OIC pushing for global anti-(Islamic) blasphemy law

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by GeoffP, Dec 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Start with this post, and then scan back through the next seven or eight of mine. It's an issue I harp on.

    You're circling back to the same argument as prior, which you told me several pages ago was a no-no. And since then you have not addressed the complication to your literalist interpretation. Simply, the text of the Resolution is meaningless without resolution. Or ecumenical resolution, anyway. Don't you agree? And without that resolution of, indeed, spirit - or soul, egalité, even-handedness, whatever - the Resolution's spirit is already broken.

    But forget all that for a moment: again, explain to me how the text of the Resolution going to matter in this non-binding Resolution.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    The text of the Resolution conveys its meaning, which does not include a bias for any religion over another.

    Similarly, the text of the Forum Rules conveys meaning, which is the purpose of text. It is explained (in text) there that repetitively posing inane questions and absurd statements qualifies as disruptive posting, described in the text of the rules as "trolling".

    Claiming that the text of the Forum Rules does not matter, on the grounds that it had origins in a separate dispute would resemble your claim that the text of the Resolution that we are discussing does not apply to its reasonable interpretation. But the text certainly does apply in both cases, and denial of that reality is absurd.

    The real proof is in the enforcement. I'm still reviewing the thread for a plausible scenario that you have offered, by which this Resolution may be reasonably expected to legitimize the harming of a person in the name of Islam, or some perversion of Islam. Your assistance in pointing out your most compelling scenario would be appreciated.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I'm sorry, but you cannot simply walk away from the ultimate intent of the Resolution, as supplied by supporting documents. You have done so again; ergo you have admitted you have no real answer to the issue, and have already misrepresented it at least once.

    Very well. Are you obliquely suggesting that you are in fact trolling, since you have not acknowleged the obvious intent of the Resolution, as supplied by the OIC preamble?

    Actually, your stated interpretation of that purportedly parallel example fails in at least two ways:

    i) it would, rather, be absurd indeed to imagine that the text of the Forum Rules was in any way independent of those enforcing it. Different moderators naturally take different standards and thresholds for the application of those rules, according to their own conscious or subconscious biases. It occurs: you yourself wistfully admit your own bias from time to time. Or are you now saying, in contrast to previously, that the enforcement of Forum regulations is absolute? Which is the correct position? You must pick one.

    ii) the Forum Rules are vehicles of practical enforcement rather than enjoinders to rules of correct behaviour; the Resolution, as I've mentioned many times, is non-binding, and so the vehicle of enforcement in this case is brow-beating, as we've already discussed and a point to which you have already agreed. Even in that case, of course, Forum Rules are not absolute, and individual posters have any number of ways of avoiding their enforcement; sometimes possibly even in collusion with Moderators or above.

    Thus: even your presumed parallel illustrates the underlying principle. People, nations and posters are not robots, and rarely subject themselves willingly to 'moderation', if you will, except in certain gross examples in my case.

    This is bordering on circular questioning again. I have mentioned - many, many times - that enforcement of a non-binding Resolution would be strictly political. There is no need to hypothesize on a specific scenario, as I think it reasonable to imagine you're already aware of the concept of international political inequity. Or even in other scenarios where 'moderation' might occur. If you're really so naive as to require an actual scenario, then imagine for a moment how simple it would be for the OIC to criticize 'defamation' in context of this Resolution in the West while ignoring defamation and worse in their own nations.

    Two things here:

    i) Please don't wildly assert that signatories of the Resolution would really - really, really, Wally - stand by their signing principles rather than be swayed by their immediate or long-term political or religio-political objectives. I know you're thinking of it, but it's like Hyneman says in every show: "You heard him - don't do it!"

    ii) 'Defamation' as described in their cover letter - if you have read it - includes expressions of artistic and political freedom we take for granted here in the 'West' and elsewhere. Ergo, I must conclude that you feel that the interference with such expression is legitimate, since you have not described alternatives to this definition to be found in the Resolution, instead citing a standardized description that, since it gives no specific examples WRT this Resolution, must subscribe or confirm to the intent of the Resolution, which is found in - yes - the preamble.

