UN Resolution 16/18 impinges on freedom of expression

[Estro Felino]

After all, if easily offended and touchy people can't be free from feeling like they're being mocked or judged, are any of us really free?

well..all the individualistic freedoms are supposed to match with one another.
That's what a state is for: for satisfying all the requests.
and if people are touchy...who cares? they'll survive.

 

[Sunstone]

Your reluctance offends me. I'm telling the police.

Fine! I'm writing my Congressman.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm pretty sure you're right, but I'm reluctant to say so for fear of offending someone, somewhere, at some point in time.

I suspect you're being sarcastic. Sarcasm is offensive to me! I implore the mods to immediately implement a anti-sarcasm policy to protect those of us offended by sarcasm, and to ban you to set an example!

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect you're being sarcastic. Sarcasm is offensive to me! I implore the mods to immediately implement a anti-sarcasm policy to protect those of us offended by sarcasm, and to ban you to set an example!

You'll be hearing from my joke writers! To say nothing of my attorneys.

 

[Alceste]

well...honestly. Freedom of speech implies that anyone can say what they really think about religions. Religions are abstract concepts, they are not people.
Okay, if you insult people, you can be sued. But what about religions?

In my country any thinker or writer can say what they think about Christianity. A professor, who is an atheist wrote several books in which he analyzes the Bible and concludes saying that it is a book for loonies. Not to mention what he says about Mary, Jesus and the apostles.
Is this a crime? Is this blasphemy?
No. anyone is free to criticize any religion. It is called freedom of thought.

I agree, but when someone starts saying this or that group should be persecuted, harassed or killed for whatever reason I think their security has a higher priority in society than some absolutist view of free speech.

Here's another example - Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist pop culture critic who recently had to flee her home with her family because she was receiving threats that someone knew where she lived and wanted to rape her to death with the help of a tire iron. She reported this to police, and they told her if she didn't want rape and death threats she should stop criticizing pop culture from a feminist perspective.

Now, would you say that the person writing those threats was simply exercising their sacred right to free speech?

For the most part, we do draw the line somewhere in every country. The right to free speech is never absolute. Death threats, bomb threats, harassment, libel - there are all kinds of situations where the exercise of free speech can already lead to uncomfortable entanglements with authority figures.

In my country, hate speech is one of those situations, and to me it is a trivial issue. Nobody is prohibited from criticizing any ideas or philosophies, we are only required not to disseminate hate speech that advocates the persecution of any group on the basis of their gender, religion, ethnicity, ability or sexuality.

Does anybody really think material promoting violence against people of a certain religion is a GOOD thing?

 

[Alceste]

A government should never have the power to dictate to the people what they can or cannot think or say, regardless of how ignorant, irrational, and/or repugnant it may be. This desire to police the thoughts and words of others is quite Orwellian and a recipe for tyranny.

In a free and civilized society, you allow an idea to be spoken, and then it should be openly examined, critiqued, scrutinized, and then if found false, rebutted and dismissed.
People should be taught to use critical thought to identify and counter dumb ideas. Censorship is for cowards.

So you would argue that the police should make no attempt to investigate and prosecute the man who is sending death threats to Anita Sarkeesian?

 

[Alceste]

Wait ... who is advocating violence ?

The resolution calls on member states to take measures to suppress speech that incites imminent violence against others on the basis of their religion. For example, "death to Muslims".

 

[Estro Felino]

In my country, hate speech is one of those situations, and to me it is a trivial issue. Nobody is prohibited from criticizing any ideas or philosophies, we are only required not to disseminate hate speech that advocates the persecution of any group on the basis of their gender, religion, ethnicity, ability or sexuality.

Does anybody really think material promoting violence against people of a certain religion is a GOOD thing?

all right...but I didn't speak about violence or threats.
We have to distinguish between religions and people. If I criticize a religion, I am not harming anyone. And I am not bringing hatred.

If I say that a religion is based upon evil principles, I am not authorizing people to persecute the followers of that religion.
Given that I believe in goodness and peace, I will always condemn violence.

so in other words: you are free to criticize religions, but not people.
I don't think it's difficult to get

 

[Poeticus]

The resolution calls on member states to take measures to suppress speech that incites imminent violence against others on the basis of their religion. For example, "death to Muslims".

Would the resolution involve "death to idolatrous kafirs", also ? I ask because I like my statue of Goddess Saraswati very much.

