UNITED STATES SAYS “OKAY!” to
ANOTHER ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH BY THE U.N.

ONE MAN’s BLASPHEMY is ANOTHER MAN’s DISAGREEMENT

With billions of adherents, one would think that the world’s religions could take care of themselves.

But the U.N. Human Rights Council sees it otherwise. As with most things political: one hand gives while the other hand takes away.

Under the guise of protecting free speech, the HRC passed a resolution supporting free speech–except that part of free speech that attempts to criticize religion.

From Just say no to blasphemy laws

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. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. 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.

And the United States voted for this?

Is this a preview of things to come in this country?

Where’s the Left–and especially all of those who prattled on about the “coming theocracy in the U.S.” every time someone mentioned Christianity in public–when you need them?

[ABOVE: The UN isn't the source of the world's--and especially, the U.S.--rights.]

Jonathan Turley, the piece’s author, has a list of blasphemy incidents that have occurred in the last two years which would chill the heart of any civil libertarian.

They are examples of what happens once the government starts regulating free speech in the name of protecting religion. Some are truly grotesque, such as historians and others being prosecuted for calling Mohammed a “pedophile” because he was married to a 6-year-old girl.

But why exactly is this resolution bad?

And why should it concern the average American? After all, most people don’t go around dissing the religion of others. Do they?

Aren’t we taught that “blasphemy” is bad?

What if grumbles about having to get out of bed on a Saturday to talk to Jehovah’s Witnesses? There may be comedians that even make fun of JW–might someone consider that blasphemy?

As Turley points out:

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

Does the Obama administration understand that free speech means free speech? We know Obama’s thoughts on the constitution.

“To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”

Obama was speaking in that 2001 interview about redistributing wealth. But once you start looking at circumventing Constitutional safeguards, what’s a little less freer speech among friends?

This administration seems to spend a LOT of time lately trying to parse free speech. [Free Speech and the Internet Under Assault from Multiple Sources]

The article continues:

“The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.”

When the government can decide what speech is “acceptable”, then speaking and writing freely is no longer a right.

It then becomes a privilege to be granted by government bureaucrats.

Anyone who’s had to deal with the Department of Motor Vehicles has first-hand knowledge of how interested bureaucrats are in looking out for you.

One man’s blasphemy is another man’s dissent.

Or joke.

Or grumble.

Or disagreement.

You get the picture.

by Mondo Frazier
images:
* DBKP file
* http://un.org