Interesting article from the Examiner (I copied the article but the link is below):
"If you had to choose between Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, which would you choose?
Now, youre thinking, I dont have to choose, I already have both. Are you sure?
Last August, the central district court of Tver the oblast or state in which Moscow resides, banned a religious website, jw.org. They did this secretly, not notifying the owners of the website until the day before the ban was to go into effect January 22, 2014. Had they prevailed, their rationale would have been to claim, as they have in the past, that the free speech on jw.org defames other religions. Jw.org won that battle in the court of appeals, but the foundation on which the attack was based still exists.
In 1999, Pakistan brought a resolution to the UN calling for a ban on Defamation of Islam. Cooler heads prevailed and, after much discussion, the Commission on Human Rights passed instead a resolution banning Defamation of Religion.
Over the years from 2000 to 2009 the resolution was added to, revised, strengthened, and re-worded, but it was consistently approved. Aside from the lack of elections, U.N. politicians are no different from any other type. It would have been politically incorrect to be seen as anti-Muslim, especially after 9/11, so passing a bill to protect them from defamation seemed like a good idea. Typical was the vote of the UN General Assembly in December, 2007: 108 for, 51 against, and 25 abstaining.
In 2009, however, Pakistan pushed again. Their resolution that year stated that they were concerned that defamation of religion led to the creation of a kind of Islamophobia in which Muslims were typecast as terrorists." They weren't opposed to freedom of expression, oh no. They merely wanted to ban "expression that led to incitement.
They said the hatred of Muslims was just like the hatred of Jews that Hitler had whipped up in pre-WWII Germany, and look what that led to. Has there been a Muslim krystallnacht that I didnt hear about...the night of August 9, 1938 when Germans destroyed over 7,000 Jewish businesses and over 1,000 synagogues? Even in the days after 9/11 when there was enormous outrage against Muslims, the level of hatred never approached that.
Pakistans proposed resolution said basically that freedom of speech sometimes has to yield in order to maintain peace. Governments such as Russia, Pakistan, and most of the middle east are quick to use this argument: some opinion or expression of yours is causing distress to others; therefore, instead of telling the others to grow up and get over it, they tell you to stop expressing your opinion.
In any case, this was a step too far, and the pendulum began to swing back. Pakistans argument was recognized for what it was, and over 200 civic groups, some Muslim, some Christian, some atheist, demanded that the UN push back.
Over the preceding 10 years, the UN had assigned a special rapporteur to analyze the subject of defamation of religion and report back. The rapporteurs report in 2009 included this telling statement:
[We] encourage a shift away from the sociological concept of the defamation of religions towards the legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred."
Three months later when the United States and Egypt introduced a resolution which condemned "racial and religious stereotyping," EU representative Jean-Baptiste Mattei said the European Union "rejected and would continue to reject the concept of defamation of religions." Significantly, he said:
"Human rights laws did not and should not protect belief systems."
And the representative from Chile pointed out that,
"The concept of the defamation of religion took them in an area that could lead to the actual prohibition of opinions."
A month later, at a human rights meeting in Geneva, the United States representative admitted that defamation of religion is a fundamentally flawed concept. The rep from Sweden repeated what the Frenchman had said earlier: international human rights law protects individuals, not institutions or religions.
By 2011 the backlash was complete.
The UNHRC declared that "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the charter of the Human Rights Committee.
In the years since then, any proposal in the UN attempting to ban defamation of religion has been shot down. Freedom of speech has trumped freedom of religion.
Last week, far from worrying about defamation, the UN came out loudly and publicly chastising the Vatican.
This has never happened before.
Their purported justification for doing so went like this: The Vatican is a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 34 of which reads in part:
Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
The UN accused the Vatican not merely of failing to protect children, but of actively endangering children by their policy of moving pederasts to new parishes where they could continue their predations, and of obfuscating all attempts by law enforcement agencies to find and prosecute the offenders.
Now, heres where it gets really interesting: The UN went further.
They also condemned the Churchs doctrines regarding homosexuality, abortion, and reproductive rights.
Chastising a signatory of a contract for failing to abide by the contract is one thing; Attempting to dictate to a church what their doctrines should be is something else. Where is the UNs authority to do that? Yet they did it anyway.
If, as the UN says, religions and belief systems are not protected by human rights - and I agree, they clearly are not what prevents them from taking the next step: deciding that religions and belief systems are nothing more than ancient superstitions that are doing more harm than good, and that its time to ban them?
Its too bad the UN doesnt have any teeth. Do they? We'll Investigate that next."
Is the UN preparing to attack Religion? - Phoenix Signs of the Times | Examiner.com
And it certainly takes some really grotesque reasoning to construe the UN's (long overdue) reprimand of the Vatican for its complicity in child molestation seem like a bad thing.
