Latest takes on UN 'anti-blasphemy' resolutions

March 18, 12:32 AMSecularism ExaminerPaul Fidalgo

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Secularism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

(Photo: Flickr user Ricardo Martins, under Creative Commons
Attribution License)

[Update: There is some better UN-related news at my other column]

There's more activity surrounding the absurd and horrific anti-blasphemy law being peddled by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations. No activity on an official level, of course, as we still wait for the Obama administration to weigh in.

First I direct your attention to an excellent video by atheist provocateur Pat Condell, who very rightly asserts that what we ought to be holding sacred is not ideas, but the right to express them, no matter how hurt our feelings might get. Enjoy, and then keep reading.

Meanwhile, UN Watch tell us that the Pakistani delegation to the United Nations is distributing a new proposal to members of the UN Human Rights Council that:
 

Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media . . .

And...
 

Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

Take special note of the phrase "resulting in defamation of religions," which implies that all the preceding nasty things (acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, etc.) are the result of defamation of religions. In other words, saying unpleasant things about a religion can make these bad things happen, so we shouldn't say bad things about religion (as opposed to, say, choosing not to discriminate, intimidate, etc.).

Derek C. Araujo at the Center for Inquiry's Free Thinking blog clarifies further:
 

Although the proposed resolution is non-binding, it poses a potentially serious threat to freedom of speech.  The resolution would ban any perceived offense to Islam as a violation of religious freedom and a "serious affront to human dignity," and would pressure U.N. member states at "local, national, regional and international levels" to limit the free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."

There is still not nearly enough noise being made about this subject. I don't mean this to say that the U.N. as a concept or an institution is bad or unnecessary, but that it is being stupidly overrun by a very corrupt and dangerous movement. We very much need a strong and robust international forum for the nations of the planet to coexist and coordinate, but that spirit of cooperation must not be hijacked by a theocratic distortion of the concept of tolerance.