Disturbing: UN Human Right Council urges laws criminalizing criticism of religion

[cali]

UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism
By FRANK JORDANS – 15 hours ago

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.

The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries — with the backing of Belarus and Venezuela — had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven nations, mostly Western, opposed the resolution, and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said.

<snip>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975TOK00

[pnutbutr]

1. What is the point

of passing unenforceable resolutions that only urge nations to do something?

This is a stupid resolution and it shows how ridiculous the UN is becoming.

[cali]

2. The HRC has always been a fucking mess

The reforms meant to change that, did nothing.

And this is a dangerous piece of shit resolution that gives cover to repressive governments to persecute individuals.

The irony is horrifying.

As the Canadian rep said: Religions don't have human rights. Individuals do.

[pnutbutr]

3. agreed

The reforms did nothing and this resolution is gonna come back to bite someone in the near future.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It won't 'bite' anyone - they've passed similar stuff before

eg in the Human Rights Council last year: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/27/news/UN-GEN-UN-Rights-Council.php

In the old Commission on Human Rights:
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/1b059e8cdbceb61a802567690053adca?Opendocument
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2000.84.En?OpenDocument
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2003.4.En?Opendocument

In the General Assembly:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=45fe69342
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154.pdf

etc.

[Fumesucker]

4. How did the US vote on this?

Or did we abstain?

[cali]

5. oops. The U.S is not a member of the HRC and

has condemned the organization.

[Fumesucker]

7. Thanks, I really didn't know that..

Too much going on in my life to pay attention to everything..

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. *Ugh*

Terrible idea. It's one thing for countries to promote free exercise of religion for all of their citizens but protecting religion from "criticism". WTF would that mean? That nobody could ever criticize somebody's arguments as long as they were couched in religious language/terms? Our own Christian Taliban would certainly love this- since they already believe that they are being persecuted/repressed :eyes:- but what about non-believers or even just believe that religion shouldn't be part of political debate. Wouldn't THEY get shut down in the process if, everytime somebody raised a religious objection to legislation, nobody would be able to challenge it for fear of "criticizing" religion? I'm glad that Bushco isn't in charge right now or they'd be pushing this HARD.

[surrealAmerican]

8. It's somewhat hard to believe the ambassador from Pakistan ...

... thinks this will only mean "people won't criticize Islam", instead of "we will no longer allow Muslims to criticize other religions". If they pass this, and it's actually enforced somehow, they will be very sorry they did.

[cali]

9. While it can't be enforced, what I fear it will do, is enable

some governments to justify draconian crackdowns on dissenters.

[surrealAmerican]

10. I imagine that's exactly what they're hoping for, ...

... but as worded, it could work both ways.

[Echo In Light]

15. Precisely

[Djinn]

11. How do you criminalise "acts of hatred"

violent acts YES, discrimination in employment/housing etc YES but how do you criminalise thought??

It's the same problem I have with "terrorism" laws - what's wrong with "murder" or "conspiracy to murder" - terrorism and laws like what are proposed here are thought crimes - not something I'd trust ANY politican/administration with (even if I wasn't a filthy heathen anarchist)

Secondly when the fairy story believers stop hating MY beliefs I'll stop making fun of theirs (can't say I hate religion just think it's stupid - half the people proposing this stuff adamantly and openly DESPISE my belief system)

[Echo In Light]

16. The terminology for the targets are naturally loose/vague as to include a wide group of undesirables

[Djinn]

17. exactly

laws like these (and especially the terrorism laws) are dangerous. Maybe I'm a little paranoid given there hasn't been a government of any stripe, left or right, who doesn't try and round up the anarchists.

[Echo In Light]

18. And that's one of the things that makes it frustrating....

...when one encounters those who prefer to keep their head in sand re the true intent and aims of Power throughout our species history. Every govt's primary enemy is its own populace - yet when one attempts to bring certain aspects of that to light they're often criticized for being "conspiratorial" minded. As if the corporate/state nexus is anything but conspiratorial in nature!

Maybe if more people realized that corps aren't "democractic," they're private tyrannies, and our elected reps serve them, not us i.e fascism

[EOTE]

13. Ummm, how is 23 out of 47 a majority?

A plurality sure, but I'm pretty sure a majority, simple or not, would require 24 votes.

[Bill McBlueState]

14. The vote was 23-11 with 13 abstentions

Since 23 is more than 11, the resolution passed.

[EOTE]

19. But the council has 47 members.

You can't achieve a majority in a Senate with 100 members without more than 50 votes, regardless of how many abstentions you have. You can have a plurality (which is sometimes sufficient), but a majority implies that more than half of the members voted a certain way, and that's not the case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. We say Obama was elected by a majority

although less than 50% of eligible citizens actually voted for him. You don't count abstentions, in many systems.

[EOTE]

21. A majority of voters.

Not by the majority of citizens.