"Is liability for 'defamation of religion' catching on?" it asks, and continues:
The United Nations hopes so, reports Maclean’s[. . .] According to Maclean’s, Pakistan brought the first “defamation of religions” resolution, entitled “Defamation of Islam,” to the UN Human Rights Council in 1999. (The title was later changed to include all religions, notes Maclean’s, although the texts of all subsequent resolutions have continued to single out Islam.)
In March, the Islamic nations were successful in introducing a change to the mandate of the UN’s “special rapporteur on freedom of expression” (an official who travels the world investigating and reporting on censorship and violations of free speech) to now “report on instances where the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.” The issue, reports the magazine, is expected to be a focal point of the UN World Conference Against Racism next year in Geneva.
"Islamophobia is a problem," says Angela Wu, the international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm. "But this is not a practical solution, and it destabilizes the human rights agenda. The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies."
And it is to this stage that the world's God botherers – well, many of them, anyway – want to bring us. An end to freedom of expression, and let's instead see the world according to desiccated old scriptures written by ancient nomadic herdsmen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.