PDA

View Full Version : UN resolution to make offending religion a crime


Piero
6th March 2009, 01:19 PM
I've been searching the forum for a thread on this matter, but I've found none. Anyway, it appears that the UN is about to vote on a resolution promoted mainly by Muslim countries that would bind member states to pass legislation that would make it a crime to criticise religions, especially Islam.

Here are two relevant links:
Text of the resolution (http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154)
Article by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/)

Comments?

godless dave
6th March 2009, 01:28 PM
Comments? The resolution sucks. That's my comment.

Piero
6th March 2009, 01:43 PM
Is there any chance that the USA will sign it? What about European countries?

Third Eye Open
6th March 2009, 01:53 PM
Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it.

But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it.

Madalch
6th March 2009, 01:59 PM
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/473/01/PDF/N0747301.pdf?OpenElement

A lot of fine-sounding phrases about religious tolerance, cessation of religious hatred, etc. I particularly like this bit:
"15. Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in
practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and
boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for
human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to
refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to
schooling;"

But they keep throwing in this bit about "defamation of religion", as if religious beliefs had hard-earned reputations to uphold.

And this bit is worrying:
"10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these
rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject
to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights
or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;"

Yes, there are limits on free speech- I can't accuse a particular person of being a pedophile or a child pornographer unless he's already been tried and convicted. I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite a mob to burn down a church, or announce on Iraqi television that GWBush has gone for a stroll in Baghdad without his security team. But I will not accept that there are things that I am not allowed to say because they might hurt someone's feelings, or that my words may seem to be disrespectful.

Gagglegnash
6th March 2009, 02:11 PM
Hi

Is there any chance that the USA will sign it? What about European countries?


I suppose it depends on just how much Danegeld (http://poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html) a country is willing to pay to avoid the inevitable reaction from the more extreme advocates of The Religion of Peace.

I sincerely hope that the US and EU give this thing all the thought it merits and act appropriately. :chores037:

lionking
6th March 2009, 02:23 PM
In Australia we have religious vilification laws and there have been prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/

But, to the OP, UN resolutions which do not suit nations are usually ignored.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 02:26 PM
If one expresses oneself to be offensive to all the religions before the ruling, will one be exempt?

wexer9
6th March 2009, 02:32 PM
I think these people need a healthy dose of Freedom of Speech™.

JohnnyG
6th March 2009, 02:42 PM
Do you think the Muslims will realize that beheading the infidel Jews and Christians is offensive?

steve s
6th March 2009, 02:48 PM
And this bit is worrying:
"10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference

my emphasis

Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!"

And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG)

Steve S.

AkuManiMani
6th March 2009, 03:10 PM
I don't recall voting for any of the people making this decision. They can take their resolution and shove it.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 03:13 PM
my emphasis

Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!"

And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG)

Steve S.

Probably a lot to do with the "Yesteryear" component, which relies upon everything go pop, or not

Lonewulf
6th March 2009, 03:17 PM
my emphasis

Where do they get that from? If someone worships a pencil, why can't I say "That's silly!"

And does this mean that Muslims won't be able to criticize Jews anymore? (Beaten to the punch by JohnnyG)

Steve S.

Do they mean "interference by someone saying that's silly", or "interference by a government or group attempting to intimidate you from your beliefs?"

Madalch
6th March 2009, 03:23 PM
Do they mean "interference by someone saying that's silly", or "interference by a government or group attempting to intimidate you from your beliefs?"
Probably the latter. But the bit about " may therefore be subjectthe right to freedom of expression... to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs" suggests that it's okay to pass laws against telling people they shouldn't have to wear veils, or against such publications as "The Life of Brian" or "The God Delusion".

Gagglegnash
6th March 2009, 03:23 PM
Hi

I don't recall voting for any of the people making this decision. They can take their resolution and shove table it.


Fixed that for you, Parliamentary Procedurally speaking.

X
6th March 2009, 03:34 PM
Good luck to them, I say.

They're gonna need it to make that stick. Even assuming it passes.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 03:38 PM
I vote for freedom.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 03:43 PM
But it's important to know that which is occurring.

The death of the auto mobile.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 03:46 PM
Unless that of the robot killer.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 03:48 PM
The machine looks at me and the machine smiles.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 03:53 PM
It is the machinery of my disbelief.

ravdin
6th March 2009, 03:58 PM
If the resolution passes, enforcement will be backed up with all of the power the UN can muster- in other words, it will have no effect at all.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 04:09 PM
Which religion should be started to be nasty to?

