West and Muslims clash on free speech

[islamirama]

West and Muslims clash on free speech
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press

Muslim and Western nations clashed at the United Nations on Tuesday after a measure backed by Islamic countries added monitoring religious prejudice to the duties of a U.N. free speech expert.

The U.N. investigator on freedom of opinion and expression is responsible for reporting on repressive governments' restriction of free speech. The change sponsored by Egypt and Pakistan now requires him to also report acts of "racial or religious discrimination" that constitute "abuse of the right of freedom of expression."

The change passed 32-0 by the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday was seen as a move against forms of expression that have offended Muslims, such as Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The U.S., Canada and some European countries said the measure could curtail freedom of expression and help dictatorial regimes block dissenting views.

"The resolution adopted attempts to legitimize the criminalization of expression," U.S. Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor told the 47-nation Human Rights Council.

European countries, Canada and some other nations abstained from voting last week. The United States is not a member of the council but can speak as an observer.

Pakistani Ambassador Masood Khan said on behalf of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference that the resolution would not limit free speech and simply attempted to require people to exercise their freedom of expression responsibly.

Egypt's ambassador, Sameh Shoukry, said the right to freedom from religious discrimination and defamation was not being sufficiently protected, permitting "some of the worst practices that incite racial and religious hatred."

Some Islamic groups began demanding limits on free speech after the caricatures of Muhammad provoked riots in 2006. Muslim countries also protested the recent release of an anti-Islamic film by a Dutch lawmaker as well as controversial comments by the pope about Islam.

The Human Rights Council has no enforcement powers, but is supposed to act as the world's moral conscience.

It has been accused of spending excessive amounts of time focusing on Israel while giving a free pass to countries with poor records of observing human rights. The U.S. Senate voted in September to cut off U.S. funding for the council, accusing it of bias.

The council adopted a resolution last week urging countries to enact anti-defamation laws to protect Muslims.

The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders warned that the change in job description could shift Kenyan legal expert Ambeyi Ligabo's role as an independent expert from protecting free speech toward limiting it.

"It turns someone who is supposed to defend freedom of opinion into a prosecutor whose job is to go after those who abuse this freedom," the group said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_re_eu/un_free_speech;_ylt=Ale9fYWJMj3RPKl9tpsurGA7Xs8F

 

[Whatsthepoint]

This is a not good thing..
But since it's been passed, it could at least be improved, for instance by protecting segments of society other than religion and race as well.

 

[Gator]

From the description of the change it really should have no effect. The monitor reports on GOVERNMENT's restriction of free speech.

Since the cartoons weren't due to the Danish government, this would have had no impact whatsoever.

 

[AceTCK]

I agree with this notion, at least the so called Muslim countries are actually in agreement on something.

I think it should not just be concerning things that relate to Muslims, but other Religions and beliefs. People who are not Muslim cannot be counted on to support a Muslim cause if Justice is not there to protect their beliefs.

I think that this UN resolution is specific to Muslims because as mentioned above, recent events have all been against Islam.

On a side note, that Dutch member of parliament, he has the right to use free speech, but I would think a member that represents the people would be a little more responsible about what he says, because there is no message to educate in his comments but just to promote a hateful view point.

 

[KAding]

Race and religion?

As if religion is a biological attribute :?. Why don't we protect all other ideologies from defamation as well then? What is so special about religion? Except for its self-proclaimed importance that is? :exhausted

 

[KAding]

This is a not good thing..
But since it's been passed, it could at least be improved, for instance by protecting segments of society other than religion and race as well.

Yes, personally I think the council should adopted a resolution urging countries to enact anti-defamation laws to protect gays and atheists for example! We should call for a ban on all kinds texts that 'defame' them and all that. :enough!: Guess what 'texts' I'm referring too?

 

[Suomipoika]

Who really listens to UN anyway? And the downfall of any sort of credibility just keeps going on...

 

[barney]

So technically now in the UN signed up state of Saudi, Geet Wilders can stand in the street and shout about Islam and it's perceived faults alongside a Iman who can shout about its perceived benifits?

My Moneys on the imam!

 

[AceTCK]

The brother from the Netherlands that made a subtle reference to the Quran being banned.

Its not an Islamic Country that you live in, so you dont have to worry about Shariah Law.

On another note, its funny to me how my atheist brother dislike religion, but the very basic of law derive from religion. Such as Not to Commit Murder, Steal, etc... These are the basics that govern society, yet it wasnt a contribution by our atheist ideology by religion

 

[barney]

, its funny to me how my atheist brother dislike religion, but the very basic of law derive from religion. Such as Not to Commit Murder, Steal, etc...

Those are and have been human values since before religion. Religion was simply the forming of those laws into a organised doctrine.

 

[AceTCK]

So according to you obedience of societal laws and contributions to society is something that a human being naturally inherites?

So before religion, why did people obey the laws at the time, because they felt it was right or because there was one person or several persons who was seen as a god like figure?

So the process of marriage, divorce, debt settlements, charity... was before religion?

 

[KAding]

The brother from the Netherlands that made a subtle reference to the Quran being banned.

I was being a bit sarcastic. A bad habit I know :-[. I don't want the Qu'ran to be banned. The point that I was trying to make is that Muslims always seem to forget their scriptures 'defame' unbelievers left, right and centre. Read through the Qu'ran and you see it uses negative stereotypes and gross generalization about unbelievers all the time. Yet they are always outraged and demand censorship of texts that 'defame' Islam.

Its not an Islamic Country that you live in, so you dont have to worry about Shariah Law.