 

[Alceste]

all right...but I didn't speak about violence or threats.
We have to distinguish between religions and people. If I criticize a religion, I am not harming anyone. And I am not bringing hatred.

If I say that a religion is based upon evil principles, I am not authorizing people to persecute the followers of that religion.
Given that I believe in goodness and peace, I would always condemn violence.

so in other words: you are free to criticize religions, but not people.
I don't think it's difficult to get

Yes, and this resolution does not call for member states to suppress criticism of religious beliefs. It calls on member states to suppress speech that specifically calls for violence against people on the basis of their religious belief. You know, like Mein Kampf. Did the world really need that book?

 

[Father Heathen]

I agree, but when someone starts saying this or that group should be persecuted, harassed or killed for whatever reason I think their security has a higher priority in society than some absolutist view of free speech.

Here's another example - Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist pop culture critic who recently had to flee her home with her family because she was receiving threats that someone knew where she lived and wanted to rape her to death with the help of a tire iron. She reported this to police, and they told her if she didn't want rape and death threats she should stop criticizing pop culture from a feminist perspective.

Now, would you say that the person writing those threats was simply exercising their sacred right to free speech?

For the most part, we do draw the line somewhere in every country. The right to free speech is never absolute. Death threats, bomb threats, harassment, libel - there are all kinds of situations where the exercise of free speech can already lead to uncomfortable entanglements with authority figures

Straw man. Threats and harassment obviously goes beyond mere speech. There is an obvious difference between saying "I dislike group X" and "I'm going to kill because you belong to group X".

In my country, hate speech is one of those situations, and to me it is a trivial issue. Nobody is prohibited from criticizing any ideas or philosophies, we are only required not to disseminate hate speech that advocates the persecution of any group on the basis of their gender, religion, ethnicity, ability or sexuality.

Yes, we know how "hate speech" laws work.

Does anybody really think material promoting violence against people of a certain religion is a GOOD thing?

No one said it was a "good" thing, but having the government dictating what we can think, say, and feel, and then punishing people for mere words is a far worse thing.

Big boys and girls use critical thought to identify, rebut, and dismiss ignorant and irrational notions. Cowards crave censorship to silence the silly things that cause them collapse and quiver in the fetal position.

 

[Alceste]

Would the resolution involve "death to idolatrous kafirs", also ? I ask because I like my statue of Goddess Saraswati very much.

By my reading, it would. OTOH, I always interpret the phrase "religious beliefs" to include all beliefs relating to religion, including my own view that it's all a bunch of horse puckey. So to comply with this resolution, I'm not allowed to say "death to Muslims", but they are also not allowed to say "death to Alceste".

 

[Alceste]

Straw man. Threats and harassment obviously goes beyond mere speech. There is an obvious difference between saying "I dislike group X" and "I'm going to kill because you belong to group X".

Right, and the resolution calls on states to address the latter while leaving the former alone. That's why I don't see the problem with it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, and this resolution does not call for member states to suppress criticism of religious beliefs. It calls on member states to suppress speech that specifically calls for violence against people on the basis of their religious belief. You know, like Mein Kampf. Did the world really need that book?

precisely. Violence is another thing. But it is not related to religion exclusively, but also with sexuality, race etc etc
so a speech can call for violence against anyone: gays, blacks, or religious minorities...
and in that case that speech cannot be tolerated.

But let's distinguish a speech that simply expresses an opinion from a speech that encourages violence.
A critic has the right to say what they think about gays. But it doesn't imply that their speech is encouraging homophobia or violent acts towards gays

 

[Phil25]

In order to evaluate UN resolution 16/18 some context is important.

For over a decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has been pushing the UN to create blasphemy resolutions. You might ask yourself why they're so focused on this goal?

In practice what we see in the world is an asymmetric situation in which:

1 - OIC countries are systematically "cleansing" their countries of other religions. I understand that "cleansing" is a charged and often understood term. "Cleansing" does not mean bloodshed. A "cleansing" initiative often does involve violence, but it doesn't have to. So in practice, OIC countries are systematically INTOLERANT of other religions.

2 - At the same time, the OIC complains endlessly of intolerance towards Islam in "the West", and in other regions experiencing significant Muslim immigration.

== Who will brandish a blasphemy law?

It's fair to ask, "If blasphemy resolutions are passed, who is likely to use them effectively?".

For decades, the countries represented by the OIC have fought against the UN's original human rights declaration, which was first adopted in 1948. In 1990, the OIC established the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam". This document clearly puts the needs of Islam before individual human rights.