Macoy
6th March 2009, 04:12 PM
You've got human sacrifice excuses at first.

Cannibalism comes later.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 04:21 PM
Those religious types and their human sacrifice.

They should STOP

Macoy
6th March 2009, 04:30 PM
Any religion missed? Not every religion hit with the human sacrifice jag?

I want to offend all of them before it's too late.

I want my certificate.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 04:53 PM
So, you've all done it - all you religions sacrifice people, all the time.

You should stop.

Lonewulf
6th March 2009, 05:08 PM
Uh, do you really need to make several posts with a line or two each?

Travis
6th March 2009, 05:10 PM
Nobody else post anything in this thread. I want to see if Macoy will just keep talking to himself indefinitely.

Lonewulf
6th March 2009, 05:25 PM
Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?

Safe-Keeper
6th March 2009, 05:28 PM
Norway, as we all know, tried something similar some weeks back - tried to ban offensive attacks on religion. So saying that you didn't believe in Jesus or that Moses killed people would be fine, but calling Jesus names would not be. Naturally, it was struck down.

I'm also getting GlaDOS flashback's from Macoy's latest posts.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 05:28 PM
Oooohhh, sometimes it makes me so mad.

Lonewulf
6th March 2009, 05:28 PM
Doing just fine, Lonewulf, thanks for asking! Wonderful weather we have, isn't it?

Isn't it great to have to wait 60 seconds to post again? Don't you feel silly now?

ShowerComic
6th March 2009, 05:37 PM
Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it.

But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it.

Jokes aside, two things.
1. The proposal flies in the face of freedom of speech.

You can listen to the FFRF's comments on Obama's speech to the "National Prayer Breakfast" here -- FFRF on the Air 2/21/09 (http://ffrf.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=436451#)

Particularly commenting on the following lines:
There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all.

But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.
The FFRF is particularly known for shall we say disagreeing with the section I've highlighted, and bolded.

TsarBomba
6th March 2009, 05:37 PM
Even if such a resolution were passed on the vote of every other member of the UN, and even if the resolution said that it was binding on all countries, it would have no effect in the U.S. The free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would control, regardless of contrary treaties or principles of international law. The real intent of this resolution is not to force the U.S. to enact new laws outlawing blasphemy against Allah and his prophet, but to justify the repression that other countries impose within their borders.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 05:43 PM
Seriously, sorry about my gittishness.

I love you all, but i have been ranting.

quarky
6th March 2009, 05:45 PM
I've always enjoyed blasphemy.
Too bad it isn't a religion.

Dr H
6th March 2009, 05:50 PM
Well, seeing how Obama is an atheist and probably the anti-Christ, I doubt he will sign it.

But then again, he is also another Hitler and Hitler hated Jews, and Muslims also hate Jews, so maybe he WILL sign it.

Wait, I though Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Have I had the wrong Hitler all this time?

JihadJane
6th March 2009, 06:02 PM
Do you think the Muslims will realize that beheading the infidel Jews and Christians is offensive?

No, Muslims are irrational, bloodthirsty savages, barely touched by civilization, who can hardly read, so they will be convinced that beheadings are love messages.

Anyway, while it's still legal, I'd just like to say that Jesus was a pedophile and a rapist.

Macoy
6th March 2009, 06:08 PM
Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?

Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?

Lonewulf
6th March 2009, 07:16 PM
Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?

Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?

quixotecoyote
6th March 2009, 07:27 PM
Anyway, while it's still legal, I'd just like to say that Jesus was a pedophile and a rapist.

Awww, that's cute. You're trying to mirror criticisms. Generally, when you get into debating religions you should move past the monkey-see monkey-do phase.

Cavemonster
6th March 2009, 07:40 PM
Hi, Lonewulf, how are you today?

C-C-Combo breaker!

Rat
6th March 2009, 07:54 PM
The point at which I actually LOLed was in the preamble:Recognizing the valuable contributions of all religions and beliefs to modern
civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an
improved awareness and understanding of common values,
which seems to rather undermine all that follows.

Jeff Corey
6th March 2009, 08:42 PM
http://api.ning.com/files/dRbiKdMD2nT8wBtxLXuUVahaq7kz-KZbJschlBE88JMPQzr*MkBHerv-OtxFjdFtl1IoDIn3m-S1ITVsKWolRBh9DtOX*WF*/ImagineNoReligionMedium.jpg
If you can.

Gagglegnash
7th March 2009, 01:02 AM
Hi

http://api.ning.com/files/dRbiKdMD2nT8wBtxLXuUVahaq7kz-KZbJschlBE88JMPQzr*MkBHerv-OtxFjdFtl1IoDIn3m-S1ITVsKWolRBh9DtOX*WF*/ImagineNoReligionMedium.jpg
If you can.