    See above; although we've actually covered that. I actually requested you to:

    Is this too difficult a proposition? You've insisted throughout this discussion that the text was paramount, even singular. Is it not, now?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    It is my opinion that the Resolution stands on its own, and that your incessant spinning over peripheral documents is an attempt to suggest things about the Resolution that in reality are not there in any legal sense.

    That the language of the Resolution condemns defamation of any religions is a clear point, supported by the language of the Resolution- and it is a point that damages your labored argument considerably.

    I think it's more accurate to say that I am contributing to the delinquency of a troll, by allowing you to post so much repetitive nonsense in this thread. I have a degree of respect for you that may have clouded my judgment as a moderator in this case. Still, I am straining to err on the side of clemency as a moderator in dealing with fellow members that I do not agree with in terms of the purported dangers of HRC 13/9.

    I submit that my bias in interpreting the rules in this case as a moderator has until the present been in your favor.

    These are both vehicles of practical enforcement. For instance, your present line of argument is off-topic, and involves challenging the decisions of a moderator, although this moderator has been lenient in your case. This behavior is against our forum rules, and unwise.

    Is it your expectation that you can avoid my sanctions as moderator for persisting in diverting this thread from topic after being warned not to?

    That was my intention.

    Some members are more difficult to correct than others. Many valuable members do occasionally cross the line. I hope that as you push this further, you will understand why I've made my warning to you official, and (should you divert this thread further) will understand why I will swiftly escalate sanctions according to the precedent and advice of my official associates here.

    Really? :bugeye:

    You made a claim in your argument, and I challenged you to back it up.

    You're talking crap; word salad. Politics isn't always fair. Yes, we know, Geoff. But this Resolution does not introduce a legal inroad for anyone's idea of involuntary Sharia across the world. You are projecting a personal obsession into the language of a non-binding UNHRC Resolution, where the language does not in fact support what you fear, and/or wish for others to fear in it.

    Word salad; crap; nonsense. Cease this, or I will begin affixing demerits on your member account.

    It was not a naïve request. How many forum rules are you trying to press with me here, Geoff?


    That is not a problem unique to this particular Resolution. You are alluding to an inconsistency in criticism or sanction that could occur with any rule, at the UN, within a message board, etc. This is not a logical argument against this Resolution. This is trolling.


    I have not asserted that (wildly or otherwise). I have emphasized to you repeatedly that this is a non-binding Resolution. Your refusal to acknowledge the meaning of that suggests that you are not really interested in a sincere discussion here. You are not required to be sincerely interested in intelligent discussion, but you are required by forum rules to refrain from posting in this thread if you do not wish to participate in good faith.

    That sounds like some advice that you might well consider yourself. How do you read this transmission, Geoff?


    I cannot post caricatures here that are insulting of you, Geoff. This and related policies are necessary for the maintenance of certain standards of content and atmosphere here. This policy does not interfere with your freedom to participate here in a manner that is respectful of other members.

    The letter from the Pakistani mission (which is not a Resolution) is asking that member nations discourage disruptive, inflammatory, insulting, and defamatory behavior. Does the letter from Pakistan suggest extreme censorship? I don't think so- but even if it does, this does not change the meaning of the Resolution; it's just a letter from Pakistan for the consideration of the committee during the revision and ratification process and nothing more. The letter from the Pakistani Mission does not carry any UN authority beyond the letters and words of the Resolution because it is not a document that was authored by the UN.


    No, I understand that the interference you suggest in the legal meaning of the Resolution is imaginary.


    This is not necessary: The HRC is not suggesting in this Resolution that some strange connotations of the words "defamation", "against", "any", or "religion" are in play there. There is no reason for any reasonable person to apply any other definitions or meanings to these words than is in common English speech and legal documents.


    There is no preamble to this Resolution.

    This request is nonsense; a logical fallacy; trolling.

    No, it is not difficult because it is easily dismissed as a nonsensical challenge. The language of the Resolution contains the entire substance of the Resolution; it is what it is.

    As I have consistently pointed out throughout our lop-sided discussion: It is essential.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Hold up there Skippy and stop being so hysterical.. take a deep breath and calm down.

    You are approaching this with the same ignorance and bigotry the likes of Palin would applaud. I think you should take a read of this:

    The resolution, “Combating the Defamation of Religion,” was adopted in 2007 and “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.” Unsurprisingly, religious groups and free-speech advocates in the United States accuse the resolution of impeding on constitutional rights such as freedom of expression. John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, comments: “It’s obviously intended to have an intimidating effect on people expressing criticism of radical Islam, and the idea that you can have a defamation of a religion like this, I think, is a concept fundamentally foreign to our system of free expression in the United States.”

