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

[YT300000]

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.

It's become useless because it doesn't even follow its own rules. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 has this neat bit:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on UN resolution hierarchies, but I'm guessing that one takes precedence. Certainly in North America, a law invalidating (for example) the right to assembly wouldn't do anything against the constitution; a challenge and referendum would have to be enacted first. I have a problem with it because this resolution is directly opposed to the principles of equality the UN was founded on, and has shown that the global majority is, at least in theory, now opposed to them as well.

[hongi]

The HRC is a bloody joke.

with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela

Venezuela is sulking in the corner because the Western bullies are mean. *pout*

Belarus and Venezuela seem to be buddying up. Isn't Belarus a dictatorship?

[K. A. Pital]

Belarus has lots and lots of Orthodox Christians who are, sadly, not much more reasonable about free speech than their Evangelist and Muslim colleagues who would've banned everything "offending the LAWRD" straighaway. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia was also one of the silent backers of this resolution.

Venezuela is sulking in the corner because the Western bullies are mean.

And because Latin America is utterly dominated by religion; and is very much one of the last bastions of anti-secularism in the world (well, Africa is another one but Africa is in stone age still quite often...).

[Hillary]

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?

Do feel free to find a source for this story that isn't a right-wing, hate-mongering rag. The Daily (hate)Mail is notorious for peddling this type of article - normally based on little, if any, evidence.

How does a UN resolution = "sanctioned by government"? As Stark rightly points out, the UN is not and was never intended to be a government.

[hongi]

I think the Daily Wail is trash too, but they did say it was a government report...

[Hillary]

I think the Daily Wail is trash too, but they did say it was a government report...

Well, that obviously makes a big difference....

The Daily Mail (and it's not alone) claims official back up for most of its rhetoric - however, once you look at this evidence, you often find that it doesn't back up the story at all. They misinterpret evidence and/or the conclusions of a report/study as a matter of course.

How else do you think they find the cause/cure for cancer on an almost daily basis?

[Guardsman Bass]

This is the UN Human Rights Council we're talking about here, home to such illustrious bastions of law, freedom, and human dignity as Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, and so forth. The council is more or less a joke, even compared to other councils which are little more than public forums for countries.

[Prannon]

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.

It's become useless because it doesn't even follow its own rules. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 has this neat bit:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on UN resolution hierarchies, but I'm guessing that one takes precedence. Certainly in North America, a law invalidating (for example) the right to assembly wouldn't do anything against the constitution; a challenge and referendum would have to be enacted first. I have a problem with it because this resolution is directly opposed to the principles of equality the UN was founded on, and has shown that the global majority is, at least in theory, now opposed to them as well.

International politics is fuzzy like that. None of what constitutes international "law" can be physically enforced, and it isn't unusual to see things that contradict one another. Indeed, as you pointed out, this resolution by the Human Rights Council contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights quite clearly. Still, that doesn't mean that such resolutions have no use...at least to some people. See, justifying your actions in international politics often means you pick and choose various resolutions, treaties, or agreements that support your position the best. I'm sure that Iran or North Korea or any state can find a resolution or an article in the UDHR somewhere that supports whatever they want to do, at least in some vague way. At the same time, opposing states can find their own resolutions or articles that support their position. That's the way things work in a system with no enforceable law or prevailing government.

Now, as to the hierarchy of UN resolutions and so on... UN resolutions are often considered part of international law once they have been passed, even though they are completely non-binding. For example, many people say that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was illegal because the UN did not condone it, the UN Security Council didn't approve it, and the casus belli was questionable at best and outright lies at worst. International legalistic thinking at work. People may also remember the recent Russo-Georgian conflict, where there were all sorts of arguments over whether Russia had violated international law by intervening.

Anyway, I can say that UN resolutions are pretty high up on the hierarchy. Resolutions that are passed with unanimity carry far more weight than anything else (as I said before, the HRC resolution had a fairly split vote). The Human Rights Declaration also has many more signatories than this resolution ever will, so no need to worry about it superceding the other. I also know that UN Resolutions are superceded by treaties among nations. Bilateral agreements generally carry the most weight, since the language is usually more specific and treaties carry some sort of enforcement clause. Other things that can get lumped with international law include academic studies or statements, and statements by various supranational bodies like the AU, the EU, the OAS, among others.