Frankly, if there were no religion, I suspect that folks'd find some other, "perfectly good," reason to have a go at one another. After all, we'd still be using skin color, particular shade of a skin color, nation of origin, region of origin inside the same nation, language, dialect of language, ethnic background, specific family memberships, and... and... I dunno... SHOE SIZE to massacre each other.

It just happens that the one currently stuck in everyone's wringer is religion.

Skeptic
7th March 2009, 02:29 AM
Jokes aside, two things.
1. The proposal flies in the face of freedom of speech.

Since when does the UN, or the Muslim world, care about THAT?

gumboot
7th March 2009, 05:06 AM
I've been searching the forum for a thread on this matter, but I've found none. Anyway, it appears that the UN is about to vote on a resolution promoted mainly by Muslim countries that would bind member states to pass legislation that would make it a crime to criticise religions, especially Islam.

Here are two relevant links:
Text of the resolution (http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154)
Article by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/)

Comments?



Yeesh, talk about scare-mongering.

Let's get some facts straight, shall we?

Firstly, UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. The only UN resolutions that actually have the weight of international law are resolutions issued by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Your own link even says the resolution is non-binding:

Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, the nonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended."

So the claim in your OP is not even supported by the evidence you link to.

Secondly, that's not how international law works.

International laws are treaties, and have three stages: signing, ratification, and entry into customary law.

When countries sign an international treaty, they are expressing a desire to adhere to the basic principles of the treaty, that's all. Only once their own domestic legislation has been amended to comply with the treaty have they "ratified" it. And only once a substantial majority of the world's states have ratified a treaty does it become customary law, binding on signatories and non-signatories alike.

There are many cases where countries have signed treaties but not ratified them in whole or more commonly in part, because specific points in the treaty clash with pre-existing laws in the country.

In basic principle, individual states are responsible for enforcing international law in their own jurisdiction - that's why the ratification process is so important. In extreme cases where states fail to enforce these laws, the International Criminal Court can initiate a prosecution. However, the ICC only has jurisdiction to handle war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, which means it could not prosecute on this matter.

BPSCG
7th March 2009, 05:53 AM
Ah, Islam can go **** itself. And the "prophet" Muhammad can go **** a goat. Come to think of it, the *********** pedophile probably did **** goats.

There. The UN can PM me for my address if they care to come and arrest me.

Undesired Walrus
7th March 2009, 10:21 AM
I may have missed it, but where in the resolution does it make offending a religion a crime?

quarky
7th March 2009, 10:35 AM
Hi




Frankly, if there were no religion, I suspect that folks'd find some other, "perfectly good," reason to have a go at one another. After all, we'd still be using skin color, particular shade of a skin color, nation of origin, region of origin inside the same nation, language, dialect of language, ethnic background, specific family memberships, and... and... I dunno... SHOE SIZE to massacre each other.

It just happens that the one currently stuck in everyone's wringer is religion.

hear, hear.

Religion is a tool of normal aggression.
That it should continually fool people by draping itself in holy-hooplah, is beyond disgusting.

Otoh, to disregard religion's true function, and to get caught up in its apparent hypocrisies, is playing in to its hand.

This neurosis needn't be given legitimacy by contrary and opposite stances...as if we are in a crappy chess game, with unworthy opponents.

Which is why I must scold Jihad Jane. Jesus was a cool concept. Why not embrace its revolutionary aspects, and work that turf?

Jaxe
7th March 2009, 10:54 AM
Norway, as we all know, tried something similar some weeks back - tried to ban offensive attacks on religion. So saying that you didn't believe in Jesus or that Moses killed people would be fine, but calling Jesus names would not be. Naturally, it was struck down.

I'm also getting GlaDOS flashback's from Macoy's latest posts.

I find it worrying that the people trying to get these laws passed are getting as far as they do in the process, that they're being taken so seriously. It's not exactly probable that they will give up just because of a 'no', they're going to keep pushing these laws, and eventually they may succeed.

I pray (yea right) that i won't live to see it happen, i very much enjoy insulting religion in my day to day life.

Pardalis
7th March 2009, 11:47 AM
I think the resolution is OK when it talks about condemning inciting hatred against religious group, which goes without saying and should be applied to pretty much everything else, but "defamation of religion" is illogical IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative imageAtheism could be interpreted as "defamation against religion", because it denies its main idea. But atheism is a legitimate opinion. Religion's main claim is an unknowable, so there can't be defamation against it, because we can't determine whether it's true or not, so therefore you can't really make a false statement against it.

