Islamic groups, international, national and local are attacking all who question the teachings of Islam, or its founder Mohammed, under the guise of fighting hate speech. Our freedom of speech is under assault at the UN and in the courts throughout the world. The UN just this week passed a resolution prohibiting criticisim of any Islamic teaching. This is shocking given Islams horrific human rights record with regard to women, religious minorities and homosexuals. This is happenings while the non Muslim world sleeps. See "Jihadwatch.org" for more information.
I have seen similar....in fact, Mark Steyn just "won" a case in Canada when one of their "Human Rights Councils" or "Tribunals" dropped its case.....very scary stuff....Americans need to zealously guard their freedom of speech rights....and never cave in to such U.N. idiocy.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008..._wins.html
"The UN just this week passed a resolution prohibiting criticisim of any Islamic teaching."
Actually the UN did not pass any such thing; the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution regarding its members' conduct in which "freedoms of speech may be limited in areas regarding “public health and morals” or “respect for religions and beliefs”. This is like the local stamp club passing a resolution not to discuss coin collecting during meetings; while I think the resolution itself is stupid, and will hinder the Council from discussing meaningful topics, it was a decision made by vote by the member states of the Council.
The US is, by its own choice, not a member of the council which succeeded the UN Commission on Human Rights, which was plagued by a number of problems. The hope was that a new organization, the Council, would overcome the lack of respect that the old Commission had created for itself, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, in plain english, exactly what Islamic teachings does that leave open to meaningful criticism?
According to the resolution in question: "Emphasizes that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law and 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;"
It would appear that one could, if this resolution had any power at all, criticize Islam but not in a disrespectful way (which as I understand, is rooted in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's documentary and the Muslim cartoons published in Europe). I don't believe this resolution has any meaningful power because there is nothing, that I can find, that can enforce it.
The US certainly isn't subject to it, and indeed this month we pulled out of holding even observer status at the HRC because of its dysfunctional nature. Moreover, other Western countries oppose this resolution and I don't imagine that the 3rd world Islamo-dicatatorships are going to have much pull with any modern democratic country's government. My point is, while you are right that this resolution is contrary to the basic right to expression, it has not power over you or I. The UNHRC is a failure, so far, and does not have much respect.
Don't get me wrong-I don't support what the UNHRC has done; but I guess my point is that it's a sham organization run by mostly repressive, anti-human rights states who already suppress and oppress their citizens so it's not a big surprise that they behave the way they do.
Which brings up the issue of whether the U.S. and other countries should stay in the U.N. vs just conducting diplomacy with individual states and/or organized ones like the EU.
I am sure there are some pros to staying....but I wager there are at least as many cons.
Regardless, nothing is going to change anytime soon.......
yep...
