Freedom Under Fire: U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

[irmerk]

I'm sure some of you have heard of this, being that it was big a month and a half ago; however, I didn't see anything about it on the new forum so I thought I'd bring it up:

So to get the gist of it, I watched Hitchens on CNN first, but other articles on it are here and here. Another source can be found here, with quite a few external links to sources as well. In short, the United Nations is trying to pass an Anti-Blasphemy Resolution which would encourage member countries to adopt a similar resolution; this resolution would criminalize defamation, critique and offensive portrayal of other religions - particularly Islam. Remember the Denmark cartoon incident? Kind of like that. Correct me if I'm wrong on this summary.

I don't know or claim to know much about the subject, so if you would like to add something else, please do. For the most part, I would like to hear what other people think about the whole issue.

 

[Aught3]

It's not going to have any affect of countries that already values free speech. No elected government would dream of enacting or enforcing such legislation. What it will do it legitimise it in other countries which is a shame. However, if the countries pushing this should have been made to sign the (what was it?) U.N. charter (?) when they joined then we would not be having this problem.

 

[King Tyrant Lizard]

I sure am glad UN resolutions aren't binding since the "Beyond the Sword" expansion came out.

 

[irmerk]

It's not going to have any affect of countries that already values free speech. No elected government would dream of enacting or enforcing such legislation. What it will do it legitimise it in other countries which is a shame. However, if the countries pushing this should have been made to sign the (what was it?) U.N. charter (?) when they joined then we would not be having this problem.

Ah, I don't know about the U.N. charter, the refusal to sign or the lack of enforcing a signing, or whatever else that implies. Though, I agree, legitimizing it is a shame. The point I inferred from hearing about this issue is that the binding resolution would encourage and put pressure on countries to do the same.

I sure am glad UN resolutions aren't binding since the "Beyond the Sword" expansion came out.

What does Sid Meier have to do with this, and this resolution is binding.

 

[Aught3]

The point I inferred from hearing about this issue is that the binding resolution would encourage and put pressure on countries to do the same.

Well, the pressure might be put on but in the USA it flies in the face of the constitution and so I doubt it could ever be enacted. In my country if the politicians did manage to push it through parliament I think it would be an issue that the people would be irritated enough on to force a law change. Maybe Canada or the UK would pass the law though :roll:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I wonder if it would have any effect anywhere. Would it make Islamic states more open to competing religions? Would it make Israel abandon its goal of being a "Jewish homeland" if it had to be more inclusive of non-Jews? Would it make American right-wing goons STFU about America being a country for Christians and the other faiths are here only by a whim of Christians?

 

[irmerk]

I wonder if it would have any effect anywhere. Would it make Islamic states more open to competing religions? Would it make Israel abandon its goal of being a "Jewish homeland" if it had to be more inclusive of non-Jews? Would it make American right-wing goons STFU about America being a country for Christians and the other faiths are here only by a whim of Christians?

It sounds to me that it is specifically catered to Islam; feigning inclusion of other religions in order to enforce their dogmatic intolerance. I think it would make Israel and right-wing Americans get even fussier about, "How dare they!?" A good metaphor is Intelligent Design: Trying to mask your implementation of intolerance to opposing views with a, "Hey, religions should be respected fairly" idea.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It sounds to me that it is specifically catered to Islam; feigning inclusion of other religions in order to enforce their dogmatic intolerance. I think it would make Israel and right-wing Americans get even fussier about, "How dare they!?" A good metaphor is Intelligent Design: Trying to mask your implementation of intolerance to opposing views with a, "Hey, religions should be respected fairly" idea.

I know it is a ploy of right-wing Islamic regimes to try to shield themselves from criticism. I don't think that even they expect an actual effect. I think mostly they were hoping a bunch of people would vote against it, so they can point to those countries as an "axis of evil"... it is a pretty standard political trick.