    I’ve noticed a lot of bloggers terming this issue “freedom under fire” and I see a lot of Islamophobes pouncing on it since it “scores points” for their “argument” that Muslims want to “impose Sharia law.” What I see missing from these reactions are efforts to engage in global dialogue between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. Rather than recognizing the importance of much-needed dialogue, Lou Dobbs and Christopher Hitchens spend about seven minutes defending freedom of expression, accusing the U.N. of being a “totalitarian” and “authoritarian organization,” and resorting to typical fear-mongering tactics by saying there are “Muslims who are prepared to use violence at the drop of a hat.” Dobbs and Hitchens present us with a very singular, misconstrued, and stereotypical perspective on the situation instead of acknowledging social problems such as annually rising hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslims in the West, which clearly contribute to the formation of this particular U.N. resolution.

    The fact of the matter is that this is a very complicated issue. Personally, I find the U.N. anti-blasphemy resolution flawed. Although the resolution aims to prevent violence and discrimination against people of any religious background, I believe the defamation laws can be abused by governments. Individuals should be allowed to express their views and opinions about religions and cultures without worrying about being criminalized. I am not against the idea of people criticizing Islam; surely everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what I am against is dehumanization and vilification of religions and entire groups of people. There is a difference between constructive criticism and hate speech, the latter has the potential to lead to discrimination and hate crimes. One could argue that organizations like the KKK are entitled to “freedom of speech,” but when they advocate violence towards African-Americans, it no longer complies with the American constitution.

    The “Combating the Defamation of Religion” resolution was introduced by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The fact that the resolution stems from a Muslim organization should indicate the importance of dialogue rather than perceiving the idea as an attempt to “impose Sharia law in the West.” As I mentioned, I do not support the resolution, but I think it raises an important opportunity for Muslim and non-Muslim communities to achieve a richer and empathetic understanding about issues related to vilification of Islam in mainstream media, pop culture, and newspapers. During the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan in 2007, for example, the Clarion Fund decided to distribute millions of anti-Islamic DVDs entitled “Obsession” to swing states in the U.S. Although there are those who continue to argue that the film is an exercise of “freedom of expression,” the larger issue that is often ignored is how Islamophobic imagery was distributed on a massive scale. Whenever Muslims protested against the DVD and wrote letters to their newspapers, they were often accused of being “over-sensitive” or “impeding on American values.” Muslim voices were hardly given a chance to voice their own opinions about the DVD and how it made them feel. Instead, their voices were lost and dumped into a box of Islamophobic generalizations.

    The argument that people like Dobbs and Hitchens don’t seem interested in is that dehumanization and vilification of a religion and/or entire group of people is an inevitable companion of war. In other words, in order to successfully rally supporters for war, one needs to establish an immensely contrasting divide between “us” and “them.”


    (Source)
     
  9. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Bells, I fully appreciate your sentiments, I don't like generalizations and stereotypes of Muslims either. But there are issues with the wording of the resolution, including a blatant mathematically disproportionate focus on discrimination against Muslims, as you will note in one of my earlier posts (I think it's on page 4 or 5). Also you must look at the history of past OIC proposals which I have also discussed, in order to see the trend into which this present resolution falls.

    Hypewaders is playing a very irritating game with us here by asserting that because the Resolution mentions "human rights", it must automatically be calling for equal rights for all human beings and could be interpreted in no other way by any accepting nation, even Islamic ones. Well Saddam used to mention human rights too, did that let him off the hook? Also he didn't bother to read the Wikipedia postings I quoted about the OIC trying to make existing human rights law secondary to Sharia, i.e. who cares how much lip service they pay to human rights, when they consider human rights to be more of a suggestion rather than a legally binding commitment. I wish I was a salesman and hypewaders was my customer, that's all I gotta say.