That is what you would think yes. But apparently it is a bit more complicated. All these examples from Rushdie to Wilders to this new UN Human Rights Council resolution seem to indicate that Muslims worldwide are demanding that we treat, for example, Muhammed as a holy figure beyond criticism. Simply because he is beyond criticism for Muslims in Sharia law.

On another note, its funny to me how my atheist brother dislike religion, but the very basic of law derive from religion. Such as Not to Commit Murder, Steal, etc... These are the basics that govern society, yet it wasnt a contribution by our atheist ideology by religion

I only dislike religion if it tries to limit my freedoms. I also dislike attempts by religious followers to grant special protection to religious speech. In my opinion religious beliefs are no different from any other belief. Religious ideology is deserves no more protection from criticism then any other ideology. I don't think giving special status to religion makes sense in a non-theocratic state.

There have been several threads on religion and morals in the Comparative Religions section, so I won't respond to that. I find it highly unlikely that religion is the root source of such laws. I think it has more to do with human empathy and a need to formulate such laws in order to be able to live as a group.

 

[AceTCK]

I would like to know which comments you refer to when you make this accusation that it makes generalizations.
If you rever to unbelievers then thats a specific group of ppl that dont believe in One God.
It also refers to the Believers and calls them Believers. It have many chapters in that starts with or has it those chapter advice or warning containing to Believer, for example, it will say, "O, you who believe".
So its not a generalization, you are either a believer or not.
When you compare the Quran to books that are being published today, then we have a problem. The authority of the Quran is God Almighty for Muslims, so you cannot compare it with an authors opinion or novel, whether you are muslim or not. That would be insensitive, and prove that you do not want to get along with your muslim brother or sister, and it further proves to Muslims living in your country that they cannot get along with the West because they are constantly under attack.

Please dont put me in the same category as someone that says its okay to critisize the Prophet (peace n blessing upon him). So the fact that you dont believe he was a Prophet gives you the right to draw an insensitive cartoon that you knowingly will incite the Muslim world at time when people are trying to mend that relationship, and later on reprint it after survey taken in the netherlands reported that over 60% of the people didnt want it to be reprinted after the first time.

The reason the rest of the world, non-Muslim world cannot understand this outrage is because you have treated another prophet in such a manner, and it had gone unchallenged. Iam referring to Jesus of course, a prophet which Muslims also believe in. People also have to realize that not all Muslims around the World responded with violence even though they disagreed with it, its just a media portrayal that made it seem like Muslims were destroying and burning everything, everywhere.

So if religion was according to each individual's own likes and dislikes then we would all have a different religion. Religion sets up rules for the betterment of human kind, the whole purpose is that God is the All-Knowing, so he knows something that you dont, there is a benefit in something that he has decreed us to do, but we might not realize the benefit in it.

I dont think anyone should be killed if they oppress an opinion, but, again, but at the same time, we are comparing human knowledge to Divine Knowledge, how do you expect people to react? It might not be divine knowledge to you but dont you think you should respect other people's belief. People critisize your belief because your belief cannot be present without debate, Science is in itself connected to debate, and faith is not.

And brother it doesnt matter what you think, laws that I mentioned did derive from religion.

 

[Ögedei]

Hello AceTCK, interesting thread.
Can I ask you if you are aware of criticism from Islamic sources which unequivocally criticises the use of violence against those who insult the Prophet? I have heard many Muslims say things along the lines of “Violent reactions are wrong, but...”.
I fully accept that Muslims are entitled to feel insulted and hurt, and that they are entitled to protest, but I do not accept that anyone deserved to be killed because of an opinion they express.

 

[Idris]

Hello AceTCK, interesting thread.
Can I ask you if you are aware of criticism from Islamic sources which unequivocally criticises the use of violence against those who insult the Prophet? I have heard many Muslims say things along the lines of “Violent reactions are wrong, but...”.
I fully accept that Muslims are entitled to feel insulted and hurt, and that they are entitled to protest, but I do not accept that anyone deserved to be killed because of an opinion they express.

Well I don't think they are opinion's more like propaganda.

 

[S_87]

the thing with free speech is where is the limit?

 

[Ögedei]

Well I don't think they are opinion's more like propaganda.

I don't think that it is possible to say where propaganda ends and opinion begins, or vice versa. Ill informed opinion is just propaganda which has been taken as fact by the ill informed. All sides are guilty of this.
An essential element in curtailing the ability of a government or group to disseminate propaganda is free speech. Protecting free speech is not necessary when the views expressed coincide with those of the majority or the authorities, it is necessary when the views being expressed are in opposition with the accepted norm. This is a measure of freedom, freedom requires us to accept the right of others to hold views and live in ways with which we disagree.

 

[kirk]

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1734.htm


Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid Warns:
Freedom of Speech Might Lead to Freedom of Belief


Following is an excerpt from an interview with Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid, which aired on Al-Majd TV on March 30, 2008.

The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate.

That's it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief.

So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want?

They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth.

Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate – go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.


Why would a cleric say such things?

k

 

[Muezzin]

the thing with free speech is where is the limit?

Slander, libel, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, conspiracy to defraud or deceive, breaching a non-disclosure contract, telling me my favourite ice cream flavour is anything other than banana, the usual.

 

[Izyan]

Slander, libel, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, conspiracy to defraud or deceive, breaching a non-disclosure contract, telling me my favourite ice cream flavour is anything other than banana, the usual.

You sick sick man. In my new Utopia everything banana flavored will be banned.