Peter Singer argues that defaming religion is a human right:
Last month, the UN human rights council adopted a resolution condemning “defamation of religion” as a human rights violation. According to the text of the resolution, “Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity” that leads to “a restriction on the freedom of [religions'] adherents.”
The resolution was originally proposed by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and was put to the human rights council by Pakistan. It supports that it was aimed at such things as the derogatory cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper three years ago.
Germany opposed the resolution. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, a German spokesperson rejected the concept of “defamation of religion” as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions.
Many non-government organisations, both secular and religious, also opposed the resolution. Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said that that body saw the resolution as weakening “the rights of individuals to express their views”.
This seems like a sound argument. While attempts to stir up hatred against adherents of a religion, or to incite violence against them, may legitimately be suppressed, criticism of religion as such should not be.
I agree with Singer. Hate speech — that is, speech that incites violence through hatred and slander — should be opposed. But there also needs to be generous freedom to critique and condemn beliefs. When we err, we should err on the side of freedom.
This is particularly problematic with Islam because Islam is tied to official governance much more strongly than almost all other religions. So if one can’t criticise Islam, one is often also barred from criticizing the government – and specifically, Islamic jurisprudence (legal system and punishments).
“When we err, we should err on the side of freedom.”
Hmm… Catchy.
What a total crock… I’m sorry, but if I want to the following: “Religion is complete and total load of horse-shit which is aimed at nothing more or less than controling the minds of people to ignorant to think for themselves”, then I will bloody well say it. In fact, I just did.
Can we get the UN to pass a resolution saying that defamation of atheism is a breach of human rights, do you think? Or would one of the Islamic bloc veto that, do we reckon?
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, such a steaming pile of bullshit…
As for that Islamic cartoon bollocks: Islamic countries DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICISE NON-MUSLIMS FOR NOT OBEYING SHARIA LAW UNLESS THEY’RE IN A COUNTRY GOVERNED BY THAT LAW!
Sharia law is fine for those who want to obey it (provided it doesn’t contradict local laws), but there is no way on Earth that a body such as the UN should be making it its business to enforce it.
Instead of focusing on cartoons about Muhammad, maybe we should focus on the people who say “behead those who call Islam violent.”
It’s a bizarre decision, yes. But it makes me think that, in Europe, struggling merchants received a heavy blow from the rioting and disorders that followed the cartoon. Perhaps they’re not protecting Islam so much from the critics as they’re protecting Westerners from the violent reactions of fundamentalist Muslims. They could have worded the resolution better, though. But doing that may have sprung yet another riot. There is no winning with those people.
I don’t give a crap what the (weak, let’s face it) UN says. My country guarantees me the right to criticize any and all religious thought if I so choose. I do not have the right to discriminate against or harm anyone based on race/color, gender, creed, age, or sexual orientation. And that’s as it should be.
Tolerate intolerance.
Tolerate intolerance.
I agree with Singer. Hate speech — that is, speech that incites violence through hatred and slander — should be opposed. But there also needs to be generous freedom to critique and condemn beliefs. When we err, we should err on the side of freedom.
Sounds about right.
I don’t give a crap what the (weak, let’s face it) UN says. My country guarantees me the right to criticize any and all religious thought if I so choose. I do not have the right to discriminate against or harm anyone based on race/color, gender, creed, age, or sexual orientation. And that’s as it should be.
Wouldn’t the concern obviously be for countries who don’t grant that freedom to their citizens?
“Wouldn’t the concern obviously be for countries who don’t grant that freedom to their citizens?”
There are elements within islam that are working very hard to curtail any criticism of islam, particularly in countries which see free speech as a protected right. There are several methods being used to advance this agenda. One is violence against those who criticize islam, and there are numerous well publicized examples of this. Another is attempts to connect the criticism of islam with hate speech. British libel laws and Canadian “human rights” laws have been used to limit what is said about islam. The third is to promote efforts to make criticism of islam a criminal offense. The proposed UN resolution is one such path.
I am not proposing a conspiracy theory here. Muslim nations and Western nations have a different history, a different political philosophy and a fundamentally different world view. The muslim world needs their own version of the enlightenment. I don’t see that happening anytime soon and the world is likely to see continuing religious violence in the forseeable future.
Only insecure people are afraid of criticism.
But I agree with brgulker, it is worrysome enough that some countries put forward such a proposal, but it is probably worse to be a citizen of such a country. Yet, in the long run I think these countries are fighting a losing battle. See Iran, see China.
What’s next – 1984?
This is the type of thing that the UN was set up to prevent and at one time it was able to. I wonder how much the people that voted to pass this, did so thinking they were going to help cut down on violent reactions? I think enough Americans want this resolution so they can try and quiet some of their critics. I see this as one of those resolutions that will end up biting the supporters of it in the ass.
Exactly, Bill and Elemenope. I’d comment further, but I’m so far past shit-faced-drunk right now that it’s not even funny. Normally I’d consider this a waste of 12 year single-malt Skotch whisky, but I feel awesome. So I don’t. Woot.
@custador
Which one are you going for? I’m on a Laphroaig at the moment but still prefer Ardberg.
It should be noted that the websites linked to in the beginning mention only the proposal of the b-s. As far as I know, it got turned down.
Everybody should have a right to express their opinion about anything. Everybody should have the right to respond to those opinions. It provides a great deal of insight to read the comments of drunken, obscenity-spouting respondents.
I’m not sure what the goal is of those who mock, but it must not be persuasion. The reaction to mocking and derision is defensiveness, not consideration.
@ Jabster: It was The Balvenie Double-Wood.
This is scary stuff indeed! Hopefully there will arise some sort of worldwide protest and activism which will work toward getting this UN resolution overturned. Hate speech specifically designed to incite violence is of course dangerous, but we should all be free to criticize, praise, ridicule, support, condemn or defend religion ideology at will. Free speech opens dialogue and promotes the exchange of thoughts and ideas across cultural and religious boundaries.
“Free speech opens dialogue and promotes the exchange of thoughts and ideas across cultural and religious boundaries.”
That is fine if the goal is a free exchange of ideas. If the goal is a world dominated by islamic thought and islamic religion, then there is no interest in any ideas that challenge the “rightness’ of islam
Nope. The resolution was proposed by countries which are all ruled (at least partly) under sharia law. This is about spreading Islam by stealth. And it’s bullshit.
Bruce Bawer and a couple of other journalists have been following these issues, and yes- threat of violence plays heavily into many of these decisions. There was a book chain who *openly* admitted to fear of violence when it made its decision to not carry certain books criticizing Islam.
Well, no, they do have the right to criticize, stupid as it may be, and in turn others have the right to ridicule and/or ignore that criticism.
I want the UN to pass a resolution granting me the right to mock anyone I find annoying.
More importantly, what they DON’T have the right to do is threaten or commit violence in response to alleged violations of religious law.
Quite so.
Yes… we’ll call it the Na-ni-na-ni Resolution…
;)
Oh, fuck yes! Dear sweet providence, yes!
We are in agreement.