Posted by Rojas @ 4:46 pm on October 19th 2009

Soft power > free speech

The Obama administration affirms a UN resolution which would restrict speech critical of religion.

The resolution, like all such UN documents, is toothless. But for the US to explicitly support the principle in question is pretty inexcusable. If the Obama administration has made a worse foreign policy decision to this point, I’m unaware of it.

posted in: Main

10 Comments »

  1. Oh, God, that’s awful! I remember hearing about the resolution about the UN, and thinking that such a thing wouldn’t go over well. To hear that Obama supports it is extremely disturbing.

    Comment by Talarohk — 10/19/2009 @ 6:16 pm

  2. Actually, disturbing enough that I think I’m officially over the edge into disapproval of Obama. It’s inexcusable. The fact that someone is insulting my religion may be offensive to me, and I am free to kick them out of my house, but I should not be able to sue them for writing a nasty letter to the editor.

    I wonder if the same principle could be used to prosecute denunciations of atheism by religious people, or even by religious leaders and churches? I think Pope Benedict has said some less-than-complimentary things about atheists and agnostics.

    Comment by Talarohk — 10/19/2009 @ 6:20 pm

  3. Atheism is a religion.

    I know atheists find that insulting, but it’s true.
    *knock knock*
    Wha? Why is the UN at my door? BRB.

    Comment by thimbles — 10/19/2009 @ 9:41 pm

  4. This doesn’t nudge me over the edge into thinking Obama is a net negative on foreign policy. But it’s worth mentioning, I think.

    Comment by Rojas — 10/19/2009 @ 10:12 pm

  5. That’s completely disturbing, both from the whole freedom of speech side and from the point of view that restricting speech about religion makes it a hell of a lot easier to brush human rights issues under the rug.

    Female circumsicion, violent discrimiation against homosexuals, etc. ad nauseum . . . all part of different religions and difficult to even discuss without being bluntly critical of the faiths that allow/encourage such things.

    Comment by Liz — 10/20/2009 @ 11:23 am

  6. To be fair, from the article it seems to be refering to “negative racial and religious stereotyping.”

    It’s more about racially charged cartoons and speech and inciteful depictions of religious icons than it is about general religious criticism.
    Here’s a good write up:
    http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2009/10/19/152842/68

    Comment by thimbles — 10/20/2009 @ 4:01 pm

  7. An accurate assessment regarding the authors’ original intent, though not an accurate assessment of the language in the resolution itself, methinks.

    Nor do I know why that ought to mollify us in any case. All of the above ought to be legal.

    Comment by Rojas — 10/20/2009 @ 4:13 pm

  8. I know and I’m for the right, though I denounce and reject the act. But seriously, what’s being pronounced here is an ideal, an ethic to be upheld. The UN doesn’t do legal and, if it did, you’d think those who sanctioned torture and those who were committing genocide would be ahead on the things to do list.
    Are we really gonna get upset about “just words” which are condemning “just words”?
    If I want to get upset, I’ll read Matt Taibbi.
    http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

    Comment by thimbles — 10/20/2009 @ 10:56 pm

  9. Inasmuch as the resolution does not carry legal force, and is more a statement of preference than policy, I can tolerate it–like thimbles says, it’s not nice to be a bigot. And I remember that the resolution did contain language specifically upholding freedom of expression.
    However, it still seems to me that the resolution is aimed to express a sentiment that governments should hold speech which is insulting to religion as particularly offensive, and that it hints that official governmental disapproval of such speech is more tolerable than other restrictions. That’s a really, really bad idea, I think.

    I guess I wish Obama had been more nuanced in his approval of the resolution–that he had expressed the same distinction between upholding the right while disliking the result that you conveyed, Thimbles.

    Comment by Talarohk — 10/21/2009 @ 12:46 am

  10. This seems to be the doc in question:
    http://www.article19.org/pdfs/laws/resolution-on-the-promotion-and-protection-of-all-human-rights-civil-politic.pdf

    and this seems to be the paragraph in question:

    4. Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law international human rights, to address and combat such incidents;

    Which seems to address the eliminationist language that sets the stage for ethinic cleansing. Define the target as sub-human vermin and then it becomes acceptable to slaughter them.

    The free speech issue is mitigated by section 1:

    1. Reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of their choice, and the intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, peaceful assembly and association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs;

    I like Turley, but this doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

    Comment by thimbles — 10/21/2009 @ 4:17 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.