Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?

[Riverwolf]

They can't take legal action, though, in western countries with hate speech laws. Islamic states are simply trying to make their domestic blasphemy laws universal, but of course they will not succeed. Elevating religion to an exalted status beyond criticism or satire is not what our hate speech laws are designed to do. They are a mild disincentive to publishing literature advocating violence, murder or genocide against any particular group. Considering many of the existing laws in the Islamic world would qualify as hate speech in Western countries (ie. the death penalty for homosexuals, apostates and loose women), I think it very unlikely we will find any common ground any time soon.

Universality is a common theme for declarations of rights passed by the UN. It can never be acceptable for ONLY religious people to benefit from a certain initiative.

It's a can of worms, anyway. If they succeed it's only a matter of time before the United Church of Loose Women gains a foothold in their own countries, and benefits from this same initiative. I will be their pope!

Well, like I said, I'm not talking about hate speech.

When I'm referring to "speech that causes direct harm", I'm not just talking about yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Hate speech advocating violence could easily be taken as direct threats, which need to be dealt with legally since there's no way of knowing whether they'll be acted upon or not.

So, I'm all for the regulation of hate speech, so long as it's well-defined, which it typically is.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I want to know two things, who enforces this law if enacted and what are the penalties?

 

[F0uad]

Why are ''muslim'' countries mentioned while Russia was one who made the biggest deal about it in the UN?

I think there is a huge difference between Europe and America in Europe they are using a double-standards such as anything that goes against races or Jews is forbidden but if they are muslims its free game. For example in France if you deny the holocaust your fined with a huge amount of money.

 

[Me Myself]

I am not religious panentheist, and have no way of voting given the current options.

I am absolutely against the law. I cannot believe such an insufferably stupid law has been seriously conceived and my faith in humanity keeps dropping to a point I have no idea how this managed to be.

 

[Vinayaka]

The UN isn't very functional anyway. Look how well the declaration of human rights is going. But in principle, I don't think anyone should be ridiculed for anything. Bullying has no place in religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why are ''muslim'' countries mentioned while Russia was one who made the biggest deal about it in the UN?

It's true that some of the sponsoring countries aren't mostly Muslim. But "Muslim countries" is a useful shorthand way to refer to countries which sponsored in recognition of Muslims' wants.

I think there is a huge difference between Europe and America in Europe they are using a double-standards such as anything that goes against races or Jews is forbidden but if they are muslims its free game. For example in France if you deny the holocaust your fined with a huge amount of money.

It looks like hypocrisy to me too.

 

[Storm]

It looks like hypocrisy to me too.

I can sorta see the logic behind it, but yeah. Push comes to shove, it's a double standard.

 

[McBell]

Being decent doesn’t have a lot to do with never hurting someone’s feelings, it does however have a lot to do with not engaging in deliberate provocative actions designed to tear someone down.

would you please be so kind as to present your proposed hierarchy?

 

[apophenia]

Someone in the 1970s said "We are rapidly moving towards a world where everything which is not compulsory is illegal".

Sadly, there is a serious truth in that remark.

I can see a law like this being supported by every kind of control freak, dictator and anal-retentive wowser, because it validates the notion of government-controlled expression of opinion.


Will the UN be declaring that all religious views, and any new religion, has this 'protection' ? Who will decide if a new religion (or any existing religion) is legitimate ? This is so Big Brother it is breath-taking and nauseating.

It is the thin edge of the wedge.

I have observed communities where every moment of the day had prescribed duties - I'm thinking of initiated devotees in the hare krishna movement - the rationale was that by making every moment and every action subject to one religious obligation or another, the mind would be kept 'on track'. This is very similar to the ongoing conditioning process of Islam, which any person educated in basic psychology would recognise as classical mind-control ( IMO) .

It is precisely this appalling micro-management of human behaviour which turned me from being sympathetic towards Islam to considering it as evil an influence as any dictator. There is a human tendency to abdicate from the moral obligation to make personal reasoned judgements, and replace that with conformity to a set of rules, which effectively creates a society of ritualised zombies, who lack the capacity or inclination to use their own judgement. Permanent infantilism, in other words.

I find it utterly offensive that my behaviour must be modified to accomodate the fearful and IMO ignorant , who are terrified of the implications of freedom and responsibility. Whole cultures are suffering from something akin to Stockhiolm Syndrome IMO.