Also, about slander, as Dan Barker would put it: it's a victimless crime (or to put it agnostically: it could very well be a victimless crime). I don't see how one could enforce a law against it.

They should make it clear in the resolution that atheism and non-belief are not defamation, and should be protected as well as legitimate opinions, while they're at it.

dudalb
7th March 2009, 12:26 PM
I see the UN fanboys have shown up. No matter what the General Assembly proposes, some people here will defend it becuase they have a fantasy version of the UN, and refuse to see it as the inept organization it is, which will pass menaningless and stupid resolutions to satisfy the more extreme members.

Toke
7th March 2009, 12:26 PM
Why make an UN resolution on blasfemy?

I find it more reasonable to include blasfemy in regular slander legistration.
If a god gets offended then he/she/it can sue the offender like anybody else.

JihadJane
7th March 2009, 12:46 PM
Awww, that's cute. You're trying to mirror criticisms. Generally, when you get into debating religions you should move past the monkey-see monkey-do phase.

No, I was just having a laugh and certainly not "debating religions".

I was countering JohnnyG's ugly insanity. Perhaps you think what she/he posted is sane.

Skeptic
7th March 2009, 01:06 PM
Frankly, if there were no religion, I suspect that folks'd find some other, "perfectly good," reason to have a go at one another.

No doubt. But still, having one HUGE cause of war LESS would be a start. As Eddie Izzard noted, people killed each other long before guns existed, but the gun still helps.

scratchy
7th March 2009, 01:33 PM
The general wording of the document doesnt seem very evil, although i dislike any atempts to curtail the freedom of speech, and i see no reason to repeatedly say that particarly muslims are the ones that should be protected. What i find really disturbing is that it comes from the nations of the world where the problems described are worst, and that everybody knows that they have no intention of honoring it themselves. If for nothing else, it should be thrown out on those grounds.

Toke
7th March 2009, 01:42 PM
If for nothing else, it should be thrown out on those grounds.

I don’t think you are allowed to yell hypocrite in the UN, it might have something to do with work safety and noise levels.:D

If a resolution could be rejected on that they would never get any work done.

Gord_in_Toronto
7th March 2009, 02:35 PM
Yeesh, talk about scare-mongering.

Let's get some facts straight, shall we?

Firstly, UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. The only UN resolutions that actually have the weight of international law are resolutions issued by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Your own link even says the resolution is non-binding:



So the claim in your OP is not even supported by the evidence you link to.

Secondly, that's not how international law works.

International laws are treaties, and have three stages: signing, ratification, and entry into customary law.

When countries sign an international treaty, they are expressing a desire to adhere to the basic principles of the treaty, that's all. Only once their own domestic legislation has been amended to comply with the treaty have they "ratified" it. And only once a substantial majority of the world's states have ratified a treaty does it become customary law, binding on signatories and non-signatories alike.

There are many cases where countries have signed treaties but not ratified them in whole or more commonly in part, because specific points in the treaty clash with pre-existing laws in the country.

In basic principle, individual states are responsible for enforcing international law in their own jurisdiction - that's why the ratification process is so important. In extreme cases where states fail to enforce these laws, the International Criminal Court can initiate a prosecution. However, the ICC only has jurisdiction to handle war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, which means it could not prosecute on this matter.

You spoilsport gumboot, actually adding a note of rationality into this thread seemingly populated by the followers of Chicken Little. :mad:

Piero
7th March 2009, 08:06 PM
Yeesh, talk about scare-mongering.

Let's get some facts straight, shall we?

Firstly, UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. The only UN resolutions that actually have the weight of international law are resolutions issued by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Your own link even says the resolution is non-binding:

So the claim in your OP is not even supported by the evidence you link to.

Secondly, that's not how international law works.

International laws are treaties, and have three stages: signing, ratification, and entry into customary law.

When countries sign an international treaty, they are expressing a desire to adhere to the basic principles of the treaty, that's all. Only once their own domestic legislation has been amended to comply with the treaty have they "ratified" it. And only once a substantial majority of the world's states have ratified a treaty does it become customary law, binding on signatories and non-signatories alike.

There are many cases where countries have signed treaties but not ratified them in whole or more commonly in part, because specific points in the treaty clash with pre-existing laws in the country.

