Islamic proposals to ban criticism of religion, which have gathered strength since the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad two years ago, threaten to derail an already troubled U.N. anti-racism conference planned for next year.
The European Union rejects suggestions by Algeria — backed by other Muslim and African countries — that limits on free speech are needed to stop the publication of offensive articles and images.
Supporters of the proposal, who have been pushing for such a ban to be included in international anti-discrimination charters, want it discussed in April at a high-level United Nations anti-racism meeting in Geneva.
But European diplomats say that is out of the question.
“We have made it clear from the start that we will not negotiate,” French diplomat Daniel Vosgien told The Associated Press on Wednesday. France currently holds the rotating presidency of the 27-nation EU.
The U.N. expert on freedom of expression, Frank LaRue, has criticized so-called “anti-blasphemy laws” used to protect religion in some countries.
“Such laws are often used to prevent legitimate criticism of powerful religious leaders and to suppress the views of religious minorities, dissenting believers and nonbelievers, and are applied in a discriminatory fashion,” LaRue said in a statement released Monday.
Israel and Canada have already said they will stay away because of concerns that the meeting will see a repeat of anti-Semitic outbursts that marred the first anti-racism conference Durban, South Africa, in 2001.
When I was growing up, adults would ban criticism quite frequently. I was not allowed to say certain things to certain people. At that time it was called “common courtesy” and “being polite”. It was the law of the household. It seemed to work.
“It was the law of the household. It seemed to work.”
Wow, it must have been great growing up on the set of Leave it to Beaver.
“Supporters of the proposal, who have been pushing for such a ban to be included in international anti-discrimination charters, want it discussed in April at a high-level United Nations anti-racism meeting in Geneva.”
You can just bet that chief among those “supporters” are the Scientologists. Who feel the tiniest bit threatened whenever some critics point out the rockiness of their “religion’s” origin or ita leaders’ legal activities.
It would be a shame if we couldn’t remind true believers that the object of their worship is really a demon. That’s what I live for.
Except they already do it with their libel laws. Canada does it with its ‘human rights commissions’.
The problem with anti-blasphemy laws is that you don’t know what is blasphemous until you get accused of it.
And once you’ve been accused, you’re guilty.
“concerns that the meeting will see a repeat of anti-Semitic outbursts that marred the first anti-racism conference Durban, South Africa, in 2001.”
wow, anti-semitic outbursts at an anti-racism conference. that really restores my faith in conferences, which was really tested around the bonfire at the anti-global warming conference.
In the Muslim countries I’ve lived in, they openly criticize Christians and Christianity all the time.
Under an extreme interpretation, any disagreement with the tenets of Islam would be illegal criticism. Don’t support adoption of Sharia Law? You’re in violation. Serving pork or alcohol? Not sanctioned. Any failure to adopt Islam would also be banned.
But don’t worry, exceptions will be made for criticising Judaism, or Christianity, since they’re not really true religions, at least from an Islamic point of view. Most Europeans have a higher regard for Jedis
#5, Lyin’ Mike,
Except they already do it with their libel laws. Canada does it with its ‘human rights commissions’.
There you go again, making up more shit.
Obviously you don’t understand the difference between discussion and criticism versus denigration.
In Canada it is fine to discuss the pros and CONS of Sharia Law or Rabbinical Courts. It is not fine to broadcast that all Muslims or Jews eat Christian babies.
Grow up a little before posting again.
“Israel and Canada have already said they will stay away because of concerns that the meeting will see a repeat of anti-Semitic outbursts that marred the first anti-racism conference Durban, South Africa, in 2001.”
Yes we are anti-racist; we only hate those Jews!
And somehow I don’t think they see any irony in this…
#10, oh yes, having a commission to decide what is fine speech and what is not fine, that has no chilling effect at all.
#2 for the win
Actually, this one is chalked full of goodness:
#8 “In the Muslim countries I’ve lived in, they openly criticize Christians and Christianity all the time.”
#11 “Yes we are anti-racist; we only hate those Jews!“
While at the same time we spend ourselves into bankruptcy in Iraq proping up a country that jails political speech. That journalist showed up next day in court with a broken arm and ribs.
I too admire the way Bush was spry enough to avoid the shoes==not reading goat books when his own safety is involved. And what he said was not harmful but fell way short of leading Iraq into the 18th Century. He should have said “This is an act of political speech and should be respected. No harm should come to this man and I would like to speak with him about his concerns.” That way, no harm would have come to him.