[Darth Wong]

As if we needed any more indication of just how useless the UN has become, this gem shows up.

It shows us how much of the world thinks. That is precisely what the UN is good for; otherwise, we end up in a cocoon of our own ethnocentric thinking, ignorant of what the outside world thinks.

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?

How is that different from the culturally biased bullshit history in America where Christopher Columbus was a noble explorer, the Battle of the Alamo was a heroic stand of patriots against evil invaders, the Christian Crusades never really happened and weren't that bad anyway, and the country was founded as "One Nation Under God"? Or how about the fact that many high school science teachers are backing off evolution in order to appease the Christians?

Education has ALWAYS been a battleground. Does it only alarm you when the combatants include Muslims?

[YT300000]

Prannon - thanks for the insight into international law. I suppose that due to the non-binding nature of the resolutions, there wasn't really a need to strictly hammer out what overrode what.

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?

Do feel free to find a source for this story that isn't a right-wing, hate-mongering rag. The Daily (hate)Mail is notorious for peddling this type of article - normally based on little, if any, evidence.

Sure, I just grabbed the first hit off Google. Here's the same thing from The Times, and according to the Beeb, Alan Johnson has already handled the issue, which is a good thing. All in all, it's still no less worrying than that school in Kansas which pulled evolution from the curriculum, or the WW2 text put out by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform. At least these are all reasonably isolated cases.

How does a UN resolution = "sanctioned by government"? As Stark rightly points out, the UN is not and was never intended to be a government.

Perhaps governments would have been a better world - the resolution simply shows how many nations with constitutions would support such changes. The UN is indeed mostly a forum for communication, and that's a very good thing.

How is that different from the culturally biased bullshit history in America where Christopher Columbus was a noble explorer, the Battle of the Alamo was a heroic stand of patriots against evil invaders, the Christian Crusades never really happened and weren't that bad anyway, and the country was founded as "One Nation Under God"? Or how about the fact that many high school science teachers are backing off evolution in order to appease the Christians?

Education has ALWAYS been a battleground. Does it only alarm you when the combatants include Muslims?

Please don't try to strawman me with any anti-Muslim insinuations. The situation is indeed quite similar to all those things you mentioned, except that they happen to not be the topic of the thread.

At any rate, preventing criticism of religion is equally dangerous regardless of which religion is being shielded.

[Darth Yoshi]

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.

Oh, that's rich. Islam is only associated with those things because the near-mythical moderate Muslims haven't stepped up to slap down the extremists who are responsible for, and in fact want, sort of attention.

[Darth Wong]

Please don't try to strawman me with any anti-Muslim insinuations. The situation is indeed quite similar to all those things you mentioned, except that they happen to not be the topic of the thread.

Don't give me that horseshit, you fucking backpedaling little weasel. First you quote a worthless right-wing scaremonger rag, and then you rant "what the hell is this world coming to", as if this is some new development or things are getting notably worse. Are you going to pretend you honestly didn't fall for the scaremongering or the notion that this is some new problem that we've not been dealing with (and slowly gaining ground on) for as long as I've been alive?

I grew up with goddamned school prayer, you fucking moron. Things have gotten better, and that's one of the reasons you see these kinds of backlashes from the reactionaries.

[Hillary]

Sure, I just grabbed the first hit off Google. Here's the same thing from The Times, and according to the Beeb, Alan Johnson has already handled the issue, which is a good thing. All in all, it's still no less worrying than that school in Kansas which pulled evolution from the curriculum, or the WW2 text put out by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform. At least these are all reasonably isolated cases.

Are you aware that the BBC article doesn't support your point? It clearly states that the concerns of the Historical Association, the body that issued the report, are that

Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons, some of which are well-intentioned.

Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes.

