VICTORY AS UN & INTERNATIONAL BODIES REJECT “BLASPHEMY” LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH!
ATHEIST GROUPS HAILS PROGRESS, CANCELS DEMO
RESOLUTIONS that would have banned “defamation of religion” were rejected by international bodies this week, prompting an Atheist group to all off plans to demonstrate at the United Nations building.
The so-called “blasphemy” resolution introduced by Pakistan and supported by some Middle East regimes called upon governments to combat critical, insulting or defamatory statements about religion, specifically the Islamic faith. The measure lacked sufficient votes in the UN General Assembly to become a binding resolution; and the proposal will not be on the agenda at the Durban II conference slated for Geneva next month.
Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists said that he was encouraged by these developments.
“The ‘blasphemy’ resolutions were aimed at regulating personal opinions and expression, and had nothing to do with acts of violence against ethnic or religious groups,” said Buckner. “Religious creeds and movements should not enjoy special rights or protections, especially where freedom of speech is concerned.”
Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists cautioned that the “blasphemy” proposal is not dead.
“Religious groups and some faith-based states will continue to push this type of resolution,” said Silverman. “Secular and even moderate religious organizations need to continually monitor this effort, and speak out vocally in defense of freedom of conscience and free expression.”
Mr. Silverman said that a demonstration planned for this Saturday (March 28) outside the UN building in New York has been canceled.
“If this proposal is resurrected again,” said Silverman, “we’ll be ready to speak out and defend our freedom from religion!”
(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.”
What’s really needed is a resolution against persecution of people who deconvert from their country’s official religion.
Still, despite this resolution defeat, I would rather the United Nations packed it’s bags and left the United States for good.
I can’t believe the hypocrisy…actually I can. It’s a liberal trait.
However I’m glad that NOW your in support of the “defense of freedom of conscience and free expression”. Tell me…is it for everyone?
nice try phreedm
move to pakistan and preach your christian faith and see how long you live.we challenge your beliefs but we aren’t going to kill or treat you as a second class citizen.
Of the 50 on Death Row for blasphemy in Pakistan, it is believed that 11 are Christians and 16 are Moslems. This involves everyone.
reason says:
I am.
reason says:
If he prays hard enough, would his gawd not protect him? You know, spreading “his” word and all. Could be a nice battle of the gawds.
Excellent news. Thanks for being on top of it.
Phreedm said
This is a ridiculous comparison. Asking, speaking out and filing lawsuits are not equivalent to passing resolutions criminalizing any part of public speech. With the exception of lawsuits they don’t represent anything compulsory and with the lawsuit you still have to win it before anyone is compelled to do anything. Even then, it doesn’t represent a change in law; just the enforcement of existing statutes in a particular instance.
About this, phreedm says
I was going to say something here like, “apparently it’s not exclusively a liberal trait” but, as my earlier comment shows, phreedm doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That means he’s not hypocritical, but just ignorant.
I think it’s kinder to attribute this comment of his to simple ignorance rather than deliberate obtuseness. Of course these rights are for everyone and liberals (or anyone else) speaking out against something aren’t infringing on them any more than conservatives are when they do the same thing. These are expressions of free speech. All phreedm’s examples appear to be acts within the set of laws that protect our civil rights. I see no advocacy of infringements against them so how are they hypocritical?
Let me put it in a way even the most simple-minded amongst us can understand: I can want phreedm to shut up; I can tell phreedm to shut up; but unless I force him to shut up, his First Amendment rights remain intact and both of us are just exercising them.
thx1138
if you are going to pakistan please be careful.i believe you have a right to express your faith but this is a nation under siege even being the wrong kind of muslim can get you killed there.i wish you the best.
Tell me dfledermaus…are you capable of having a discussion without without resorting to name calling?
Is it really? So you don’t believe certain aspects of our free speech are under attack?
Now, if you can answer with intelligent comments, fine. Otherwise leave your editorializing to the likes of Neo and “What do I know”…
reason
Exactly what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Reason…you need to heed your screen name and open your eyes.
reason says:
You should avoid irony here, Reason. Certain self-sanctimonious cretins might confuse it with the price of tea in China.
Phreedm said
I can and I did. Saying that something is a ridiculous comparison is not equivalent to calling you names. Now if I had said something like “only an idiot like phreedm would make such a ridiculous comparison,” that would be name-calling. However, that’s not what I did. It’s not my style.
Where did you get this from? All I spoke about was whether or not the examples you gave were attacks on freedom of conscience or speech. There is nothing there from which you can infer my opinion about other possible attacks on freedom of speech.
Um… I thought that was what I was doing.
I guess you’ll need to instruct me on the principles of logic and rational thinking. Apparently the university classes I took that covered those subjects, weren’t adequate.
;^D
dfledermaus
You are arguing with a sock puppet.
I know, but I’m having fun doing it.
U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation
Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:21am IST
By Laura MacInnis
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-38730220090326
GENEVA (Reuters) – A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning “defamation of religion” as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.
The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favour and 11 against, with 13 abstentions.
Western governments and a broad alliance of activist groups have voiced dismay about the religious defamation text, which adds to recent efforts to broaden the concept of human rights to protect communities of believers rather than individuals.
Pakistan, speaking for the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said a “delicate balance” had to be struck between freedom of expression and respect for religions.
[...]
how ironic
stupid religion
dfledermaus
Oh well
! “Sock” it to ‘m.