If this curse is allowed to stand, the encouragement given to the fearful control-freaks will only result in even more demands, and give those demands the appearance of social responsibility.

The demand for obedience is the same whether it is Islam, communist totalitarianism, or violent dictatorship.

BTW ... will it be illegal for Sunnis and Shias to insult one another ? Because on any given day, the vast majority of insults to muslims come from other muslims.

Do muslims demand that it be illegal for Sunnis to vilify Shias ? No.

Do muslims demand that it be illegal for muslims to call non-muslims 'kaffirs' ? No.

Do muslims demand that it be illegal for muslims (or christians) to attempt to terrify the children of the world with threats of hell and eternal punishment ? No.

Given that muslims cannot stop vilifying one another, this law is a sickening bad joke, and utter hypocrisy.

Mohammed has created a monster ! How can all non-muslims be expected to respect a religion, when Mohammed himself said that 72 of its 73 sects are so wrong they will go to hell ? Would Mohammed be charged with religious vilification for saying that ? It is beyond a bad joke.

Your children's children's children will hate you for allowing this. This is one giant leap backward to medieval superstition and mind-control, all based on the politics and tribal wars of one isolated medieval culture.

Why should the majority of humans tolerate any intolerant institution which considers them to be beneath respect ? Seriously, is 'kaffir' not used as as a vilification of non-muslims ? Why are only muslims to be allowed to disrespect everyone else (including each other) ?

 

[Pegg]

i heard in the news that some countries will goes to UN to establish new LAW , about ban provocation against all religions .

notice :
as i considerate "mock/insult/lie" as attack
against other beliefs ,it's not forcely mean it's prohibition the debate or discuss other religions .

please vote and describe your opinion " why you vote with or against "

for me :
i voted , with law of prohibition , because i found that some people use the freedom of speech, for me the freedom of speech was used by some people to encourage the hate and racism ....etc

i dont care either way really.

i dont support the un.

 

[Godobeyer]

I hope to find an atheist with the law "from his heart", that's mean lot of me .
-just one question , is not mock and lie and insult bad things ? or it's just good things to use it against religions ?

 

[apophenia]

I hope to find an atheist with the law "from his heart", that's mean lot of me .
-just one question , is not mock and lie and insult bad things ? or it's just good things to use it against religions ?

If the religion speaks truth, why would mockery matter ? Can we hurt god's feelings ? Is the faith of muslims so weak that they can't handle it ?

And is it OK for the religious to mock the non-religious ?

It seems to me that if it is right to make mocking religion illegal, then it must be right to make mocking 'kaffirs' illegal.

In my opinion, making either illegal is stupid and unnecessary - and please note Godobeyer, that the kaffirs have more moral strength - they do not feel threatened and outraged by insults as many muslims do, and they are not currently burning down mosques because of the cowardly murders done by muslims, and the burning of buddhist temples etc etc etc. Do you realise that muslims are totally disgracing themselves over this, and showing their immaturity and lack of tolerance, to the extent of murder and rampage ? How can you compare such barbaric and primitive behaviour to an 'insult' ?

What do you think ? Should muslims be legally forbidden to be insulting of kaffirs ?

Please give a clear answer to that last question Godobeyer. Explain why it should be legal for muslims to insult non-muslims, especially atheists, please.

And remember - the non-muslims are not so weak in their feelings and beliefs that they are demanding the silencing of muslims, although they are demanding that muslims stop making death threats and committing actual murder and burning temples over 'insults', which is pathetic, brutal and subhuman IMO.

So I repeat my question Godobeyer, Should muslims be legally forbidden to be insulting of kaffirs ?

 

[FanaticStudy]

Never shall we accept restrictions on free speech, never ever.
The day this happens is the day I'll fight back.

The issue here is not that people publish offending things about certain religions.
The issue is that these people that take offense, are not capable of ignoring and looking the other way.

I would hate to live your life, if all things that offend you, you had to make a stand against it.
I meet things every day that offends me, like DEEPLY offends me, but I don't do nothing about it, because guess what, in the end it's nothing but words and provocation.

If you're strong in your religion and faith, you shouldn't care what other people think, say or do.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Never shall we accept restrictions on free speech, never ever.
The day this happens is the day I'll fight back.

The issue here is not that people publish offending things about certain religions.
The issue is that these people that take offense, are not capable of ignoring and looking the other way.

I would hate to live your life, if all things that offend you, you had to make a stand against it.
I meet things every day that offends me, like DEEPLY offends me, but I don't do nothing about it, because guess what, in the end it's nothing but words and provocation.