    As for those who perceive me "attacking" Islam, I am completely innocent of any such charges, and since I have been unfairly accused by both hypewaders and the moderator here, I am on topic for defending myself. PRESENTING A WIDELY BELIEVED VARIATION OF A RELIGION (Ahl-al-Sunnah/Sunni Islam) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE F*CKING DEFAMATION. hypewaders says it's only "an extreme 1%" that believe twisted stuff, the rest he asserts are in full compliance with 21st century ethics. Ok, hypewaders, citation for the "1%" figure is needed, or else you're guilty of intellectual fraud and trolling, and should give yourself an official 4 month warning + other sanctions.

    Sorry, I have seen books like Sahih al-Bukhari used to make virtually all manner of arguments in Islam, "proof" the Byzantines had secretly accepted Islam, etc. etc. etc. Hypewaders, go do the research on it and tell me why one should think it's only a 1% extreme which follows that book and other holy texts saying the exact same damn thing, or that only 1% accept whatever rulings the clerics make based on it- until you do that you cannot accuse me of defamation (indeed, many Sunnis and other Muslims would accuse YOU of defamation), and since you accuse me of defamation, I'm 100% on topic. Deal with it or kindly step aside as moderator, you still haven't read or directly responded to my posts BTW, and that's incredibly insulting and irresponsible when you judge me and threaten sanctions like this.

    Or maybe we could go with Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari as SAM suggested, except she hadn't bothered to read the original source (just a secondary source making brief mention of the primary source, evidently) or she would have realized it said the exact same thing about appropriate pre-pubescent ages for sex. Why is she not sanctioned for intellectual fraud, citing sources that don't say what she claims they say?

    Don't accuse me of defamation without citation. What I do is called quoting the religion (read: the most widely accepted variants on it), straight from the book, and hypewaders thinks that behaviour should earn me a ban and UN sanctions. If only 1% actually know what these holy texts say, that's no less disturbing when you consider how much of the Islamic world is ruled by these texts. Also note that hypewaders has no issue with Islam being mentioned more than any other religion or ethnicity in the resolution, nor with the track record of the member states who proposed it (see my Wikipedia quotes and citations).

    Apparently, if we continue to argue that there is even a smidgeon of evidence for Islamic bias in this new resolution, or that it won't be abused in every way possible and used as a precursor to even more abusive resolutions, that is grounds for moderator sanctions for being off-topic. Note to moderator: YOU are the one off-topic, I suggest you go take a walk and come back when you've thought about it more and actually addressed the substance of my posts. PM me if you have any issues with my conduct in this post and I'll be happy to discuss it in private with you, but I will not let you use your temporary privileges here to bully me, and I will cite past examples of such behaviour on your part with others if you persist.

    Hypewaders, I like you dude, but don't overstretch your authority here. I know it's a sensitive issue for you, and if you can't check your emotions at the door and want to use "on/off-topic" as a flexible excuse for pushing your personal opinions, you shouldn't be moderating here.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Irrelevant? Troll?

    And I have attempted to get you to acknowledge - via innumerable argumentative means - that the text of such a Resolution (particularly a non-binding one) is meaningless without the intent to enforce it evenly. It is abundantly clear that nations with histories of real, legalized religious discrimination will not be applying this Resolution in the spirit they pretend that they posed it in. But apparently deviation from hypewader's course is evidence of trolling in the thread that I created and which I did not limit to the text of the Resolution alone. Rather, this last is your tack which you are arbitrarily imposing on the thread presumably according to some inner motive.

    'Laboured' arguments are usually those that constitute massive amounts of repetitive fisking, hypewaders.

    'On the side of clemency' presumably meaning in this case 'not handing out Warnings until the topic won't take the new path I demand'?

    The moderation has not been lenient, since the moderator's comments have been loaded with innuendo and character attacks, have misrepresented one of the topics being discussed, and since the moderator is now attempting to disallow a critical document illustrating the bias of those proposing the issue. Or should we - in a much better parallel - assume that any proposed legislation (binding or non-binding) should just be taken at face value without consideration of objective? Even you acknowledge that this is naive.

    Firstly: this is my thread, and I made no such restriction on the topics under discussion. You have not illustrated under what grounds the cover letter could be considered off-topic (having at one point actually even agreeing to discuss it, and then veering off to this new interpretation of the thread) and ignoring my arguments.

