Islam defamation at UN drive attacked

[TruthSeeker]

---

---

Rights experts attack Islam defamation drive at UN

Wed 17 Dec 2008, 15:33 GMT
By Robert Evans

GENEVA, Dec 17 (Reuters) - The United Nations should stop passing resolutions, largely promoted by Islamic countries, calling for laws against "defamation of religion", according to international experts on freedom of expression.

The four experts -- from Africa, Europe, Latin America and the United Nations itself -- said such laws were often used to shield religious leaders from criticism and to suppress religious minorities and non-believers.

"International organisations, including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council, should desist from the further adoption of statements supporting the idea of 'defamation of religion'," they declared.

The statement was issued on the website of the pan-European security organisation, the OSCE, as clear signs emerged in Geneva that Islamic states and their backers aim to get a call for a defamation ban into a key U.N. document on racism.

The experts were Frank La Rue, a Guatemalan who is the Human Rights Council's investigator for freedom of expression, Hungarian writer Miklos Haraszti of the OSCE, South African jurist Faith Pansy Tlakula of the African Union, and Catalina Botero of the Organisation of American States.

"The concept of 'defamation of religions' does not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals," they said.

"Religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own," they added. Limits on freedom of expression should only be used to bar advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred amounting to inciting violence.

Countries which had such limits to protect religion, they said, had often used them "to prevent legitimate criticism of powerful religious leaders and to suppress the views of religious minorities, dissenting believers and non-believers."

The 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council -- where Islamic countries backed usually by most African states, Russia, China and Cuba have a built-in majority -- passes resolutions annually calling governments to act against religious defamation.

The U.N.'s General Assembly, where the same informal alliance operates on the issue, has adopted similar non-enforceable resolutions each year since 2005, although this year support for them has waned.

Islamic states say the resolutions are not aimed at imposing drastic limitations on free speech but at stopping publications like those of Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed that sparked bloody protests by Muslims in some countries.

But a discussion paper from Algeria's envoy to the U.N. in Geneva setting out ideas to be included in a U.N. declaration on racism suggests "seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion" ought to be banned by any state.

The declaration is to be issued at a U.N. conference in Geneva in April to update an earlier anti-racism document issued by a conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, which some countries and rights bodies said was marred by anti-Semitism. (Editing by Jonathan Lynn and Jon Boyle)

[TruthSeeker]

It is annoying to have to listen to or read "offensive" materials. However,it is worse to give political bodies the right to decide what can and cannot be said. The exercise of "free speech" is one of the primary checks human societies can have against injustice and corruption. The "sunshine" of publicity is one of the best disinfectants. That is why such places as the PDF are popular and worthwhile.

[TruthSeeker]

Support plummets for plan to criminalize Christianity

Shariah states want 'defamation' of Islam denounced worldwide
Posted: December 19, 2008
12:25 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The Islamic nations whose leaders want Christianity criminalized sustained a severe blow at the United Nations today when the momentum on their religion "anti-defamation" proposal suddenly shifted.

WND previously reported on the plan that has been in the works since 1999, sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The "anti-defamation" law was proposed ostensibly to protect religions from criticism and attack.

However, the plan mentions only Islam as needing protection.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, has assembled a petition opposing the plan that has been signed by about 400,000 people already. He said today's U.N. General Assembly vote, which was 86 yes, 53 no and 42 abstentions, was a dramatic shift from the vote from one year ago, which was 108 yes, 51 no, and 25 abstentions.

"To have basically over a 20 percent shift, this is a significant loss of momentum for the OIC," he said, "and a clear message the world opinion is going against this special status for Islam."

He said his organization, along with a sister group, the European Center for Law and Justice, which has a special seat at the U.N., would continue to work to build opposition to the plan.

"We hope it comes down to the OIC as the only countries supporting this, and even those will start peeling away. This was a huge victory," he said.

The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied for the plan, which is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, since 1999. The Cairo declaration states "that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."

The ACLJ, in promoting its petition to raise awareness of the campaign, said, "The fact is this: The proposal, while purportedly to protect against 'defamation of religions,' is frequently used as a weapon to silence religious minorities, including Christians in many countries.

"The resolution actually targets anyone who speaks negatively in any way about Islam. Sharing your faith would become an international crime punishable by imprisonment – or death," the ACLJ said.

