UN Resolution 16/18 impinges on freedom of expression

[icehorse]

So, back to the OP...

The OIC spent years chipping away at the UN to introduce a "blasphemy" resolution, and they finally got this one.

So, specifically, the kind of freedom of expression that this resolution could be used to restrict is the kind of expression that criticizes or ridicules religion. Now, Christians and Jews have had centuries to get used to having their religions criticized. There are libraries full of books critical of these two religions.

But the OIC is quite prickly when it comes to having Islam criticized. And they want sanctioned weapons to help them dampen such criticism.

 

[Alceste]

exactly!

Like the slippery slope argument that a UN resolution on religious hate speech opens the door to blasphemy laws in the West?

 

[icehorse]

Organizations like CAIR in North America are working in that direction. Many attempts are being made in Europe, and they're having some successes. So it's already underway.

 

[Alceste]

Organizations like CAIR in North America are working in that direction. Many attempts are being made in Europe, and they're having some successes. So it's already underway.

Mmm-hmm. And now that homosexuals can get married there's nothing to stop people marrying goats, or their own children. It's the homosexual agenda!

 

[Estro Felino]

Well...Icehorse keeps underlining a fundamental concept. That is: that resolution is a threat for our fundamental freedoms, like the freedom of thought and the freedom of criticizing religions.

People have always criticized Christianity. Even in this forum. And I am overwhelmed when I read all the criticisms on Christianity. It means that we Christians like to be criticized and like confrontation. If I weren't, I wouldn't have chosen this religious forum, which is about debating on religion, especially Christianity.

 

[Alceste]

Well...Icehorse keeps underlining a fundamental concept. That is: that resolution is a threat for our fundamental freedoms, like the freedom of thought and the freedom of criticizing religions.

People have always criticized Christianity. Even in this forum. And I am overwhelmed when I read all the criticisms on Christianity. It means that we Christians like to be criticized and like confrontation. If I weren't, I wouldn't have chosen this religious forum, which is about debating on religion, especially Christianity.

But some people here try to avoid the mot compelling part of the topic. All right. You force me to be politically incorrect. So I post this video

[youtube]gAKE6MwVqyA[/youtube]

The resolution is about hate speech, not criticism. It's about "let's go beat up some Christians!" not "Christianity is dumb".

 

[Alceste]

Dearest friend, the last sentence that Icehorse typed and underlined is
Paragraph 5(f) paves the way to criminalizing speech that some "authority" deems to be blasphemous.

so....let's be honest. Criminalizing blasphemous speech is ridiculous, when it deals with International Law, which assures the respect of the fundamental human rights

That's his personal opinion. It is nowhere to be seen in the language of the resolution.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's his personal opinion. It is nowhere to be seen in the language of the resolution.

I thought that Icehorse summarized the content of the remaining part of the paragraph F. Well...all right....sorry

By the way the purpose of the thread is clear: Icehorse wants to underline that this law can lead to legal abuse, especially when we live in a world of easily corruptible judges.

 

[YmirGF]

Icehorse wants to underline that this law can lead to legal abuse, especially when we live in a world of easily corruptible judges.

I'm not as concerned about the judges as I am with progressives who will sing and laugh us all the way over the cliff.

 

[sandandfoam]

People have always criticized Christianity. Even in this forum. And I am overwhelmed when I read all the criticisms on Christianity. It means that we Christians like to be criticized and like confrontation.

That is simply not true.
The blasphemy laws in Ireland are all about the Catholic Church.
BTW I am in favour of Blasphemy laws - not the RC church.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is simply not true.
The blasphemy laws in Ireland are all about the Catholic Church.
BTW I am in favour of Blasphemy laws - not the RC church.

And those laws are wrong. I am sorry but the Irish should rewrite their constitution. They should have a 100 % secular constitution...that states that all the religions are equal before the law.
I love the Irish people and Ireland......I am a Catholic.
but blasphemy laws are all against the freedom of speech

 

[sandandfoam]

They should have a 100 % secular constitution...that states that all the religions are equal before the law.

We do.

I love the Irish people and Ireland...and I am for an united Ireland...I am a Catholic.
but blasphemy laws are all against the freedom of speech

Freedom of speech and owning machine guns are problems I'll leave it to Americans to worry about. They are not real problems.

 

[Estro Felino]

We do.

well..Italy and Ireland are so similar, as for relationship between state and religious matters. In Italy we have a blasphemy law too...and I am strongly against it.
I would add an article to the Italian Constitution, that says:
Italy is a secular republic. all religions are equal and juridically irrelevant before the law. The state guarantees freedom of thought on religion.

By the way, the article 44 of the Irish Constitution implicitly authorizes the government to promulgate blasphemy laws.

 

[Father Heathen]

Freedom of speech and owning machine guns are problems I'll leave it to Americans to worry about. They are not real problems.

If speech isn't a perceived problem, from where does the desire to limit or restrict it arise?

Machine guns however aren't a real problem, nor something that Americans worry about, since they're not something a civilian can own anyway.

 

[icehorse]

We do.

Freedom of speech and owning machine guns are problems I'll leave it to Americans to worry about. They are not real problems.

Spoken by a person who has never been denied his freedom of speech...

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

In Canada, we already have restrictions on hate speech. It barely affects anyone, but those who it does affect kind of deserve it, IMO. For example, the teacher who introduced virulent anti-Semitic material into his courses, or the religious guy who passed out pamphlets advocating death for homosexuals.

I guess I can't see why this is perceived as such a big deal. It seems a trivial issue, to me, but maybe that's because I feel no impulse to disseminate hate speech or advocate violence against people on the basis of their religion.

I disagree that it paves the way for blasphemy laws, and even if it did, the countries who want such laws already have them anyway.

My understanding is there have been somewhat dubious cases in Canada, where beliefs that some find offensive, but which are not advocating violence or anything like that, have been prosecuted. I can't remember the details, but I think one case was lost by the state, but it had been representing Muslim plaintiffs for free and the defendants had to pay their own, rather large expenses.

In Britain, section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act was reinterpreted by police and the CPS at times to arrest people for preaching against homosexuality on the street - not inciting death or violence to them or anything like that - or a teenager who called a police horse gay or a Christian coffee shop owner who displayed bible verses in his shop, and so on. Hate speech in the West, especially outside the US, does have some history of being applied simply to what offends, rather than what actually is calling for violence.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

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.

Working on fixing that in the USA.
We've already given businesses the legal status of "person".
Now we just need to work through the list of things to turn into people as well, I believe it's businesses, then churches, interstates, mailboxes, carnival cruise ships, and women.
Give us time.

 

[Father Heathen]

Spoken by a person who has never been denied his freedom of speech...

It's understandable that those content on letting others think for them would care little about free speech.

 

[icehorse]

Working on fixing that in the USA.
We've already given businesses the legal status of "person".
Now we just need to work through the list of things to turn into people as well, I believe it's businesses, then churches, interstates, mailboxes, carnival cruise ships, and women.
Give us time.

And, back to the OP, anyone who wants to "fix" that pesky blasphemers problem has UN 16/18 to support their efforts... argh