. I don't see how that changes anything, though, either.

[Stark]

It's not uncommon for people to be unable to understand how an international forum almost by definition has to be largely useless. Otherwise, people who don't agree with the big boys will just drop out, and the forum's utility as a place for discussion disappears. The UN was never supposed to be some world government with legions of stormtroopers forcibly uplifting the third world, and it's not.

[Ryan Thunder]

It's not uncommon for people to be unable to understand how an international forum almost by definition has to be largely useless. Otherwise, people who don't agree with the big boys will just drop out, and the forum's utility as a place for discussion disappears. The UN was never supposed to be some world government with legions of stormtroopers forcibly uplifting the third world, and it's not.

That's hardly what I expected it to be, though.

I always envisioned it as a sort of ultimate neutral ground for discussion. In that function, its useless, because instead of being used as a forum for discussion, its used as a platform to have the self-serving resolution of the month passed.

[Stark]

That you can't understand that for countries that disagree with you, this is the first useful thing the UN has done is hilarious to me. To many, this resolution is extremely important, but because you disagree with it it's 'self-serving'.

Don't join the diplomatic corps.

[Ryan Thunder]

That you can't understand that for countries that disagree with you, this is the first useful thing the UN has done is hilarious to me. To many, this resolution is extremely important, but because you disagree with it it's 'self-serving'.

Well, yes. Because we don't agree with it. We have a Parliament of elected representatives to dictate our domestic policy, thank you, and fuck what the rest of the world thinks of it.

Don't join the diplomatic corps.

Well that's probably the most insightful thing you've said in a while. Gee, who would've thought that someone with my temperament isn't cut out for a job as a professional negotiator!

[Prannon]

Just a comment on how the UN works and what it's for. Essentially, it's a forum for discussion. A place where people come to talk and air their grievances. Its resolutions are non-binding, yes, and countries can ignore them and do whatever they want with no real danger of physical consequences.

However, international politics is often a game of symbols, images, gestures, and reputations. Countries across the world spend most of their time crafting an image for everyone else to look at that will help them in their actual diplomacy. Take the recent discussion on North Korea for example. North Korea crafts an image as a dangerous country that you should not mess with, what with its HUGE army and its fancy shmancy missiles! And waaaaaaah! The US and the ROK are practicing to invade us! All of that goes into their defining image at the 6 party talks or whatever is being pursued these days.

So, here we have the UN Human Rights Council voting in favor of a resolution that promotes free speech limitations when it comes to criticism of religion. The advantages of having such a resolution passed is that any country that supports it can point to it whenever they argue with someone who didn't support it. Look! The UNHRC passed this resolution! We have some legitimacy for our position, since technically it's part of international law now! In that case, it's a small victory in the battle of symbols. But let's disassemble the circumstances. First thing I notice is that the vote was split. 23 in favor out of a 47 member council? That's hardly unanimous, and believe me when I say that such resolutions carry even less weight when they're split like that. Second thing I notice is that the body lacks the legitimacy that US membership or approval would confer. The article goes so far as to say that the US has "given up" on the body. So likely very few people in developed nations will take it seriously at all. In fact, "a coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution." Again, there's no unanimity here, so the resolution carries little weight even for a non-binding resolution.

Finally, and just because it is interesting, we see Venezuela voting in favor of the resolution. Personally, I think this is because Venezuela wants to craft a favorable image for Middle Eastern and other developing states, essentially throwing them a bone here. Chavez has always aligned himself closely with Iran to try and counterbalance US diplomatic power, and this is just more of a gesture in that direction.

To those who say that the UN is useless, it's not. It isn't meant to be an enforcing body. It's a mechanism through which states craft their images and make their public statements of policy clear to everyone else. It can also confer legitimacy through its resolutions (the US did try to get a Security Council resolution supporting the invasion of Iraq for precisely that reason). But those who would freak out about this resolution need not worry. The council is derided as a joke by many, and the resolution doesn't have unanimity to back it, on top of the fact that it's non-binding. That can't be stressed enough.

[Stark]

Well, yes. Because we don't agree with it. We have a Parliament of elected representatives to dictate our domestic policy, thank you, and fuck what the rest of the world thinks of it.

Wow.

Well that's probably the most insightful thing you've said in a while. Gee, who would've thought that someone with my temperament isn't cut out for a job as a professional negotiator!

It's not your temperament, it's that you're a complete moron.