The Blasphemy Resolution Story: A Clarification

By Selwyn Duke

Recently I wrote a piece titled "Obama Pushing Secular UN Anti-Free Speech Resolution," wherein I reported on Barack Obama's support of a Muslim-inspired United Nations anti-blasphemy resolution. In it I cited a liberal professor named Jonathan Turley, who wrote the following:

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.

Shortly after I submitted the piece for publication, I learned that Hillary Clinton said the following, as reported by 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.

This prompted the criticism that I was peddling a lie, a claim which itself is untrue.  I had every reason to believe that the story reported by Professor Turley — who I will emphasize again is in Obama's camp ideologically — is true, and I still have no reason to believe it is completely off base.  Yet there is a contradiction here that needs to be reconciled.

So I did a little more research. There are many news organs that were criticizing the Obama Administration for advocating the blasphemy resolution, including the Weekly Standard here, although, admittedly, most of them seem to cite Turley as their source.  So, what gives?  Did Turley get it wrong and did many of us in the "right" media take the bait?  Not so fast.

In this WorldnetDaily.com piece, Bob Unruh perhaps clarifies Turley's point, writing:

WND recently reported on the U.S. sponsorship – along with Egypt – of a separate plan at the United Nations that purportedly would protect free speech.

Vessey said the move was an effort on the part of the U.S. to advocate for free speech in a way that would defuse the threat of "defamation" proposals. However, critics of the resolution said even that would be a failure.

That's because the "free speech" resolution would have nations criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation told WND the issue is not about free speech at all but about installing international precedents to stifle any criticism of Islam – the same goal as the defamation proposal.

So let us be clear on the issue here: The Obama Administration has co-sponsored a second resolution, one that, as Turley said, is weaker than the first.

And here is the crux of the matter: Presumably, the administration would claim that the measure does no violence to the principle of free speech.  Critics claim that this isn't the case, that it still constitutes a capitulation to the Islamic states.

So what is the truth?  It won't come as a shock to you to hear that I trust Obama and company about as much as a merchant in an Arab bazaar.  It's entirely possible that President Hussein is trying to have it both ways, pandering to the Arab street and lending support to another hate-speech principle on the one hand, while having his secretary of state issue a bold proclamation in defense of free speech to mollify critics at home on the other.  Note, though, that at the end of the day, Hillary Clinton's words are just that, words.  Actions speak far louder. 

Of course, it should also be mentioned that such "weakened" resolutions with fuzzy language are subject to interpretation and make rationalization, that liberal bailiwick, easy.  Thus, it's entirely possible that the Obama Administration believes its rhetoric. 

It's also possible you're being manipulated.

Whatever the case, if my report can be shown definitively to be in error, I'll gladly print a retraction.  As of now, however, it would be premature. 

Yes, it is confusing, but that is always the case when dealing with ideological shape shifters.

                  © 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Philip France]

Selwyn, once again you are right on the money and you hit it out of the park.

I will add another factor: the radical homosexual activist agenda, which finds an ironic and ideological ally on this point (that of suppressing free speech). This is dangerous territory for all of us. If you peel away the skin (forgive the allegory), this concept is intended to criminalize thought, as evidenced by speech. ALL of us, both liberal, conservative, you name it, must oppose this with all of the passion within our beings because, at some point, all of us might be found guilty.

Talk-radio Superstar Dr. Michael Savage is prescient when he obviates that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not intended to protect polite speech. It is intended to protect opposition, even unpopular and uncomfortable speech. Sometimes the Truth is ugly and difficult to accept.

In Selwyn’s article, he stated that the language of the U.N. Resolution was weak, but let me show you an example of how ANY attempt to curtail or abridge speech is dangerous and morally reprehensible: the word “negro”.

That’s right. The word “negro” (or more properly “Negroid”) is a scientific term. It is anthropologically correct. It pin-pointedly describes a sub-species of homo-sapiens as having descended from sub-Saharan Africa. And yet this term is verboten. Not through laws, mind you, but through subtle speech codes instilled by Leftists intended to shove us into the ovens of their nefarious ideology.

I believe that Selwyn (and others) have correctly quoted Voltaire who once proclaimed that,” I may disagree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”. We must ALL adapt this truly liberal philosophy. If not, we will all be buried beneath the same coffin-lid (acknowledgement to Savant Noir for this last allegory).

[yoyo]

Phil, you really cant help showing your stripes. The main argument here, and one I support is to stop religious people of any stupidity being protected. You can continue to use outdated and scientifically discredited terms, maybe you could also write a paper on "wandering wombs" or hemaphrodites both terms that have been rejected as our knowledge grows, SOMEHOW, (I cant think why?), you seem to be a little obsessed with out of date terms for same sex attraction and african americans. tell me you dont conflate mutliple personality disorder with psychophrenia?

The main thing is that even bigots should be able to spout their crap without penalty, even those ultra pathetic holocaust deniers should be able to babble in peace, their own words are their own disgrace.

[Dan]

Righto Philip. Freedom of speech, and many of our laws. Are basically protecting the right to rebel against the government. (peacefully or not peacefully,should it get too big for its britches)

Freedom is speech is there so you can say the leaders suck.
Freedom of the press is so we can see the leaders dirty laundry.
The right to protest so we can make others aware and tell our leaders "We mean business"
Right to bear arms is so we can rise up and force out leaders that have become belligerent and/or unlawful.

And all these are already under attack.

[Philip France]

Dear yoyo,

You are even more incoherent in this post than you usually are. After how many glasses of wine did you post this? What other medications may have interacted with the fruit of the vine?

Please be honest. It would help all of us understand you to know this.