• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

Alla Prima

Well-Known Member
Our freedom of speech is being attacked by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). I believe this freedom should be strongly defended.



GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal backed by Muslims nations Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.

The proposal by Pakistan 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 mostly Western nations opposed it 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."

"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. 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.

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 council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

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.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975SKN01
 

Judgment

Active Member
Our freedom of speech is being attacked by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). I believe this freedom should be strongly defended.



GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal backed by Muslims nations Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.

The proposal by Pakistan 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 mostly Western nations opposed it 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."

"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. 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.

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 council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

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 Associated Press: UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism
Agree. And I agree with India's Ambassador:

"India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism."

We should be able to criticize what we please. This takes away a valuable freedom.


 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
If someone wrongly accuses someone, that's their right. It's up to the one who is being accused to either correct the accuser, or ignore them.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
"Deserve"... or "need."

Criticism is meant to help improvement, not demonetization.

What does money have to do with it?

And criticism, isn't only about helping something/someone improve - it can also just be about expressing what is wrong with something - to both inform others, and as a matter of self-expression.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
What does money have to do with it?

And criticism, isn't only about helping something/someone improve - it can also just be about expressing what is wrong with something - to both inform others, and as a matter of self-expression.

Nothing. I never mentioned money. :confused:

I believe that simply expressing something is wrong (at least without the preface "I think, I believe, etc.) without explaining why is insulting and a waste of time. The explanation of "why" is part of the process of helping them improve.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Fortunately this resolution will have no force behind it.

However, it should stand as an example of the basic mindset of political leadership founded on religion. Of course, it's not as if similar restrictions on political speech have not been established by secular based nations as well in the past or even today.
 

challupa

Well-Known Member
Yeah, this is dumb as hell. If it had teeth behind it, I'd be furious.
At the moment it has no teeth behind it. However, if it is allowed, it then sits there as a law. What happens if they ever do get "teeth" and decide to enforce it? I don't think it should have ever made it to this stage!
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
The rigidity of religious stances should come under criticism because all they do is negatively impact the advancement and betterment of the human race. Ludacris religious must proposals must be criticiized and condemned when necessary. Banning criticism achieves only to inflate fundamentalism which will put us back into the dark ages.
 

no_spoon

Member
"Deserve"... or "need."

Criticism is meant to help improvement, not demonetization.

Riverwolf, I'm afraid you have the words demonization and demonetization confused! Demonization is the action of demonizing someone. Demonetization is removing the monetary value from something.
 

J Bryson

Well-Known Member
At the moment it has no teeth behind it. However, if it is allowed, it then sits there as a law. What happens if they ever do get "teeth" and decide to enforce it? I don't think it should have ever made it to this stage!


Easy.

That's when I buy a gun.
 

bicker

Unitarian Universalist
At the moment it has no teeth behind it. However, if it is allowed, it then sits there as a law. What happens if they ever do get "teeth" and decide to enforce it? I don't think it should have ever made it to this stage!
And beyond that, deliberately ignoring an unjust law rightfully disparages the entity that established the law, and if unenforced that disparagement is institutional rather than personal. Effectively, this resolution further undercuts the scant credibility the UN has left.
 
Top