UN Anti-Blasphemy Resolution

[eNV]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This makes me question the fate and general well-being of our society. Though I doubt this will make any headway, due to it's direct conflict with the United States Constitution, the thought of it's inaction is rather disgusting. I found this, overall, rather appalling and worthy of note. Opinions?

Yes, yes, I know it's a long video, but it is very worth it.

[Night Runner]

PZ Myers (the American Dawkins, for all intents and purposes) wrote a post (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) about this, too. There's a great discussion in the comments section.

[Rudy]

It's truly frightening, yes. The very idea that criticism of something could be criminalized... *shudder*

[Night Runner]

Actually, this gives me an idea... If the criticism of religion is to be criminalized, I would love to criticize religion in the most public manner imaginable. Doesn't matter which religion - the point would be to be a devil's advocate on this issue. If I were to get arrested or, better yet, prosecuted for my act of defiance, I just might become the world's first atheist martyr. :bandana: I know this doesn't sound like the most mature solution, but sometimes one must take ridiculous measures to shed light on ridiculous issues.

[Rudy]

Actually, this gives me an idea... If the criticism of religion is to be criminalized, I would love to criticize religion in the most public manner imaginable. Doesn't matter which religion - the point would be to be a devil's advocate on this issue. If I were to get arrested or, better yet, prosecuted for my act of defiance, I just might become the world's first atheist martyr. :bandana: I know this doesn't sound like the most mature solution, but sometimes one must take ridiculous measures to shed light on ridiculous issues.

I assure you, that if by some impossibility such a law was passed in the U.S., thousands of people would be doing just that. It would go to trial, and the Supreme Court would strike it down.

[zibber]

Oh shit, I'm just waiting for Geert Wilders to throw his white pompadour into the mix.

[Rudy]

Oh shit, I'm just waiting for Geert Wilders to throw his white pompadour into the mix.

Yeah, well, even bigoted assholes like him can be correct on things like this.

[Arminius]

Just another reason to scrap the UN. I'm no fan of rabid atheists, but I don't see why they shouldn't be permitted to speak their minds. Besides, the ways this sort of thing can be twisted are myriad.

[Solus]

There is no reason to scrap the UN. It's a forum where members can exchange opinions on a variety of issues. As for this resolution, I don't see any reason to worry. UN resolutions are not directly applicable in national jurisdictions. They are used and abused, interpreted and misinterpreted (the (in)famous resolution 1441 springs to one's mind).

[Feral]

Is there an article?

... can't YouTube at work :(

[John F Kennedy]

Isn't 'blasphemy' a religious term? It is used from within religion, by religious people. Non-religious people just call it 'criticism'. Why would the UN adopt a religious stance?

[Arminius]

There is no reason to scrap the UN. It's a forum where members can exchange opinions on a variety of issues. As for this resolution, I don't see any reason to worry. UN resolutions are not directly applicable in national jurisdictions. They are used and abused, interpreted and misinterpreted (the (in)famous resolution 1441 springs to one's mind).
There is every reason to scrap it. For one, it's intention is as a world government. It is borderline powerless, but that doesn't change what it is. I'm a nationalist at heart, and I don't appreciate anything that sticks it's nose into my country's business, or any country's business from a more philosophical viewpoint. Secondly, my own government is corrupt, wasteful, and incompetent enough as it is, adding another layer on will not help. Then we get into the practical uses of the UN instead of the theoretical. Functionally speaking, all the UN is used for is to legitimize the actions of the great powers, since they are the only countries with the resources to get anything done. Otherwise it serves more as a club for sundry dictatorships and tyrannical governments.

I see no reason why countries cannot communicate directly via diplomats, as they have for the bulk of civilization's existence. If there is a matter concerning more than one state, the states involved should hold a conference and sort the matter out themselves without dragging in people from the other side of the world who neither care nor know the situation well.

[Sequoia]

It seems we are on a world course of increased totalitarianism. This shows up around the world, even in our country as the tendency for those who would restrict our rights to have a loud platform while those who oppose this to be marginalized in both the press and in popular culture.

At least in the United States, that's as far as it's gotten except for some unfortunate policies and laws passed at various levels. In other countries, it's gotten more institutionalized with the result of a very real decline in their basic human rights.