    I regret to say that the present issue will be the moderation, as I cannot continue the argument when the 'other side' (being also a moderator) refuses to discuss the dispute in a reasonable context, penalizes me for doing so, and then warns me that any further discussion of the issue outside of the boundaries he has imposed on the thread that was not created by him, and which was not so bound to begin with by me, who actually wrote the damn thing. I will briefly re-summarize for the benefit of the readers:

    You have misread my comments and intent to your best advantage (ironically reaffirming my central proposition - that written Rules are rarely fixed in stone, but usually subject to considerable interpretation according to the lights of the interpreter) and strangely seem to be re-threatening me for subsequent comments submitted in the same post (e.g. same time frame). I cannot withdraw comments submitted contemporaneously in the same post, hypewaders, despite my otherwise impressive talents. You have returned to the same issue again - the exact text of the Resolution, which I remind you again is non-binding, and which cannot be enforced by any nation without extensive domestic interpretation. I remind you again here that you have not illustrated specific limits of 'defamation' aside from a textbook definition, and that I conclude you must therefore subscribe to that proposed by the OIC via the Pakistani mission. Some of these - again - would overlap with our limits of free expression, which sort of proves the argument you're telling me is nonsense, if the Resolution's intent encompasses them - and it does, actually. So some domestic interpretation is bound to be to the political advantage or tolerance of individual countries - the OIC springs to mind. And so the whole submission is bound to be cynical in political discussion in Council.

    There's also this: I actually requested you to explain to me how the exact text of the Resolution going to matter in this non-binding Resolution. You called this trolling - clearly, it is not. I have already specified that any ultimate 'enforcement' is bound to be shame-based alone, if I may coin a phrase. I'm hoping you will answer how, exactly, the specific text of a Resolution will matter to an 'enforcement' that is entirely up to the nation-state and its own definition of appropriate mores.

    Bells: I'm glad to see your contribution, and the examples therein might appear discriminatory, but in point of fact none of these were alluded to by the cover letter and it's my belief that they weren't used to inform the motive of the Resolution, since I think they would have been mentioned. I also appreciate the perspective about dialogue, but I don't think this was really the object either, since it isn't mentioned by those proposing the Resolution - to take a page out of hypewader's argument, it isn't in the text of the Resolution or the cover letter. But do you think that dialogue might be an additional, non-literal outcome of the dispute? If so, you would also seem to be in conflict with hypewaders over the point of the thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Naughty.

    The text of the blog you cite also seems to support my point: "I believe the defamation laws can be abused by governmentsIndividuals should be allowed to express their views and opinions about religions and cultures without worrying about being criminalized. I am not against the idea of people criticizing Islam; surely everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what I am against is dehumanization and vilification of religions and entire groups of people. There is a difference between constructive criticism and hate speech, the latter has the potential to lead to discrimination and hate crimes. One could argue that organizations like the KKK are entitled to “freedom of speech,” but when they advocate violence towards African-Americans, it no longer complies with the American constitution."

    This is exactly what I've been trying to say before my debate was closed down - that the application of this Resolution - or rather, of political brow-beating related to this Resolution, since it's non-binding - has the potential to be selective; in fact, it almost certainly will be, in various quarters, and I'm thinking along the OIC/everyone else divide here for the same reason you are. Should we really believe that Saudi Arabia, say, will suddenly undergo a spiritual unheaval and permit widespread freedom of religion and criminalizing hate speech against other religions? I don't think anyone's that naive. And so here we are - the value of a non-binding Resolution is only as good as the intent behind it. As the author of the above states: one could argue that the KKK is entitled to freedom of speech, but it's pretty obvious what they're really about.
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    CptBork: good post.

    Everyone else: So should we apply the literal standard in every dealing now? Or is there some other reason for the deviation of this thread into the grounds being proposed - the literal writ of the (non-binding) Resolution?
     
  12. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Mod Note: CptBork has received a warning, and GeoffP has received an infraction, both for "trolling". What I hope to discourage here is for any of us to make absurd and repetitive arguments in discussion, and to discourage challenging SciForums moderators as has been done above. If anyone would like to review the forum rules and/or communicate with any of the staff about these issues, please use the link below to do so (do not do so in this thread). Please feel free to discuss UNHRC 13/19, and pardon the intrusion.