In basic principle, individual states are responsible for enforcing international law in their own jurisdiction - that's why the ratification process is so important. In extreme cases where states fail to enforce these laws, the International Criminal Court can initiate a prosecution. However, the ICC only has jurisdiction to handle war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, which means it could not prosecute on this matter.
I'm sorry, Gumboot. I gave the wrong link. The resolution it points to is a non-binding resolution already signed in 2007. The problem is that the proposed resolution, the text of which was not online, would be binding.
I understand this is not a serious problem for countries like the USA, because member states can choose to ignore even binding resolutions; however, I see a major cause for concern in that small weak countries like mine tend to follow the vote of their commercial patrons; if the EU, for instance, voted for the resolution, it is quite likely that many small countries would follow suit. In that case, the motion could be carried by a large majority, and that would certainly give Islam a lot of political muscle.

gumboot
7th March 2009, 08:40 PM
The problem is that the proposed resolution, the text of which was not online, would be binding.


Really? The UNSC is going to pass a resolution banning offense of religion under Chapter VII of the UN Charter?

I don't think so.

To reiterate; the only UN resolutions which are legally binding upon members are those passed by the UNSC under Chapter VII.

Travis
7th March 2009, 09:17 PM
This is the same UN that has all sorts of resolutions regarding human rights that everyone pretty much ignores, right?

This would just be one more thing for everyone to ignore.

BPSCG
8th March 2009, 05:26 PM
This is the same UN that has all sorts of resolutions regarding human rights that everyone pretty much ignores, right?

This would just be one more thing for everyone to ignore.I already have an infinite number of things on my plate to ignore.

quixotecoyote
8th March 2009, 05:47 PM
No, I was just having a laugh and certainly not "debating religions".

I was countering JohnnyG's ugly insanity. Perhaps you think what she/he posted is sane.

Attempting to be extreme by referring to a religion's key figure as a pedophile rapist as a counter to criticism of a different religion whose founder actually was a pedophile rapist probably didn't come off the way you wanted it to.

Chupacabras
8th March 2009, 10:48 PM
I've always enjoyed blasphemy.
Too bad it isn't a religion.

You may like to visit http://blasphemyday.org/

Or subscribe in FB: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=50200339561&ref=mf

Undesired Walrus
9th March 2009, 02:34 PM
I think the resolution is OK when it talks about condemning inciting hatred against religious group, which goes without saying and should be applied to pretty much everything else,

But Pardalis, I thought you hated Persians and Arabs and wanted them treated like the Nazis treated Jews? At least that is what Oliver told me.

Darth Rotor
9th March 2009, 08:06 PM
Anyway, while it's still legal, I'd just like to say that Jesus was a pedophile and a rapist.
Based on what evidence?


Note in case you missed it: the response was not

You can't say that!

Don't much cotton to this (standard) UN silliness.

Oh, and for Lonewulf:

Hi, how are you? :)

NoZed Avenger
9th March 2009, 10:16 PM
Wait, I though Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Have I had the wrong Hitler all this time?

Well, they're both Hitler, but he's even more Hitlery.

He's Hitlerer, so to speak. Hitler, though, is still the Hitlerest.

quarky
10th March 2009, 07:25 AM
Well, they're both Hitler, but he's even more Hitlery.

He's Hitlerer, so to speak. Hitler, though, is still the Hitlerest.

Who's "Hitleresque"?

MRC_Hans
10th March 2009, 07:39 AM
I've been searching the forum for a thread on this matter, but I've found none. Anyway, it appears that the UN is about to vote on a resolution promoted mainly by Muslim countries that would bind member states to pass legislation that would make it a crime to criticise religions, especially Islam.

Here are two relevant links:
Text of the resolution (http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154)
Article by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/)

Comments?Uhm, well...... Actually, I think that religious (esp. muslem) fundamentalists will have a lot more difficulty living up to that than Western cultures:

No more calling people infidels.
No more burning Danish flags (which have a cross on them).
No more jihads against authors.
...etc...

Hans

Piero
10th March 2009, 08:50 AM
Uhm, well...... Actually, I think that religious (esp. muslem) fundamentalists will have a lot more difficulty living up to that than Western cultures:

No more calling people infidels.
No more burning Danish flags (which have a cross on them).
No more jihads against authors.
...etc...

Hans
Not at all. They would be merely exercising their right to defend their faith against offenders such as infidels, flags and authors.

Beerina
10th March 2009, 08:50 AM
Is there any chance that the USA will sign it? What about European countries?

The US cannot sign it since it would violate the people's right to free speech.

Beerina
10th March 2009, 08:52 AM
By the way, the purpose of free speech is to have an effect on people listening. One of those effects is embarrassing them and making them feel bad and foolish, for the purpose of changing their opinions.