It gives several examples, including that of ONE school which had stopped teaching the Holocaust. One school does not equate "the Holocaust being dropped from history courses in the U.K. for fear of offending Muslims". In fact, Alan Johnson made it clear that the teaching of the Holocaust was at the time part of the syllabus and would continue to be so, i.e. the school in question was not complying with the rules.

I'll add to this that the story in question is 2 years old - your implication was that this is a recent event.

[Garibaldi]

I don't understand the furor over this resolution. The UN human rights council is so famously useless that I don't know why anyone would get worked up about a resolution supported only by dictatorships and Muslim nations that has zero practical effect.

Oh, that's rich. Islam is only associated with those things because the near-mythical moderate Muslims haven't stepped up to slap down the extremists who are responsible for, and in fact want, sort of attention.

This assertion doesn't exactly make a lot of sense given that there are Afghanis and Pakistanis dying every day in the fight against Muslim extremism. I'm not sure what else you could ask of them, or how you propose moderate Muslims and their leaders could possibly "slap down" extremists who view them as apostates and heretics.

[Darth Yoshi]

But they're not getting any PR over it. The only ones who are visible and spreading any sort of message are the extremists. Not to denigrate their lives, but it doesn't matter what they do or how many lives are lost if they're not being vocal and letting people know that extremists don't speak for everyone.

[Stark]

In places like Australia, this is almost totally due to the senastionalist media screaming anything vaguely representable as EV0L MOSL3MS being UNSTRAYN while totally ignoring the vast majority of Muslims who are involved in nothing of the sort. Certainly it's a community with an image problem, but this is not entirely their fault.

[Garibaldi]

But they're not getting any PR over it. The only ones who are visible and spreading any sort of message are the extremists. Not to denigrate their lives, but it doesn't matter what they do or how many lives are lost if they're not being vocal and letting people know that extremists don't speak for everyone.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. If you don't think the battle between the Pakistani government (fractured though it may be) and the Afghan government against the Taliban is "visible" then that's because you're not paying attention. There's really no other way to put it.

[Darth Wong]

But they're not getting any PR over it.

And why do you feel that is their fault, and not ours? When you say "PR", what you mean is "Attention paid to them in the western world".

Frankly, moderate Muslims stand up to their extremist brethren at least as well as moderate Christians do. How many moderate Christians marched along to the beat of George W. Bush's war drums, even when the fucking fundie lunatic actually came out and called it a crusade?

[YT300000]

Are you aware that the BBC article doesn't support your point? It clearly states that the concerns of the Historical Association, the body that issued the report, are that

Right, let's re-read the relevant bit of my post before I respond to this. "Here's the same thing from The Times, and according to the Beeb, Alan Johnson has already handled the issue, which is a good thing."

Notice how all I said about the BBC was that they mentioned the issue had already been dealt with. But I'll concede the semantic argument, since I did call the curriculum remark up from memory (I'd read about it in several places some time ago, but forgotten the details), and only checked it against the first source that came up.

Please don't try to strawman me with any anti-Muslim insinuations. The situation is indeed quite similar to all those things you mentioned, except that they happen to not be the topic of the thread.

Don't give me that horseshit, you fucking backpedaling little weasel. First you quote a worthless right-wing scaremonger rag, and then you rant "what the hell is this world coming to", as if this is some new development or things are getting notably worse. Are you going to pretend you honestly didn't fall for the scaremongering or the notion that this is some new problem that we've not been dealing with (and slowly gaining ground on) for as long as I've been alive?

I grew up with goddamned school prayer, you fucking moron. Things have gotten better, and that's one of the reasons you see these kinds of backlashes from the reactionaries.

A worthless rag that I bet you never read. Neither do I, hence being unaware of it's political affiliations. Either way, teachers being unwilling to teach the Holocaust is a story corroborated by The Times, which supported Labour in the last two elections, so bias is effectively a non-issue.

For the record, I had the school prayer too, back in elementary during the early-mid 90's. It was the end point of a daily ritual beginning with the singing of O Canada and followed by an American-style salute to the flag. This definitely isn't a new problem, but I'm utterly taken aback by its scope, as revealed by this resolution.

