UN Resolution 16/18 impinges on freedom of expression

[CMike]

The UN is a threat to freedom.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Freedom of speech and expression are the cornerstones of most all other freedoms.

Possession of child pornography would be an example of a limitation to free speech.
There is no 100% right to unlimited free speech. Discussions are more around where the limits should be placed.

 

[CMike]

Possession of child pornography would be an example of a limitation to free speech.
There is no 100% right to unlimited free speech. Discussions are more around where the limits should be placed.

And that why we have local governments.

I don't want to be subject to an ethically challenged UN to make the laws I live under.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And that why we have local governments.

I don't want to be subject to an ethically challenged UN to make the laws I live under.

Yeah, I'm actually not addressing the OP directly (for which I apologize).
Just making the point that there are restrictions on freedom of speech everywhere (that I know of) and that we shouldn't automatically associate complete freedom of speech with complete freedom.

 

[Shad]

So you're okay with me thinking and saying people should harm your family? There's a line.

You can think this all your want. Unless you want thought crime in the justice system. Saying or acting on your thoughts is different. Thought crime is religious to the core.

 

[Alceste]

You can think this all your want. Unless you want thought crime in the justice system. Saying or acting on your thoughts is different. Thought crime is religious to the core.

Hateful thoughts =/= incitement to discriminatory violence.

I do want the justice system to cause at least a little bit of trouble to anyone who thinks it's OK to publicly call for death to any demographic they happen to hate. And I don't mind them investigating verbal threats and harassment either.

If the police can descend like a swarm of locusts on a kid who jokes about blowing up the airport because he's annoyed that his flight was delayed, I'd expect them to spare a few moments to chat with the giant pack of misogynistic idiots who send rape and death threats to the likes of Anita Sarkeesian.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You can think this all your want. Unless you want thought crime in the justice system. Saying or acting on your thoughts is different. Thought crime is religious to the core.

Totally agree that it's actions (including planning, or talking) which are criminal, not thoughts.

Small point, but I don't see thought crime as purely religious. Plenty of Sci-fi scenarios dealing with stopping crime before it happens by reading thoughts, or prediction.
I hazard a guess that our definition and application of thought-crime has more to do with our ability to actually identify people's thoughts than anything else.

 

[icehorse]

Hateful thoughts =/= incitement to discriminatory violence.

I do want the justice system to cause at least a little bit of trouble to anyone who thinks it's OK to publicly call for death to any demographic they happen to hate. And I don't mind them investigating verbal threats and harassment either.

If the police can descend like a swarm of locusts on a kid who jokes about blowing up the airport because he's annoyed that his flight was delayed, I'd expect them to spare a few moments to chat with the giant pack of misogynistic idiots who send rape and death threats to the likes of Anita Sarkeesian.

Once again, the OP is NOT about threats to individuals.

We all know that there is no "absolute" free speech in the world. That said, most countries that are known for freedom of expression have drawn similar lines as to what's protected speech and what's not.

In none of those freedom of expression countries is it *currently* a crime to poke fun at ridiculous, ancient, totalitarian ideologies. Poking fun is fair game! Offend away!

And that's the thing. We absolutely CANNOT lose the right to poke fun at whoever or whatever we want to or need to. Not negotiable.

 

[Father Heathen]

Possession of child pornography would be an example of a limitation to free speech.
There is no 100% right to unlimited free speech. Discussions are more around where the limits should be placed.

The difference regarding child pornography (pertaining to actual video and photography) is that real children were victimized and their rights violated in the process of producing such material.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

There were laws that forbade women from voting and "they sky had not fallen in" then either, but they were still irrational, arbitrary, and repressive laws regardless.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The difference regarding child pornography (pertaining to actual video and photography) is that real children were victimized and their rights violated in the process of producing such material.

Sure, but distribution of it, and possession of it is illegal, quite apart from the criminal acts which created it. It's not quite as restrictive a law, but possession of drawings of child porn is commonly illegal, despite no-one being directly harmed. Even extreme writing could be illegal.