Beerina
10th March 2009, 08:53 AM
Also, Jesus was probably gay, given he hung out with dudes who were happy to hang out with him.

skeptical
10th March 2009, 11:06 AM
My comments:

1) Its stupid. I wish the UN would focus more on feeding hungry people and stopping conflicts. When there are no starving children and no active conflicts, then they can waste their time on crap like this.

2) The UN has no power to enforce laws in any member country and in most cases things like this are going to be ignored

3) This is a classic example of the "privacy fallacy" in the words of Austin Dacey. Just because religious ideas (or any other ideas) should be free from government coercion (i.e. "private") doesn't mean that they should be immune to criticism from others. If your idea cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe that's because its a bad idea. There is no such thing as an idea that should be immune to scrutiny, you don't get a free pass to believe stupid things because it hurts your feelings when people point out its stupid.

Lonewulf
11th March 2009, 09:11 AM
I see the UN fanboys have shown up. No matter what the General Assembly proposes, some people here will defend it becuase they have a fantasy version of the UN, and refuse to see it as the inept organization it is, which will pass menaningless and stupid resolutions to satisfy the more extreme members.

I see the anti-UN whackjobs have shown up. No matter what the General Assembly proposes, some people here will attack it because they have this demonic version of the UN, and refuse to see it as anything else but an inept organization, which will pass meaningless and stupid resolutions to satisfy the more extreme members.

Or, in short, dissing a proposal because it has "UN" by the name, and forgetting all the minor details.

Sorry, I got swept up in the childish Ad Hominems... rational arguments aren't accepted here after all, right? It's politics!

Darth Rotor
11th March 2009, 04:30 PM
I see the anti-UN whackjobs have shown up. No matter what the General Assembly proposes, some people here will attack it because they have this demonic version of the UN, and refuse to see it as anything else but an inept organization, which will pass meaningless and stupid resolutions to satisfy the more extreme members.

Or, in short, dissing a proposal because it has "UN" by the name, and forgetting all the minor details.

Sorry, I got swept up in the childish Ad Hominems... rational arguments aren't accepted here after all, right? It's politics!
Lonewulf, I think you meant poisoning of the well, not ad hom vis a vis the "it if is UN, it must be bad" approach to the resolution of the GA.

Which, given that it is the GA, is a load of wind and rubbish, regardless of the topic.

DR

Thunder
11th March 2009, 06:44 PM
I just read the whole thing. I don't recall it asking nations to make Islamo-phobia illegal.

Lonewulf
12th March 2009, 10:37 AM
Lonewulf, I think you meant poisoning of the well, not ad hom vis a vis the "it if is UN, it must be bad" approach to the resolution of the GA.

Which, given that it is the GA, is a load of wind and rubbish, regardless of the topic.

DR

Going on about how anyone who dares to actually point out some of the details behind a resolution makes one a "fanboy", and ergo is necessarily wrong, and "can't see the TWUTH!" about the UN is, indeed, an Ad Hominem.

But you're partially correct. So, we have Ad Hominem + Poisoning the Well. But it's politics, so it's accepted; logical arguments not accepted here. ;)

ZirconBlue
13th March 2009, 08:01 AM
Going on about how anyone who dares to actually point out some of the details behind a resolution makes one a "fanboy", and ergo is necessarily wrong, and "can't see the TWUTH!" about the UN is, indeed, an Ad Hominem.

But you're partially correct. So, we have Ad Hominem + Poisoning the Well. But it's politics, so it's accepted; logical arguments not accepted here. ;)

Maybe it was Poisoning the Homonym.

cj.23
13th March 2009, 08:20 AM
Hi
I suppose it depends on just how much Danegeld (http://poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html) a country is willing to pay to avoid the inevitable reaction from the more extreme advocates of The Religion of Peace.



I don't know but I hope a lot, and stuff the religion of peace, you have bigger problems requiring danegeld - Larsen and I have already readied the longboats. Please make cheques payable in Danish Kroner, we don't deal in Euro funny money.
:D
Cheers
cj x

cj.23
13th March 2009, 08:31 AM
OK Well the draft resolution was adopted in December 2007 http://www.un.org/ga/62/resolutions.shtml at the 62nd -- you can find it as /154, and a list of countries voting for it. (Include South Africa, the Russian Federation, and China.) It was adopted by 108 votes to 51, with 25 abstentions. That was well over a year ago. Why is this news now???

cj x

Skeptic
14th March 2009, 12:13 AM
Well, this IS the UN we're talking about...

