Comments on: US hypocrisy on free speech at United Nations

By: Blasphemy or the Truth | Radical Atheist

Blasphemy or the Truth | Radical Atheist — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:25:29 +0000

[...] The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship) [...]

By: Blasphemy-Dangerous or Necessary? » FreThink - You can afford to think. It’s free.

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:11:45 +0000

By: bulldog

bulldog — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:45:58 +0000

Theism will be the death of us all.

Christians believe in revelation, they want the end of the world to come so they can be “rescued”.
Islam believes in expansionism and martyrdom for rewards in the afterlife.

Does anyone else see a problem with this picture?

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:02:38 +0000

I’m glad that you think that I’m technically correct barriejohn. Unfortunately, there are many who think that defamation is a perfectly acceptable form of free expression.

I’m not saying that I support this particular resolution. However, I do support moves to overcome the tide of religious defamation that masquerades as intelligence in our society.

By: Blawg Review #233 | Popehat

Blawg Review #233 | Popehat — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:50:17 +0000

[...] by the bargain and what it foreshadows for international attitudes towards free speech, and Index on Censorship is [...]

By: Benjamine

Benjamine — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:23:42 +0000

The main deliberative organ is the General Assembly which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions. Modern Man

By: Benjamine

Benjamine — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:22:30 +0000

By: barriejohn

barriejohn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:35:04 +0000

This is an erudite and eyeopening article:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/12/oics_defamation_declaration_co.php

By: barriejohn

barriejohn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:22:16 +0000

You may be technically correct, Steve, but I’m pretty sure that the O.I.C. don’t see it that way! According to Human Rights Watch: the Human Rights Council “is foundering for two reasons: first, the role played by the O.I.C. which has fought doggedly within the council to shield states (other than Israel) from criticism…” That is the nature of the beast!!

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:55:02 +0000

The author of this article and some of those making comments need to gain an understanding of what defamation means. It’s simply to make false accusations. If we are going to complain that we can’t go around making false accusations about religions, we have a serious bigotry problem.

For Doug and shatterface: you can defame something that’s false by saying that it’s something that it’s not. And the resolution isn’t about blasphemy, it’s about defamation. Whether it’s false or whether people disagree doesn’t come into it. Disagree if you wish but don’t go “stereotyping” for the benefit of misinforming people. In fact, I’d suggest that it’s of benefit to be accurate in explaining something if it’s false.

For barriejohn: Those Islamists who pour out bile against the Jews would be subject to this resolution since that would be considered as defamation.