The ACLJ's analysis found the OIC "uses the religious defamation concept as both a shield and a sword. In Islamic countries, blasphemy laws are used as a shield to protect the dominant religion, but even more dangerously, they are used to silence minority religious believers and prevent Muslims from converting to other faiths, which is still a capital crime in many Islamic countries."

[Flintlock]

This is nonsense really - why should Islam be singled out for special treatment?

[TruthSeeker]

This is nonsense really - why should Islam be singled out for special treatment?

Apparently some adherents of Islam have their feelings hurt by the words of unbelievers and want the UN to protect them from such outrages. It brings to mind some old sayings: "the pot shouldn't call the kettle "black", "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and from Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[Prodigy17]

Apparently some adherents of Islam have their feelings hurt by the words of unbelievers and want the UN to protect them from such outrages. It brings to mind some old sayings: "the pot shouldn't call the kettle "black", "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and from Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Agreed, freedom of expression should be guarranteed. Now, dear truth seeker, why don't you go to europe which is the torch bearer of this freedom and start your research on authenticating holocaust itself or its figures???? And if you are such a strong believer of freedom of expression as you seem to profess, try and get something published about the holocaust other than the western stated figures and facts.... you would soon find yourself at the crescendo of freedom i-e European Jails.
Should i call it double standards by the enlightened west whereby defaming a particular religion can be justified in the name of freedom of expression but a human tragedy which occured in the past can't be discussed bcoz it may break the myth of blue eyed child of west.
Have you ever heard about so many people languishing in european jails merely because they decided to put the story to factual test.......
I would even goad you to try this in America itself.......
I would also ask torch bearers of freedom of expression like you and flint to try and get these draconian laws against the very freedom scrapped in europe and then only... show their concern.

[Prodigy17]

And on a side note, there has to be a limit to everything....... out of the many things, the issue which i know will strike a chord with you here is the free market system.... your incumbent president deregulated the markets to allow them to run berserk and look where you ended up. Even the model of capitalism, voted for a person who believes in enforcing checks........ so should we allow the society in general also to run berserk without any restrictions at all?????

[TruthSeeker]

Prodigy17,

I agree that the European laws against "holocaust denial" are wrong. If the European nations had the strong constitutional guarantees for individual freedoms that are provided by the US constitution, these laws would not be made. IF the European nations tried to enshrine anti-"holocaust denial" rules at the UN, I am confident that the US would oppose these attempts as well. There is a distinction between private bigotry (social ostracism) and "official" or governmental bigotry that has the backing of the coercive powers of the State. One can oppose the latter while recognizing that the former must be resisted by reason and logic, person-to-person. You do agree don't you?

[Prodigy17]

Agreed. I have no qualms about the freedom of expression. But my contention would be that it should apply to all. If some people can't practice what they preach, i'm afraid they would be dreadfully wrong in convincing muslims about nauseating attacks on their religion in the name of selective application of freedom of expression. Infact, it goes into the realm of your previous thread about why muslims hate america and west.
And to Flint who also supported freedom of expression idea, why don't you allow the same facility to your government minister who had to resign because he dared utilize the freedom of expression....is it because he burst the air out of indian propanganda????? If that be the treatment of sitting government minister, what would befall a common man if he dared open his mouth????????????????
I would say, lets start implementing it from our own countries first....

[Flintlock]

Agreed. I have no qualms about the freedom of expression. But my contention would be that it should apply to all. If some people can't practice what they preach, i'm afraid they would be dreadfully wrong in convincing muslims about nauseating attacks on their religion in the name of selective application of freedom of expression. Infact, it goes into the realm of your previous thread about why muslims hate america and west.
And to Flint who also supported freedom of expression idea, why don't you allow the same facility to your government minister who had to resign because he dared utilize the freedom of expression....is it because he burst the air out of indian propanganda????? If that be the treatment of sitting government minister, what would befall a common man if he dared open his mouth????????????????
I would say, lets start implementing it from our own countries first....

He's free to say whatever he wants. The Congress party decided to make him step down to protect their votes, nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[Prodigy17]

---

---

He's free to say whatever he wants. The Congress party decided to make him step down to protect their votes, nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Is that a valid excuse to mute a critical voice by the ruling party of secular, pluralistic and democratic hindustan. How come it has nothing to do with freedom of expression?????? The media is full of reports about the furore created by right wing extremists sitting in your parliament and also by so called liberals and centrists alike in this case. Great example of freedom of expression whereby a government minister even has to pay with his ministry merely for opening his mouth..... champions of democracy and freedom of expression, are they???????????