Throwing a shoe is an assault and should be treated as such.–ie–a citation, fine, perhaps overnight in jail.
Sure, religion, especially fundies of any stripe, is stupid, but so is most politics.
Something tells me that England will pass it. They have been bending over for the Muslims for several years now.
France doesn’t have free speech. I wonder what the real reason is for them being against this?
With about 18% of the French Population being Muslims who cannot gain entry into mainstream French Culture and jobs, the Nation of France is sitting on a racial/religious time bomb. The riots seen to date are sparks indicating the conflagaration to come. Its what happens whenever you try to meld two cultures==only one is sustained.
Its good that France/Germany then England will go through these troubles giving the good old melting pot of the USA a few models to see what happens when you treat animals with dignity===if not paper trained, they shit in your house.
#19 – ‘dro
>>Don’t you miss Mustard in this discussion? I
>>wonder why.
Who can explain your psychopathology, ‘dro?
Now you’ve been BUSTED as a liar. You said you were going to STFU if I remained mute. I remained mute, and not only do you not honor your vow, you mewl and whimper wondering where I am.
Eres completamente patético, cabrón.
#21 – ‘dro
Me estás enojando, pendejo. No quiero tener que decírtelo otra vez: STFU.
Of course, if they banned criticism of religion on the is blog there would be 1/10th the articles and 1/100th the comments. Who would be left to click on the horoscope ads?
Since religion is about worshipping imaginary guys in the sky, all religions ought to be mocked and/or criticized.
#17, Cow Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath and Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop,
More bullshit from the guy who knows all?
I’ll bet you claim America has free speech. Go ahead, yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. No? Then write an article claiming you know that Carol Burnett is an alcoholic. No??? Well, how about you go and scream at the President (or elect) he deserves to die. No????? Well how about a real easy one, try wearing a small button suggesting we should get out of Iraq to a Bush speech.
When you have done any of those four things and not been arrested then come back and tell us about “free speech”.
#26–Fusion==why are you including your first three example of utterances that no civilized people should protect as free speech?
Are you purposefully trying to confuse Paddy-O, or are you confused yourself?
Your last example is good one and of great concern. “The Free Speech Area” outside a Bush/Republican political meeting should be the entire USA–not a dogpen under lights, cameras, guns, and no reporters.
# 27 bobbo said, “Are you purposefully trying to confuse Paddy-O, or are you confused yourself?”
Neither. He’s till upset that he wrongly, tried to convince me that the Senate was passing the auto bailout.
I just saw a scrawl that Bush had approved a bailout for GM and Chrysler. Don’t have any details.
Thought I read that the PRIVATE INVESTMENT GROUP that bought Chrysler did so for the purpose of getting ahold of their financing business and other subsidiaries and the car part was almost worthless to them from the start.
Sounds like the type of people Bush would want to bail out.
I think the corruption of the Bush Repuglican party will stun people as details come out over the years.
It would be amusing if they weren’t destroying the USA in the process.
# 29 bobbo said, “I just saw a scrawl that Bush had approved a bailout for GM and Chrysler. Don’t have any details.”
I think it is for ~$17 billion.
Yesterday DJIA movement is here. Typical==trades down all day with a spike up at the end.
How much can you tell about anything from the “big chart?” Seems to me the devil is in the details: Who was selling short on the way down, who made their trades after the market closed, and all that other fancy inside stuff the Madoff is respected for.
Never bet against the house:
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?ClientID=44711&symb=djia&sid=1643&pg=ch&time=2dy&freq=1hr&compidx=aaaaa~0&ma=0&maval=60&uf=0&lf=1&type=8&charts=0&mocktick=1&symbtype=0&country=US&rtsid=1000001643&style=2108&size=2
#27, booboo,
#26–Fusion==why are you including your first three example of utterances that no civilized people should protect as free speech?
Are you answering for the retired Mall Rent-A-Cop?
#28, Cow Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath and Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop,
Neither. He’s till upset that he wrongly, tried to convince me that the Senate was passing the auto bailout.
You were wrong then, the bill was still before the Senate, and you are avoiding the issue now. But not to worry, you will continue on in life with your bullshit and never answering for it.
Such as “where in the Constitution does it prevent Congress from regulating CEO’s wages?”
#28 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Neither. He’s till upset that he wrongly,
>>tried to convince me that the Senate was
>>passing the auto bailout.
I’m surprised you didn’t get the straight skinny on that, RAMBO, while you were re-arranging knick-knacks on the Secretary of State’s office desk.
HAW! Paddy O’InsideTheBeltway!!