If you're strong in your religion and faith, you shouldn't care what other people think, say or do.

We all act like we are so advanced in society. It was not that long ago that if a man was insulted, he would challenge a person to a duel.

The people would stand in the street and shoot at each other. If I am not mistaken, our founding father James Madison died in a duel. It was about honor.

Thank God our country has progressed, but to think other countries should progress at the same pace we have is not realistic. Even our own country has not reached perfection just yet. Gay marriage comes to mind.

That said, I do not recognise the UN to have any authority over me. They cannot control my speech nor can they take my guns away.

I am not a world citizen, I am an American. I pledge allegiance to the United States not the U.N.

Honestly, the UN can kiss my bottom and if they ever attempt to control me, I am willing to fight to the death over this issue.

Live free or die!

 

[RedJamaX]

i heard in the news that some countries will goes to UN to establish new LAW , about ban provocation against all religions .

notice :
as i considerate "mock/insult/lie" as attack
against other beliefs ,it's not forcely mean it's prohibition the debate or discuss other religions .

please vote and describe your opinion " why you vote with or against "

for me :
i voted , with law of prohibition , because i found that some people use the freedom of speech, for me the freedom of speech was used by some people to encourage the hate and racism ....etc

The religions for which this type of law is created, "preach" peace and tolerance... why then, do we need laws to prevent those followers from "not" being peaceful and tolerant? Any time you restrict non-violent freedoms (freedom of speech), then you lead into more and more control, more government, and even less freedoms except for those to make the laws.

Those who become violent because of mere words should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The retaliatory violence is the offense of the one who is committing the violence, not the one who spoke his mind... UNLESS, it was done, and can be proven to have been done, for the sole purpose of inciting a riot.

In the most recent situation, and several times throughout recent history, Islam has been the violently responding religion. I would go as far to say they a standard has been set for them that any comment that might even remotely poke fun at them or more specifically, Muhammad, would incite a demonstration somewhere in the world.

I also realize that those Muslin participating in the demonstrations, many of which become violent, are NOT the majority, but the more extreme Muslims. There are many videos on the Internet from other Muslims preaching to their own people and urging them to not act in that manner... But rather, to be tolerant.

All in all, penalty for "speech" is a very dangerous path to take for the evolution of human society. It leads only to Totalitarianism.

 

[Rakhel]

The people would stand in the street and shoot at each other. If I am not mistaken, our founding father James Madison died in a duel. It was about honor.

I think you may be thinking about the Burr-Hamilton duel. Burr fatally wounded Hamilton in that fight.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you may be thinking about the Burr-Hamilton duel. Burr fatally wounded Hamilton in that fight.

[youtube]OLSsswr6z9Y[/youtube]
Original "got milk?" commercial - Who shot Alexander Hamilton? - YouTube

 

[Storm]

I hope to find an atheist with the law "from his heart", that's mean lot of me .
-just one question , is not mock and lie and insult bad things ? or it's just good things to use it against religions ?

Generally speaking, yes, they're bad. However, that's not the foundation of my objection.

 

[FanaticStudy]

We all act like we are so advanced in society. It was not that long ago that if a man was insulted, he would challenge a person to a duel.

The people would stand in the street and shoot at each other. If I am not mistaken, our founding father James Madison died in a duel. It was about honor.

Thank God our country has progressed, but to think other countries should progress at the same pace we have is not realistic. Even our own country has not reached perfection just yet. Gay marriage comes to mind.

That said, I do not recognise the UN to have any authority over me. They cannot control my speech nor can they take my guns away.

I am not a world citizen, I am an American. I pledge allegiance to the United States not the U.N.

Honestly, the UN can kiss my bottom and if they ever attempt to control me, I am willing to fight to the death over this issue.

Live free or die!

But see, that's the thing, I shouldn't have my freedom of speech affected, because someone, thousands of miles away feel offended.

It really is as simple as ignoring and looking the other way.

I understand where you're coming from with your arugment, but it can't be my problem that certain parts of the world aren't as developed as it needs to be.

 

[McBell]

Thank God our country has progressed, but to think other countries should progress at the same pace we have is not realistic.

I could care less that other countries have not progressed as fast as we have..
In fact, let them steep in their primitive ways until they petrify for all I care.

I do, however, care that they have the gall to think that every country should go backwards and join them in the dark ages.