I find it hard to believe that it would have been passed by so many countries 10 years ago; it seems likely that the events of the past decade have brought about an upswing in popular fundamentalism. Certainly in the US, public viewpoints shifted to the right for a number of years, enough that a President like Bush could get re-elected. In terms of religious protectionism, this resolution is cut from the same cloth, just on the other side of the world - and I don't see why I should treat it any differently.

[Darth Yoshi]

Point. I hadn't considered that, as rare as coverage moderate Christians opposing fundies is, even that only gets covered because of cultural familiarity.

[CJvR]

LOL! A UN human rights council dominated by the worst offenders on the planet! Yeah that is credible, noone knows more about human rights and religous tolerance than Africans and the Muslim nations. Why I have not heard of Pakistanis, the sponsor if this bull, butchering their Shia minority or sentencing young girls to be gang raped in weeks.

Nice to see Sir Humprey's truth about the UN being the international forum for the expression of hate is still valid.

[Darth Wong]

A worthless rag that I bet you never read. Neither do I, hence being unaware of it's political affiliations. Either way, teachers being unwilling to teach the Holocaust is a story corroborated by The Times, which supported Labour in the last two elections, so bias is effectively a non-issue.

Are you honestly so goddamned dense that you couldn't tell it was a right-wing muck-raking rag by just looking at it? And why the fuck are you reporting it at news when it's such an old article? Did you get linked to it by a blog or some other shit-disturber? Right-wing muck-rakers are always ranting about political correctness in schools; it's one of their favourite hobby-horses. Is this show of ignorance a deliberate affectation in order to cover up being hoodwinked by right-wing bullshit, or are you actually so slow that you can't see these things until somebody spells them out for you?

For the record, I had the school prayer too, back in elementary during the early-mid 90's. It was the end point of a daily ritual beginning with the singing of O Canada and followed by an American-style salute to the flag. This definitely isn't a new problem, but I'm utterly taken aback by its scope, as revealed by this resolution.

Nice backpedal from your "What the hell is the world coming to" bullshit. And don't tell me you're actually "taken aback" to learn that Muslim countries think religion should be protected from criticism. What are you, fucking retarded? Have you been living in a cave for your entire life? They tried to kill Salman Rushdie, moron. How the fuck does this declaration of "people should not be allowed to attack religion" shock you?

[MoralCompass]

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.

It's become useless because it doesn't even follow its own rules. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 has this neat bit:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on UN resolution hierarchies, but I'm guessing that one takes precedence. Certainly in North America, a law invalidating (for example) the right to assembly wouldn't do anything against the constitution; a challenge and referendum would have to be enacted first. I have a problem with it because this resolution is directly opposed to the principles of equality the UN was founded on, and has shown that the global majority is, at least in theory, now opposed to them as well.

You forgot Article 29, part 3

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

If the UN doesn't like what you are doing with your rights, then you don't get to have them anymore. Basically, the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a joke.

[Stark]

LOL! A UN human rights council dominated by the worst offenders on the planet! Yeah that is credible, noone knows more about human rights and religous tolerance than Africans and the Muslim nations. Why I have not heard of Pakistanis, the sponsor if this bull, butchering their Shia minority or sentencing young girls to be gang raped in weeks.

Nice to see Sir Humprey's truth about the UN being the international forum for the expression of hate is still valid.

More myopia? What is it about international politics - particularly that based on democracy and representation - that makes people say such fucking stupid shit? Oh damn, a body made up of a majority that doesn't agree with your views on rights said something you don't agree with.

It's like now you know how they've felt all this time! It's utterly tragic that you're so fucking stupid the idea that a representative international body largely full of shitbox backward countries would vote for this sort of thing makes you break into right-wing rant mode. Turns out the world is full of hate? WHO KNEW? Damn UN! None of these issues would exist if we didn't allow them to be aired on an international stage!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I love how this thread seems to have completely ignored the fact that a UN resolution not supported by all five permanent security council members is non-binding and can be ignored.