Possession of basketball shoes generated by illegal child labour is not illegal. Anyway, it's kinda beside the point, to be honest.
These are merely examples that all societies place a limit on freedom of speech. I never quite get the argument that 'Any restriction on freedom of speech is bad'. We already have restrictions. It's all about where the line is drawn.

Having said that, I wouldn't trust the UN to wipe their own backside most of the time, so...

 

[Shad]

Totally agree that it's actions (including planning, or talking) which are criminal, not thoughts.

Small point, but I don't see thought crime as purely religious. Plenty of Sci-fi scenarios dealing with stopping crime before it happens by reading thoughts, or prediction.
I hazard a guess that our definition and application of thought-crime has more to do with our ability to actually identify people's thoughts than anything else.

Yes scenarios in which one can read minds or technology which allows us to do so. However in reality the only entity which is claimed to have this capability is a god or psychic. The later hold no authority to judge us nor are their claim consider evidence in a court system. The former is obviously a contested view. Depend on one's religion even thinking lustful thoughts is a sin aka a thought crime. Also in this context god(s) is/are the judges of the individual.

Hateful thoughts =/= incitement to discriminatory violence.

I do want the justice system to cause at least a little bit of trouble to anyone who thinks it's OK to publicly call for death to any demographic they happen to hate. And I don't mind them investigating verbal threats and harassment either.

If the police can descend like a swarm of locusts on a kid who jokes about blowing up the airport because he's annoyed that his flight was delayed, I'd expect them to spare a few moments to chat with the giant pack of misogynistic idiots who send rape and death threats to the likes of Anita Sarkeesian.

No it does. I hate the Boston Bruins and their fans. Yet I have no impulse to go attack one if I happen to see them in Vancouver, blasphemy to a Canuck's fan. I can have these thoughts without acting on these thoughts. I am talking about private thoughts not expressed thoughts. Now if one were to express a thought which advocates violence or leads directly to violence by the individual(s) I am against it.

 

[Alceste]

Once again, the OP is NOT about threats to individuals.

We all know that there is no "absolute" free speech in the world. That said, most countries that are known for freedom of expression have drawn similar lines as to what's protected speech and what's not.

In none of those freedom of expression countries is it *currently* a crime to poke fun at ridiculous, ancient, totalitarian ideologies. Poking fun is fair game! Offend away!

And that's the thing. We absolutely CANNOT lose the right to poke fun at whoever or whatever we want to or need to. Not negotiable.

It still is completely legal to express opinions that mock or offend religious people. This resolution only calls on member states to combat hate speech.

Would you say that books like Mein Kampf should be published and circulated without any interference or investigation? For my own part, I wouldn't consider it much of a loss to humanity if this particular book had never been published.

 

[Poeticus]

Would you say that books like Mein Kampf should be published and circulated without any interference or investigation?

Alceste, sorry to interrupt. What do you mean by "without any interference or investigation" ? You can buy a copy at a Barnes & Noble. It's even sold on Amazon. Numerous editions and translations of Mein Kampf are available. Some college courses even require it as reading material.

 

[s2a]

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.

Any communal society that claims to retain even a semblance of human "reason", will NEVER, NEVER accept ANY notion of "blasphemy" as an acceptable, nor even a punishable crime...EVER.

EVER.

IT IS NOT ANY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to EVER *INSIST* that any community accept only ONE point of view or religious choice of expression...EVER.

EVER.

EVER.

Understand?

NOT...EVER!

GET OVER IT.

A'int EVER going to happen!

EVER.

*sheesh*

Soon enough, desert dwellers will see themselves dying of thirst, DYING, by the thousands...hundreds of thousands...let them then chant "God is Great" while they wither back into the dust.

So be it.