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/political-pictures-breaktime-un.jpg

INRM
14th March 2009, 09:26 AM
I understand advocating violence against a group of people is unacceptable, however just making a joke or criticizing a religious group in a non-violent way is not acceptable. That is a complete violation of freedom of speech.

This is one reason why I'm opposed to political correctness (Not that I think people should be crude, racist or mean), because it ultimately says that I'd rather give up my rights of freedom of speech than be offended occasionally or run the risk of accidentally offending someone.

Toke
14th March 2009, 04:12 PM
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/03/13/human/

Skeptic Ginger
14th March 2009, 04:47 PM
OK Well the draft resolution was adopted in December 2007 http://www.un.org/ga/62/resolutions.shtml at the 62nd -- you can find it as /154, and a list of countries voting for it. (Include South Africa, the Russian Federation, and China.) It was adopted by 108 votes to 51, with 25 abstentions. That was well over a year ago. Why is this news now???

cj xMaybe because Hitchens addressed it in a Slate editorial 03/02/09 which is also linked in the OP.

His reason appears to be about an annual renewal.You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law.

With all the Christian outcries of persecution of their 'missionaries', you could just as easily read, "Resolution sponsored by Christians seeking the right to evangelize", in that document as you can read, "Muslims seeking the right to riot over Muhammad cartoons", in it.

Lonewulf
14th March 2009, 06:41 PM
maybe it was poisoning the homonym.

...

:D Hee.

Piero
14th March 2009, 09:54 PM
Maybe because Hitchens addressed it in a Slate editorial 03/02/09 which is also linked in the OP.
As I explained in a previous post, I gave the wrong link in the OP. The resolution I linked to was the non-binding one approved in 2007. The article by Christopher Hitchens refers to a new, binding resolution which will be voted next month, the text of which I've been unable to find online.

cj.23
15th March 2009, 06:49 AM
As I explained in a previous post, I gave the wrong link in the OP. The resolution I linked to was the non-binding one approved in 2007. The article by Christopher Hitchens refers to a new, binding resolution which will be voted next month, the text of which I've been unable to find online.


Hi Piero - yes I rather assumed that was the case - and i did not even follow your link - except no such resolution appears to have been tabled? This makes me wonder what is actually going on? Has Hitchens just got confused?

Unless the UN are being underhanded about this, I'm wondering if the new version actually exists outside the objections to it? I might email the uN and ask. Wow! I get to talk to the One World Government! :D I have trawled through the sessions i can find, but nothing. All very odd!

cj x

Piero
15th March 2009, 07:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtYTHmgMgfw

gumboot
15th March 2009, 07:41 AM
As I explained in a previous post, I gave the wrong link in the OP. The resolution I linked to was the non-binding one approved in 2007. The article by Christopher Hitchens refers to a new, binding resolution which will be voted next month, the text of which I've been unable to find online.

Hi Piero. You obviously missed my other several posts, so let me just repeat myself in larger font, so you don't miss it this time.

The UN General Assembly cannot pass a binding resolution.

Thank you.

Piero
15th March 2009, 08:14 AM
Hi Piero. You obviously missed my other several posts, so let me just repeat myself in larger font, so you don't miss it this time.

The UN General Assembly cannot pass a binding resolution.

Thank you.
OK. I heard you, and I presume you know what you are talking about. But then I don't understand how CNN would run a news story that contradicts you point. What's going on?

INRM
15th March 2009, 09:37 AM
Toke,

That was hilarious

Toke
15th March 2009, 10:21 AM
Toke,
That was hilarious

Yes:D
Jesus and Mo, have some great ones.

gumboot
15th March 2009, 08:03 PM
OK. I heard you, and I presume you know what you are talking about. But then I don't understand how CNN would run a news story that contradicts you point. What's going on?


Because Americans are grossly ignorant of the UN and have no idea how international law works, and because major networks sell papers and gain viewers by scare-mongering.

What has happened is one particular diplomat (from Pakistan, I believe) has expressed a desire to one day make some sort of international treaty which bans offending religion and is legally binding.

Pakistan can wish that all they want, but the simple fact is under the current system of international law there is only one way it can enter into customary law - and that is by a sufficient percentage of the world's nations signing and ratifying such an agreement. It cannot be done through the UN.

The main motivation for these resolutions in the UN is somewhat more mundane than that. The entire thing is being driven by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. In many of these countries Islamic Sharia is practised, and laws exist to protect Islam by supressing free speech and outlawing criticism of Islam.

The OIC thinks, by passing these UN resolutions, they give their undemocratic and anti-freedom legislation credibility. Thus allowing them to continue to oppress their own population.

