Question by dolcezza: Is this even legal? It completely breaks the freedom of speech?
I was going through reading articles when this one popped up. It’s about a resolution soon to be put into effect in Britain which pretty much states that no one can have an opinion, stereotype or their own thoughts on the Muslim world. Here’s the article:
“Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.
The non-binding resolution on “Combating the Defamation of Religion” is intended to curtail speech that offends religion — particularly Islam.
Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced the measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council in 1999. It was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since.
In 2005, Yemen successfully brought a similar resolution before the General Assembly. Now the 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on it again.
The non-binding Resolution 62/145, which was adopted in 2007, says it “notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.”
It “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”
But some critics believe the resolution is a dangerous threat to freedom of speech everywhere.
The U.S. government mission in Geneva, in a statement, told the U.N. Human Rights Council in July that “defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights” around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web.
Critics give some recent news events as examples of how the U.N. “blasphemy resolution” has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners:
— On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel “The Jewel of Medina,” which gives a fictional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. FOXNews.com reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that “credible and unrelated sources” said the book could incite violence by a “small, radical segment.”
— An Afghan student is on death row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam, FOXNews.com also reported.
— In December 2007 “a court reportedly sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad’s wives,” the U.S. government said.
— A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.
— In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post that critiqued Islam.
— In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after the release of his documentary highlighting the abuse of Muslim women.
“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,” said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”
Now does anyone believe this is a GOOD thing? Or is anyone else with me in thinking that this is completely immoral to even TRY to regulate how other individuals view a certain religion?
To those adding that it’s simply for people to stop criticizing religion, think about this: freedom of speech means that those who want to particpate in their gay pride parade can do so. It also means if I want to go up and down the streets screaming about God I can do so. It means if you’re Muslim and someone doesn’t agree with your religion, you have the right to defend yourself but you’re probably not going to change their mind. This particular thing that they’re trying to pass is regulating everything to the point where radicalists are going to have control of most things. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want any religion, creed or anything running the world. I’d rather a melting pot.
Aww hello Beetroot Yourself. I hope you have a BLESSED day sugar. =)
Betroot EDIT: It shows hunny.
I never said UK. The article said UK. It said it right there in the text. Again, this is an article from a news source. My opinion wasn’t in quotations. And we do have the right to put whatever muck we want on the internet. Have you seen any porn lately? Would you not agree that it’s basically lies? People put up websites applauding 9/11. People put up websites defaming Christianity. People put up websites putting down gays and lesbians. There are so many different sites out there who “lie” all the time. Why should a couple websites who were doing the same thing as these others but towards Muslims be any different? In case you were wondering, I am a little bit educated and think before I speak.
Answer by Midnight Sun
………………………..v for vendetta…….
Add your own answer in the comments!