I for one, absolutely protest a stifling of free speech and free exchange of ideas on any of these levels.

[Rho1334]

The UN is mostly made up of Islamic countries...sound like a power bloc to me. The point that this had even come up just shows how small-minded people really are.

[nacht]

As stated in the video: Keeping within their respective legal and constitutional frameworks, which is an entirely separate ball game from what people are afraid of.

Besides, as near as I can tell we're talking a nonbinding resolution, which the UN is really good at.

[raharu]

I agree, that resolution sounds absolutely despicable, and it puts a pit in my stomach to think that it anyone could even think to bring it before a vote. It's sending everything modern freedoms were build on back centuries!

I haven't watched the video to see who, exactly it was who brought this resolution forward, but I can't begin to imagine... more likely than not, they've had ancestors who have died attempting to remove legislation like this. The whole thing is a real *facepalm* concept.

I see no reason why countries cannot communicate directly via diplomats, as they have for the bulk of civilization's existence. If there is a matter concerning more than one state, the states involved should hold a conference and sort the matter out themselves without dragging in people from the other side of the world who neither care nor know the situation well.

I agree with you there that countries have been doing just peachy on their own,and I agree that the UN brings in more trouble than it is likely worth when it brings questions that concern just a few nations before the whole lot of them. In practice, it's a mess.

However, unlike you I'm not particularly nationalistic. I like the idea of the UN, and what it might have achieved were it no so irreconcilably broken. But as it stands, I think the UN is sufficiently powerless for us to be able to say it is "harmless;" in that doing away with it would be sure to do more harm than good. The breakup of the UN would send a poor message worldwide, and would be quite demoralizing for many people and governments.

[Night Runner]

The UN is mostly made up of Islamic countries...sound like a power bloc to me. The point that this had even come up just shows how small-minded people really are.

I think you might be a little off on this one. According to the all-powerful wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (yeah, I know, I'm lazy...), there are only 30-40 Islamic countries in the world. Last time I checked, the UN had about 200 members, give or take. Looks like Islamic countries have control over - at most - 20% of the UN... :shhh:

[LaoTzu]

"...noted that anti-blasphemy themes have been cited in countries that are predominantly non-Muslim.

“There are cases in Russia dealing people suing TV stations for airing South Park and the Simpsons because they see them as defamatory to Christianity,” he explained.

“A lot of the violence in India dealing with Hindus and Christians is being spurred on by accusations that Hindu gods are being defamed, while there are also cases against artists in India for depicting Hindu gods in modernist way.” (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
"

It's not just Muslims that devolve into raving lunatics ;)

[Tyrant Soup]

Who takes UN resolutions seriously anyways? It doesn't exist unless they can enforce it.

[void]

I do wonder what qualifies as a religion. Do scientology and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster enjoy the same benefits as Islam?

Nonetheless, I sincerely hope North America as a whole thumbs their noses at the UN and farts in their general direction (oh wait, never mind). Europe sure as hell won't.


EDIT: What's up with Lou Dobb's faux patriotism? Yeah, nothing says "USA! USA! USA!" like having a giant waving American flag as a background.

[Tyrant Soup]

Since atheism can be classified as a religion in itself, perhaps we should throw those UN zealots in jail for their hateful resolution.

[Night Runner]

Since atheism can be classified as a religion in itself, perhaps we should throw those UN zealots in jail for their hateful resolution.

If atheism is a religion, "bald" is a hair color.

[Solus]

There is every reason to scrap it. For one, it's intention is as a world government. It is borderline powerless, but that doesn't change what it is. I'm a nationalist at heart, and I don't appreciate anything that sticks it's nose into my country's business, or any country's business from a more philosophical viewpoint. Secondly, my own government is corrupt, wasteful, and incompetent enough as it is, adding another layer on will not help. Then we get into the practical uses of the UN instead of the theoretical. Functionally speaking, all the UN is used for is to legitimize the actions of the great powers, since they are the only countries with the resources to get anything done. Otherwise it serves more as a club for sundry dictatorships and tyrannical governments.

I see no reason why countries cannot communicate directly via diplomats, as they have for the bulk of civilization's existence. If there is a matter concerning more than one state, the states involved should hold a conference and sort the matter out themselves without dragging in people from the other side of the world who neither care nor know the situation well.