Bear in mind, this is not an outcome anyone would wish/hope/pray for...but know that the Third World War will be over drinkable water...and the "have nots" will die first.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Alceste, sorry to interrupt. What do you mean by "without any interference or investigation" ? You can buy a copy at a Barnes & Noble. It's even sold on Amazon. Numerous editions and translations of Mein Kampf are available. Some college courses even require it as reading material.

I've read it. Found the cult of Nazism fascinating.
Err...that sounded weird. I'm about as anti-nazism as you can get. I was trying to get my head around it's basis, formation, etc.

Borrowed it from my local library. I also have very short hair (buzz cut). Reckon the librarian didn't watch ME closely as I left...!!!!

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, sorry to interrupt. What do you mean by "without any interference or investigation" ? You can buy a copy at a Barnes & Noble. It's even sold on Amazon. Numerous editions and translations of Mein Kampf are available. Some college courses even require it as reading material.

I'm talking about Hitler himself, writing it, back when it was new. Back before he was able to successfully use it as a tool to promote his genocidal agenda and convince the whole of Germany to participate in the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and academics. Maybe an uncomfortable chat with the police, a fine, a lawsuit, whatever, might have derailed his enthusiasm for the promotion of ethnic cleansing.

I would think perhaps interfering with the publication of that book at some stage could have changed the course of history. Not certainly, but possibly.

Of course you have to read it now. It's become the defining manifesto of a rather monstrous chapter in human history. But it didn't have to be.

 

[Estro Felino]

Once again, the OP is NOT about threats to individuals.

We all know that there is no "absolute" free speech in the world. That said, most countries that are known for freedom of expression have drawn similar lines as to what's protected speech and what's not.

In none of those freedom of expression countries is it *currently* a crime to poke fun at ridiculous, ancient, totalitarian ideologies. Poking fun is fair game! Offend away!

And that's the thing. We absolutely CANNOT lose the right to poke fun at whoever or whatever we want to or need to. Not negotiable.

precisely. Freedom of thought implies the chance to criticize the negative aspects of some religions, besides praising the positive ones.

Honestly...what's wrong with saying publicly that Saint Paul was a misogynist?
It's the truth. It's a personal opinion that deserves to be expressed.
If there hadn't been freedom of thought, Dan Brown couldn't have written the Da Vinci Code, where he shows that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were in love and conceived a child.
Is this blasphemy? NO: this is freedom of thought

 

[Alceste]

I've read it. Found the cult of Nazism fascinating.
Err...that sounded weird. I'm about as anti-nazism as you can get. I was trying to get my head around it's basis, formation, etc.

Borrowed it from my local library. I also have very short hair (buzz cut). Reckon the librarian didn't watch ME closely as I left...!!!!

Have you read True Believer? That helped me understand the Nazis more than anything they generated on their own. It's hard to for me understand anybody after they've already gone full genocidal bigot. It's easier to understand the patterns in the socioeconomic conditions and psychology that lead people to accept absurd, extremist ideologies in general.

 

[Poeticus]

I've read it. Found the cult of Nazism fascinating.
Err...that sounded weird. I'm about as anti-nazism as you can get. I was trying to get my head around it's basis, formation, etc.

Borrowed it from my local library. I also have very short hair (buzz cut). Reckon the librarian didn't watch ME closely as I left...!!!!

Hahaha. But it's funny how we can stereotype people based on the books they check out or purchase. If not funny, then at least somewhat intriguing, no ?

I'm talking about Hitler himself, writing it, back when it was new. Back before he was able to successfully use it as a tool to promote his genocidal agenda and convince the whole of Germany to participate in the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and academics?

I would think perhaps interfering with the publication of that book at some stage could have changed the course of history. Not certainly, but possibly.

Of course you have to read it now. It's become the defining manifesto of a rather monstrous chapter in human history. But it didn't have to be.

I'm not a fan of Nazism either, nor of any supremacist thought. Supremacist thinking is dangerous thinking---something that must be extinguished.