Polaris
15th March 2009, 11:05 PM
I've always enjoyed blasphemy.
Too bad it isn't a religion.

It is if you're a Jew, Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Sikh, Bahai, Ahmadi, etc., according to any and all of the others.

Focus: Considering that the US is the only thing keeping the UN from going down the League of Nations drain, and considering that this disgusting piece of Kaaba flies in the face of the First Amendment of the oldest continuous Constitution on earth, I'd say this resolution isn't worth the oily crap on Mullah Omar's socket that it should be used to wipe off. Actually I'd say that regardless. Because it is. And I'll be happily disobeying it at any moment.

Mohammed was a pedophile rapists and murderer. He had his way with his own daughter-in-law. He committed genocide. Islam as a result is a backward, savage, bloodthirsty hateful religion which sees women as chattel and any human progress as sins to be violently punished by self-appointed genocidal pieces of sputum. It raises generations of spoiled brats with simultaneous superiority and inferiority complexes. The Koran is an 800 year old Mein Kampf. Allah is a primitive psychopath delusion and mirror image of its vile creator.

Man, that felt good.

fuelair
16th March 2009, 06:13 AM
No, Muslims are irrational, bloodthirsty savages, barely touched by civilization, who can hardly read, so they will be convinced that beheadings are love messages.

Anyway, while it's still legal, I'd just like to say that Jesus was a pedophile and a rapist.
And he and all his followers peed and crapped and stomped all over stuff his father had made.

Blackadder
16th March 2009, 06:22 AM
crap, I read the title as in

the UN makes offending religions (as in religions that offend me) criminal. Now that would be something.

But I am not sure if this is proper english.. Can I say: " I don't like offending religions, they insult my intelligence.

as in: " I don't like abrahamistic religions, they.... etc... "

Skeptic
17th March 2009, 01:21 PM
Your misreading reminded me of the Eddie Izzard joke: what the heck is "original sin"?

"Forgive me father for I have sinned. I poked a badger with a spoon."
"Hmmmm.... that's original..."

Darth Rotor
17th March 2009, 06:29 PM
Going on about how anyone who dares to actually point out some of the details behind a resolution makes one a "fanboy", and ergo is necessarily wrong, and "can't see the TWUTH!" about the UN is, indeed, an Ad Hominem.

But you're partially correct. So, we have Ad Hominem + Poisoning the Well. But it's politics, so it's accepted; logical arguments not accepted here. ;)
OK, so it's a hybrid, which these days is oh so politically correct, in the gaseous sense. :D

Darth Rotor
17th March 2009, 06:32 PM
With all the Christian outcries of persecution of their 'missionaries', you could just as easily read, "Resolution sponsored by Christians seeking the right to evangelize",
Uh, no, that's not equivalent to the Swat valley scenario.

That said, I'll repeat the essence of what I said elsewhere: the day it is against some allegedly enforceable international law to insult religion, any religion, is the day to blow up that building on the East River.

There are 15 UNSC members who will hopefully not be stupid enough to pursue such an idiotic idea.

DR

Darth Rotor
17th March 2009, 06:34 PM
But then I don't understand how CNN would run a news story that contradicts you point. What's going on?

The joke's on you, my friend. CNN has a gift for being full of crap.

DR

Father Dagon
7th April 2009, 10:43 PM
In Australia we have religious vilification laws and there have been prosecutions.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/You still have?!But, to the OP, UN resolutions which do not suit nations are usually ignored.Yeah, if Israel would've taken all those resolutions seriously, it would've dismantled long ago.

So, what are we going to do? I suggest that the we send postcards to the embassies and parliaments of the offending countries. Burlesk postcards of naughty nuns and drunk vicars. And we should write something like that we have so much sense of humour that we can make fun of our own religion, but they explode over nothing.

Bonus point: Tell the difference between the flag of Sweden and the flag of Öland (http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g127/Anderbilt/Nordic-cross_Flags-60.jpg).

dudalb
8th April 2009, 01:32 PM
Well, this IS the UN we're talking about...

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/political-pictures-breaktime-un.jpg

You forgot deciding what fancy restaurant in Manhatten to go out to lunch for.

dudalb
8th April 2009, 01:36 PM
Hi Piero. You obviously missed my other several posts, so let me just repeat myself in larger font, so you don't miss it this time.

The UN General Assembly cannot pass a binding resolution.

Thank you.

Agreed.
There is no need for scaremongering and paranoia to make the UN look bad. They do that on their own quite nicely through their own ineptness.