We live in a globalised world and there is a need for an institution where everybody will have some say as to how states should interact. If we didn't have the UN with its treaties, conventions, institutions etc. we'd probably be now witnessing a war between the UK on one side and Chile and Argentina on the other. What about? Huge portions of Antartica. Try to sort this problem out in tripartite discussions without resorting to some piece of international law that has been developed by the UN. I doubt you could do it. Even if you could, what about tens of other countries that have an interest in this issue? Using the UN is very convenient here.

The UN usually sticks it's nose into your country's business when this also happens to be the business of some other country or countries. Sometimes it legitimises the actions of the great powers, sometimes its decision mechanisms frustrate such actions. So far no permanent member of the Security Council has decided to leave the UN. Why? Not because it couldn't do without the UN but because it would automatically give to the others the same freedom it feels the UN has been depriving it of. The freedom to do whatever it pleases. In a world with one super power and several regional powers no one can afford to let others behave as they please in international relations.

[SmileyMan]

The EU will flip this off, as it goes against one of its ground principles about freedom of expression.

[Solus]

Only individual EU member states could reject this resolution if for some unfathomable reason they felt that a non-binding resolution adopted by the General Assembly outside the scope of Chapter VII of the UN's charter is such a menace. The EU as a whole can't do that. The problem is that the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights is not a document with legal force until the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified. In other words, there is currently no part of EU law which would deal with human rights to the extent that this resolution could be said to be contrary to it. This falls within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights that the EU can't acceed to as it (still) has no legal personality. EU member states have, on the other hand, adopted it.

But more importantly, why such a fuss about this? It's not the first time that the General Assembly has passed resolutions that not everyone is all right with. Have we become bored with the global financial crisis?

[jesse]

unwatch.org article on the resolution (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This little bombshell is worrisome due to the cloaking effect on the premise of protecting so-called religious feeling (read: Islam) from offense or at best, from aboslutely any and every form of critique. Even if this proposition is trying to somehow promote tolerance, it comes at great cost and with a bulldozer to run over values. This is similar to several European states banning Nazism and its symbols. You can stifle it's public presence, you still will not be able to remove it.

The United Nations institution as such is a decent platform to discuss intermember disputes and challenges affecting many "stakeholders". It is sad to note that the UN still lives in bygone days and operates as someting of a monolithic, slow-moving beast. I am not saying the entire institution is dead in the water, they do however to hold positions and cater really only to the larger and powerful members. Corrupting the system is done through pushing rubbish declarations which cannot even be fully enforced as the UN is not a nation state and it certainly does not have any "law enforcement agencies".

Let's use the example of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it is said to be binding, reality shows a very different picture in various countries. Plenty of siganatories, few who care to implement and enforce them in practice. Even at best, some articles are overzealously applied while others can be ignored at will.

[Rho1334]

I think you might be a little off on this one. According to the all-powerful wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (yeah, I know, I'm lazy...), there are only 30-40 Islamic countries in the world. Last time I checked, the UN had about 200 members, give or take. Looks like Islamic countries have control over - at most - 20% of the UN... :shhh:


20% sounds about right but you are forgetting about the countries that have majority muslim voting populations with secular governments. Add those together and it's more like 40-45 percent and rememeber Arab countries control the worlds oil. Swing votes can kill.

[Night Runner]

When I said Islamic, I meant countries with Muslim majority, so your concern is already included in the equation. :)

[Rho1334]

i see well 20% is still a nice chunk...with the chinese and russian swing votes...they pretty much get what they want...but it really doesnt matter becuase the UN is worthless anyway.

[Klamachpin]

point taken on the 20%, but there is no chinese and russian 'swing votes', the resolution is in the General Assembly with the 'one country, one vote' rule (no veto power here),

also, nations that have Muslim populations (france, eastern europe) that don't have islamic governments, won't necessarily vote for it because the population obviously doesn't govern the nation's policy

also, even if it is a binding resolution, what are they gonna do? its not like anything happend to the US after Iraq, the UN can just act pissed off

[Rho1334]

to explain what i mean by swing vote...Chinese and russia are more like unsure votes you never know what they are going to do. And if you go over some of the publicly released minutes it seems their closest neightbours tend to side with them...so who knows.