In a nutshell, any UN resolution that ratifies the very idea of blasphemy is a club that will be used by Islam against the non-Islamic world, and it will not be used in the opposite direction.

== Who judges speech for "blasphemy" ?

Quite famously in 2006, a handful of Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad sparked riots, violence and deaths across the world. (As a bit of history, initially these cartoons were published and largely went unnoticed. Months later Islamists found and re-surfaced these cartoons to stir controversy. In addition, a group of Muslim authorities petitioned the Danish Prime Minister to censor these cartoons. They were - in effect - asking another country to attack "blasphemy".)

Several decades ago Salman Rushdie published a novel critical of Islam. The head of Iran issued a fatwa putting a price on the author's head, again blasphemy.

So who will judge whether a given bit of speech or expression is blasphemous?

Who will judge whether a cartoon might "incite violence"?

== UN 16/18 chips away at freedom of expression

I claim (and I'm not alone), that UN resolution 16/18 was a victory for the OIC and represents a threat to freedom of expression. Taking the previous context in mind, here are a few passages from the resolution:



Paragraph 5(f) paves the way to criminalizing speech that some "authority" deems to be blasphemous.

Without the historic context, this resolution reads as if it's "reasonable". But with the context I've laid out, it's more reasonable to extrapolate that the OIC can and will use this resolution to limit criticism of Islam and to attempt to impinge on free of expression.

Freedom of expression is a linchpin of human rights, modernity and secularism. We must not allow even the slightest of erosions to our hard fought freedoms of expression.

Stuff like these points to me that Islam is not compatible with the basic Freedom of Speech.

 

[Alceste]

precisely. Violence is another thing. But it is not related to religion exclusively, but also with sexuality, race etc etc
so a speech can call for violence against anyone: gays, blacks, or religious minorities...
and in that case that speech cannot be tolerated.

But let's distinguish a speech that simply expresses an opinion from a speech that encourages violence.
A critic has the right to say what they think about gays. But it doesn't imply that their speech is encouraging homophobia or violent acts towards gays

Exactly. This resolution is very carefully worded to specifically address speech that advocates violence against people on the basis of their religion. The fact that we have this resolution specific to religion doesn't preclude other resolutions on speech that calls for violence against people for other reasons.

Anyway, it's much ado about nothing. UN resolutions are not laws, and they don't supersede the laws and customs of any member state. They simply establish some common diplomatic ground across a huge spectrum of members with very, very different beliefs on how society should be. I think that's a useful project, and I'm willing to tolerate some of the lame stuff that religious countries want in exchange for the awesome stuff that I want, like the UN resolutions on the rights of women and aboriginals.

 

[icehorse]

Cartoons of Muhammad threatened no violence and no person.
"The Satanic Verses" threatened no violence and no person.

This is what the OP is about. It's not about personal threats. I'd also say that this is the common definition of free speech.

We can cite case after case in which religious leaders act to suppress expression of ideas. In fact bishops, arch-bishops and I believe the pope his-own-self rushed to admonish the author of the Satanic Verses. These religious "authorities" didn't admonish the fatwa or it's creation, they admonished the author for causing offense.

This is the problem I was addressing. Such censorship actions ARE happening around the world. Perhaps not in friendly Canada, but in many regions where human rights aren't so solid.

 

[sandandfoam]

We have blasphemy laws here and the sky has not fallen in.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like blasphemy.
America likes blasphemy.
Blasphemy is here to stay.
Sept 30 is Blasphemy Day.
I will mock:
Xians, Muslims, Hindus, Pastafarians, Jains, Zoros, Animists, deists, JWs, Mormons, Baptists,
Unitarians, Scientologists, pantheists, Starwarians, & anyone else who requests my mirth.

 

[Alceste]

Cartoons of Muhammad threatened no violence and no person.
"The Satanic Verses" threatened no violence and no person.

This is what the OP is about. It's not about personal threats. I'd also say that this is the common definition of free speech.

We can cite case after case in which religious leaders act to suppress expression of ideas. In fact bishops, arch-bishops and I believe the pope his-own-self rushed to admonish the author of the Satanic Verses. These religious "authorities" didn't admonish the fatwa or it's creation, they admonished the author for causing offense.

This is the problem I was addressing. Such censorship actions ARE happening around the world. Perhaps not in friendly Canada, but in many regions where human rights aren't so solid.

I thought the OP was about resolution 16/18?