Obama Pushing Secular UN Anti-Free Speech Resolution

By Selwyn Duke

Those who would accuse Barack Obama of pandering to — if not sympathy for — Islamists have been handed some powerful new ammunition. In a disturbing move, the Obama administration is joining Muslim nations in supporting a UN resolution restricting criticism of religion, a measure reflective of those nations’ blasphemy laws.

Treating the matter in USA Today, Professor Jonathan Turley writes:

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians.... It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

Read the rest here.

Comments

[Shaun]

This is not suprising to me in the least. Any regime which wishes to control a body of people must first censor them and establish a firm propaganda mill to indoctrinate them. It amazes me. If there is one infringement on our rights I hate, it is speech laws. What is the principle behind speech laws? Correct me If I'm wrong but to me it screams "I cannot support my positions so I have to silence those who would expose me for the fraud I am". What a cowardly position. We should always encourage free speech no matter how painful it is to hear. To borrow a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the world of men"

The only benefit of speech restriction coming to America, as it inevitably will, is the stoking of patriotic fervor which has grown immensly in the last year. The Obama administration is at least paying indirect dividends to patriots nation wide, maybe this could add more. To close this out here is an interesting video we should all check out. In the land of nanny oppression (England) a christian couple was debating religous views with a moslem couple and apparently offended the moslems and are now facing lawsuit. Keep in mind this a mutually consenting conversation and now the man and woman are facing felony charges. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PTBIGxJb5A&feature=player_embedded

[Philip France]

When I was much younger, some incidents occurred that troubled me. As I grew older and wiser, I learned why. At the time, I accepted the decisions to these incidents as perhaps necessary for the greater good but they all troubled me and I now know why. Here are some of the incidents:

· A woman named Marge Schott was the principle owner of the baseball team, the Cincinnati Reds. Despite the fact that she owned the team, Major League Baseball (or the National League, I can’t remember which, nor do I care) suspended her from one year and ultimately drove her out for making racially insensitive remarks.
· A man named Al Campanis, who was the General Manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers at the time, if memory serves me correctly, explained in an interview that athletes of African descent tended to be better athletes because of breeding techniques employed in the slave trade. Mr. Campanis, despite the accuracy of his assertions, was fired or forced to resign.
· A columnist and sports prognosticator named Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder made similar assertions and was fired.

I was, at the time, troubled at the latter two circumstances because the assertions were factually correct. I understood that the facts were uncomfortable for some, but they were still facts! I was even more disturbed by the Marge Schott controversy. Why? Because, while I agreed that her remarks were insensitive and I disagreed with her premises, she had every right to express them. I thought to myself, “this woman is a bigot; but I would rather know that she is one and react accordingly than have her be a “stealth” bigot who might benefit from my unwitting support."

The list of such outrages has metastasized into a problem of “Lord of the Flies” proportions. The inmates are now running the asylum. Today, when one claims “offense” or claims to be “offended” he or she is a child. An overgrown and dangerous child. Offense is subjective. It presumes to know the thoughts and intentions of the alleged offender. By this measure, we are ALL offensive, unless we drink the PC Kool Aid and speak of only issues and in terms that are acceptable to those wishing to control our thoughts and actions. This is dangerous for all of us.

A truly civil society welcomes disagreement. An immature society cannot. How else can one measure to determine right from wrong without equal doses of each by which to compare? This is where the modern liberal is in more peril than the modern conservative. By seeking to extinguish conservative and Christian thought and expression, the modern liberal has no restraint on his or her conscience to effectively balance debate and arrive at a proper conclusion. The marketplace of ideas that the modern liberal so often boasts about stocks only one brand. Woe unto you that fall for this. This is worse than Stockholm Syndrome in that you have voluntarily given yourself as a captive, and then becoming enamored with your captors. This will come full circle and the modern liberal will likely be the first to be enslaved when that which they espouse and defend is in total power and control.

It might very well be that this time is NOW.

[yoyo]

jeebus, again this is a foolish accomodation from obama of religion, all religion should be exposed to the light of reason, pointing and laughing is optional. None of the pronouncements of religious leaders look like anything more than self interest. So I dont think it's a muslim thing I think its driven by the huge weakness your culture has for men in frocks. Let's face it no speach should be barred, and world blasphemy day is just a little chink in the armour that is self supporting religion. Enough for now there is a sail board with my name on it. xx

[yoyo]

you know, I'm on a tropical island with poor internet access yet i thought this was a blatant lie and Oh wow quelle surprise! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33486054/ns/world_news-world_faith/ it is a full on lie. Look guys, I'm sure there's enough for you to get steamed about however when fact checking your articles is soooo easy dont try too hard.

[yoyo]

The Obama administration on Monday came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.
The quote for those too lazy to access MSNBC

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree."

Clinton said the United States was opposed to negative depictions of specific faiths and would always fight against belief-based discrimination. But she said a person's ability to practice their religion was entirely unrelated to another person's right to free speech.

[Walt]

I don't even know why this is a topic of discussion. Here is what Hillary should have said-

'Since the infringement of speech or expression is specifically prohibited in the Constitution of my nation and my first allegiance is to the United States and not the UN, I choose to remain silent on the issue. If in fact this resolution passes it will make no difference to me or the United States since the Constitution I have sworn to defend supersedes all resolutions that may come from this body (the UN). Regardless of the consensus of this body, the US will act based upon our laws and not the laws or resolutions of the UN. The US is a sovereign nation and will behave as such. If the UN wishes the full participation of the US, I would suggest member nations adopt our Constitution; otherwise the discussion is over.'

That is what a Sec. of State should have said.

[yoyo]

Walt man up and admit that what Hilary said was quite fine, if your boy Bush the minor had said it or one of his minions, you would have thought it just dandy. If you wish the states to be isolationist, like north korea or burma fine go vote for that weird little man ron paul. Your little tirade makes as much sense as our PM saying all members of the UN should adopt the aussie consitution or the papua new guinea constitution, or the magna carter.

[Walt]

So you think UN law should trump US law in the US? Hillary is commenting on something that is non-negotiable from a Constitutional perspective.