    List of Moderators/Forum Rules & Regulations


    I was referring to this comment by another Member, which is immediately above my post (#110) above. In terms of the subject of this thread, I is reasonable to estimate that the percentage of zealous Muslims who will be successful exploiting this Resolution in a way that will place other religions at unfair disadvantage will be much smaller than 1% of 1%, because the Resolution does not provide any legal power to do so.

    It is appropriate to refer to the language of the Resolution, which discourages defamation of all religions. The resolution does not single out Islam for any special protection by the UN.
    I am pointing out that the Resolution does not contain any language that affords Islam, or Islamism any special legal exemption or protection from defamation. You have been avoiding addressing the text of Resolution directly. The text of this non-binding (not for enforcement) Resolution contradicts your entire argument about its legal implications.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  13. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Ok hypewaders, once again you have abused the good faith which was placed in you to be fair and unbiased in your moderation. I can now guarantee you that GeoffP, myself, and possibly many others will be citing this as well as past examples of your moderating abuse, and making sure that every relevant authority on this board knows what you're doing on top of those who are now already in the know (believe me, we've only just gotten started). GeoffP started this topic, it's not your freedom to redefine it as you see fit, and if Geoff thinks I'm ruining the discussion and distracting from the OP, let him say so and I will excuse myself from the remainder of this thread.

    Once again, with great disappointment in your horribly biased heavy-handedness, I insist you retract your latest set of sanctions, once again without further delay, and that you cease and desist from continuing such irresponsible behaviour in the future. If not,I will be pushing for you to be sanctioned in kind. You are NOT a fair and unbiased moderator on this topic, and if you wanted to preserve such an illusion, you should have kept your opinions to yourself in the first place instead of chiming in with uncited opinions. Remember, GeoffP and I were the first ones here to actually make references to actual documents, all you have done is throw accusations and unsourced opinions and stats. Maybe you'd make a good mod on a religion website, but this is a science-based website and you clearly demonstrate little understanding of the distinction.

    Good day, and I hope you get the sanctions you rightfully deserve.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Any law can be abused in the wrong hands - or more to the point, if the leadership of a country is bad, than it can corrupt any law or non-binding resolution passed in the UN.

    You failed to note the actual point of the article. While the author is against the proposal itself - well a resolution now, they also state that it was the perfect opportunity for all sides of the equation to discuss why such a proposal is necessary and how to combat the bigotry that leads to the miss-characterisation of a whole group of people because of their religious beliefs.

    And you are providing a good example as to why this may be necessary in this thread. Tell me, would you reaction be as it is now if it were proposed by an Ambassador from the Vatican? Countries who commit human rights abuses don't need a resolution that isn't even binding and which they don't have to be a signatory to, to commit their human rights abuses. Now, you have claimed in this thread that Muslim countries or leaders will attempt to use this Resolution to stifle free speech because of this Resolution. Some stifle free speech anyway. I find it astounding how you can be harping on about Muslims stifling free speech while you remain virtually silent on the West and your own country doing what it can to stifle free speech (I refer of course to the Wikileaks debacle). As I said to you earlier.. Any law can be perverted and any law can be misused to achieve nefarious means against the population. Just because Muslims proposed this does not mean they are doing it for such purposes. The text is clear. It is to the protection of all religious groups. It comes from Muslims at the moment because they are being treated like social outcasts in societies around the world because of their religious beliefs.

    It does not mean that anything bad will come out of it. It had the potential of something good coming out of it.. had people not reacted with such bigotry and hatred that is.. which is ironic really considering why this Resolution was proposed for in the first place.
     
  15. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Don't worry Geoff, I'm sticking up for you here. Whatever disagreements we all have, this thread DOES NOT belong in the cesspool, nor do you or I deserve the threats and sanctions we've been receiving from a mod who doesn't read our posts. Let's talk in PM about what actions we'll take first.
     
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    LOL, you think this sort of ham-fisted authoritarianism is going to make people less likely to challenge you? Good luck with that...

    The legal implications of a UN resolution have a little to do with the actual text itself, and a lot to do with how the powers-that-be utilize it for political maneuvering. This is not comparable to a regular national law, where there is an executive charged with implementing the law and a judiciary empowered to determine exactly what the text of the law means (in accordance with some settled settled legal framework). UN Resolutions - and especially, UN resolutions on the topic of human rights - exist entirely in a politicized setting, and such determines their actual meaning and import.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page